> […] terrorists will be able to use their iPhones to coordinate terror repeatedly on a large scale, and there won't be anything Apple can do about it.

And? If they're using (say) Signal or even Messages, it's already end-to-end encrypted and there's nothing Apple can do about it.

> Is that really the world you want to live in?

You mean like they're able to use GPG/PGP, Tor browser, and Tails Linux distribution to potentially have secure encrypted communications now? Terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime have been the boogeymen against strong crypto for decades:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

We've been through this before in the 1990s, and the techies (who tend to often lean libertarian) have generally sided with opening things up even if that meant the baddies also got the same capabilities:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

Coming at it form the opposite end: should the IETF weaken TLS with backdoors so the government agencies can monitor the bad people? Is that really the world you want to live in?

> We've been through this before in the 1990s, and the techies (who tend to often lean libertarian) have generally sided with opening things up even if that meant the baddies also got the same capabilities:

Going in a different direction, you could also look at the state of Windows malware (and adware, eg toolbars) as a potential outcome to the un-walled garden approach: you end up with malware and thus the existence of an anti-malware industry.

Yes, I think this is one advantage of iOS that allows people who use it with confidence and not worry too much about clicking the wrong thing.

It's why I like(d) Linux and Mac OS X (macOS) as well: I can set up my parents with a non-admin default account on their system and not worry too much about them hosing things too greatly (especially with off-machine backups). Windows caught up with that paradigm eventually.

If sideloading comes to iOS I hope that a similar mechanism is introduced: not just "please confirm" dialogue and/or Touch/FaceID pop-up, but a separate 'login'.

That would be best, but then you have the current situation with Epic saying that Android's warnings cause consumers to be frightened when trying to install their third-party app store, so I'm not sure what solution there is that both protects consumers from malware and allows trusted third-parties to have their own apps or app stores. I guess you could have notarization for iOS apps, but then you'd still have that Apple dependence that Epic is against.

But yes, the safeguards that prevent sideloading today make me confident in recommending an iOS device even to someone that downloads malware anytime an ad shows up promising free gift cards.

Moore’s Law of Mad Science: “Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”

I'm happy that GPG/PGP etc. are a bit difficult to use, because it makes the IQ threshold necessary to coordinate nastiness secretly a bit higher.

Remember how great the blogosphere was prior to the advent of social media? Social media made "blogging" a little more accessible and it became a cesspool. Speed bumps can be a very good thing.

> Moore’s Law of Mad Science: “Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”

There is research on this in the field of existential risk. I don't remember where exactly but it's formulated as the number of people one person can kill with easily accessible products. In particular biotech is becoming more and more accessible, which great, but has a big impact on that index. There is a great defcon talk by a doctor working at Intel I think.

I think a channel for white supremacists to coordinate terror attacks existing isn't good, per se, but it should still be possible for them by default and the government should have to demonstrate that it can responsibly handle the power to police it before we let it do so. So at the current state of the world, I wouldn't object to Apple doing this, but I'm still in favor of white supremacists being able to do this, because I don't know of any mechanism by which you could stop precisely white supremacist terrorists from coordinating but not also citizens coordinating against state power.

I don't want white supremacists being able to carry out terror attacks, but I want people to be able to coordinate demonstrations and civil resistance, and I'm not aware of a way to do this without also enabling white supremacists, and I think that's a valid tradeoff.

A state is most of the time a tool for a majority to oppress a minority. Laws and police are just their tools, and so are dictators. Whoever is labeled a dictator is just a figurehead supported by majority of elites, who in turn are supported by economically strong coalition, represented by some majority of people who are united.

Precisely, there is no difference between oppressing white supremacist minority and any other minority that wants to overthrow the status quo. It’s not going to be easier or harder depending on how the anti state elements are hiding their communication, because their conflict has to become public to have the effect you desire, which is some systemic change that you agree with ( making you part of this group by the way).

I’m not saying privacy is not important. I’m wondering whether unmitigated privacy is more important to people you and I most probably do not support.

> A state is most of the time a tool for a majority to oppress a minority. Laws and police are just their tools, and so are dictators. Whoever is labeled a dictator is just a figurehead supported by majority of elites, who in turn are supported by economically strong coalition, represented by some majority of people who are united.

I don't agree that that characterisation of a state is true.

I mean, it's sort of true, but it misses out some essential features which are directly relevant to that description, for some states anyway.

One of those is: Some states (maybe the USA?) believe in more than just acting out the wishes of the majority at any given time.

Some of them believe in ideals, which outlive an ephemeral majority. Things like "rule of law" (which doesn't mean clobbering minorities, it means the government is held to account rather than acting like a rogue king), "human rights" (in theory, things like the Magna Carta), "justice" (as defined by a long history of institutions and systems whose learned principles are studied by people that practice in it).

You can certainly argue that sort of thing still comes down to some level of majority oppressing a minority. But I think the character of that ruling is very different in ways that matter, if it demonstrates a decent attempt at those attributes and builds them into stable institutions, than if it doesn't bother or just pays lip service.

Good point. Today's world is a grand experiment to find out what is the right balance between stability and privacy.

Stability comes with slowing down the progress and the top taking ever so more and getting more corrupt. So there always need to be some upwards pressure.

This isn't a government, this is Apple. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for Apple to install some speed bumps against activity such as doxxing or terror which it strongly frowns upon.

Well yeah, white supremacists are violent racist. People protesting against election fraud, aren't. If your idea of stability is the opression of the unprivelidge, then you are part of the problem. This is exactly why corrupt government call protesters anarchists, so middle class people wouldn't mind opression as long as there's stability. While usually the actual destabilization and craziness comes from the people with power who are afraid to lose it.

I can't judge you personally, but history will.

Read my last paragraph. The point is that you can't jailbreak one without jailbreaking the other.

Should it be Apple's business to police terrorists?

Governments have found it convenient to offload policing to communication companies, via putting liability on them unless they do.

I don't think this is the way to go.

I'm a moderate, I didn't say it should be Apple's business, I'm saying maybe it's a good thing if our comms infrastructure affords Apple the flexibility to do this.

If Apple wants to change their TOS and say "publishing personal information is now OK", that is one thing. Maybe publishing personal information should be allowed. The point is that there is an intelligent human being weighing tradeoffs and trying to make a good decision as we muddle our way through the 21st century.

Infrastructural changes, on the other hand, aren't as reversible. Screwups are more likely to be permanent. You're flipping a switch that can't be flipped back. That is the point I was trying to make by mentioning terrorism--there can be unintended consequences which you don't necessarily anticipate, so retaining flexibility is good.

>I'm saying maybe it's a good thing if our comms infrastructure affords Apple the flexibility to do this.

I'm having trouble understanding your point. Apple makes devices. They sell (not rent or lease) those devices.

As such, just as if I were to buy a gun or a knife or a dozen chicken wings, what I do with such a device isn't anyone else's business. It's mine.

If I use that gun or knife to injure or kill someone, is the gun or knife manufacturer involved? No. Because I, not the manufacturer, am responsible for my actions. They have nothing to do with it.

If I insert those chicken wings into orifices other than my mouth, is that any business of the restaurant who sold them to me? No. For the same reasons.

As such, Apple is no more part of the "comms infrastructure" (and especially in this case, as it isn't Apple software -- like iMessage -- being used) than the knife manufacturer is part of my circus knife throwing act.

This issue is broader than the awful stuff going on in Belarus.

Who owns the stuff you purchase? If the manufacturer (and/or other private entities) can unilaterally decide what you can or cannot do with your own property, then you don't really own it.

And there will always be some folks who object to the use of, well, just about anything.

Should the folks at PETA[0] be able to block communications between a group of friends going hunting for deer or quail?

In their understanding, that's exactly the same as a group plotting to kill humans.

The situation in Belarus is more complicated, as it pits the the government against the governed. Even so, I say it's not the place of a manufacturer to tell someone what they may or may not do with a product once it has been sold.

What's more, Telegram needs to decide what happens on their infrastructure and Apple has no business being involved at all.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme...

Yes, it is quite different. Twitter is one of many platforms. If it begins to censor content it’s relatively straightforward to move to telegram or signal of matrix. The App Store on the other hand is a platform of platforms so its decisions affect all platforms on it. if you’re on an iPhone, there’s nowhere else to go. And Belarus has a gdp per capita of 6300. I imagine for most citizens getting a new phone is not trivial.

This is a false equivalency. One is a group objecting to rigged elections and another is a group that advocates for violence against others based on ethnicity.

Those are very different things, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two.

I didn't claim they were equivalent.

Really? Your answer to Apple restricting information posted by people protesting elections is to ask how people would feel about restricting information from white supremacist terrorists. At the very least, this is a whataboutism argument, trying to shift the discussion away.

>Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone.

I dont think that is an accurate analogy. It would more accurate to describe AWS / GCP asking Twitter to take down a tweet. Because Apple in your example Apple should be replaced with Telegram.

> Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone.

No, this is Microsoft telling Twitter to take down that tweet, because they have a Windows app. Or threatening to block access to the app or twitter.com.