The company theoretically has limited capacity to nuke icloud and appleid accounts but I don’t know of any examples of them doing that for any reason other than abuse (hijacking someone elses account and using icloud as mass storage).
They haven’t given up encryption to the authorities in the past and it might not even be possible for them to anymore (that’s the standard legal defense for a company that doesn’t wanna deal with it, a judge orders your company to comply with a wiretap or all writs and you say “okay. I literally do not have the ability to do what they’re asking or me”).
I’d worry about using a phone, computer or tablet connected through any wireless networking at all.
Another poster mentioned the stingray, and that’s one way that any cellular data connection could be rendered unsafe no matter the device on the other end. No one brought up the tremendous expansion of wifi hardware sold as “pineapples” that are explicitly intended to allow access to the data from our supposedly secure connections to wireless networks.
And that’s just the stuff someone could do by pulling up next to you or walking around with a device in a briefcase. Consider the operators of the networks we connect to themselves! Plenty of public WiFi use is being surreptitiously filtered, monitored and catalogued. The libraries in my county have a system that does all three, for example. And the interested parties don’t need to roll a stingray out if the cell network operators give them access to the gateway devices on the towers themselves! I don’t know of a court case where that last part was done, but I know that the modem chips have that capacity documented in detail for a reason!
In the event of a revolution we don’t need to look for the punches to come from the companies that make the phones. It makes much more sense for the opposition to punch from the network itself.
Also historically to the extent it comes from technology and not good old boots on the ground feds in the meetings fundamentals, that’s where infiltration and suppression have come from, not the device itself.
I wouldn’t worry about apple in that situation.
The company theoretically has limited capacity to nuke icloud and appleid accounts but I don’t know of any examples of them doing that for any reason other than abuse (hijacking someone elses account and using icloud as mass storage).
They haven’t given up encryption to the authorities in the past and it might not even be possible for them to anymore (that’s the standard legal defense for a company that doesn’t wanna deal with it, a judge orders your company to comply with a wiretap or all writs and you say “okay. I literally do not have the ability to do what they’re asking or me”).
I’d worry about using a phone, computer or tablet connected through any wireless networking at all.
Another poster mentioned the stingray, and that’s one way that any cellular data connection could be rendered unsafe no matter the device on the other end. No one brought up the tremendous expansion of wifi hardware sold as “pineapples” that are explicitly intended to allow access to the data from our supposedly secure connections to wireless networks.
And that’s just the stuff someone could do by pulling up next to you or walking around with a device in a briefcase. Consider the operators of the networks we connect to themselves! Plenty of public WiFi use is being surreptitiously filtered, monitored and catalogued. The libraries in my county have a system that does all three, for example. And the interested parties don’t need to roll a stingray out if the cell network operators give them access to the gateway devices on the towers themselves! I don’t know of a court case where that last part was done, but I know that the modem chips have that capacity documented in detail for a reason!
In the event of a revolution we don’t need to look for the punches to come from the companies that make the phones. It makes much more sense for the opposition to punch from the network itself.
Also historically to the extent it comes from technology and not good old boots on the ground feds in the meetings fundamentals, that’s where infiltration and suppression have come from, not the device itself.