>The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple.

The same Apple that gave the Chinese government access to all their Chinese user's iCloud data?

https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...

Is there anything Apple could have done to protect the privacy of its Chinese users better (whilst still having some)? You could say they shouldn't have Chinese users, but that's a different argument, I believe.

This is false. iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Yes they gave access to metadata, but this is China where privacy basically doesn't exist, not a western country.

Wrong - Apple moved all iCloud data, which includes text messages, email and other data stored in iCloud (according to Reuters) as well as the access keys. Apple even forced users to sign the updated TOS or drop service.

The Chinese government access is _not_ limited to metadata.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...

Text messages are not stored in iCloud...

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

>iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents.

Literally the first paragraph of both of bduerst's links suggest otherwise.

Also, I don't know if you've used iCloud on multiple devices before, but it very much contains iMessage data contents.

But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board that it would be more profitable to start violating privacy.

The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. As soon as privacy is no longer a fad that makes more money and growth than the opportunity cost to not violating it, Apple will flip a switch. That's their duty as a for profit company.

> The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible.

Why do people keep repeating this falsehood?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby:

> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.

The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'

That's a different issue entirely.

Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes.

Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.