It doesn’t make the encryption irrelevant nor is it undermined in any way.

The person on the other end that you’re choosing to communicate with is the weak link. It has nothing to do with encryption at all. They could do the exact same thing whether encrypted or not. E2EE is simply not a factor here at all

No… the blame is shifted to the person for sharing their private texts in this scenario. The blame is on the person, who made the decision of sharing the texts…

Apple is uninvolved in the decision

Why would they do that? That wouldn’t stop the person you’re texting from just copying and pasting your texts into ChatGPT directly, which is your actual problem. If you text somebody, no matter how “private” it is, you have to trust the person you’re texting because you’re giving them those texts and they can do whatever they want with them.

It definitely does undermine the purpose of E2EE

It doesn’t undermine it at all is what I’m saying. The problem is just entirely unrelated to E2EE

You can enable Advanced Data Protection and Apple will no longer store the keys, however this is off by default and for something like an iMessage conversation both users would have to enable it for it to mean anything

Because the only viable alternative is Google, who are objectively worse.

But it doesn’t undermine the purpose of end to end encryption? End to end encryption means it’s encrypted on one end and is decrypted on the other end, as opposed to being decrypted somewhere in the middle.

This problem doesn’t for anything to undermine end to end encryption at all? With E2EE you still have to trust the other end. If the person who is the other end installs a plugin that reads the texts you send them, that’s not really a technology problem it’s an OpSec problem.

I wonder why Apple stans never bring this up when calling it the most private operating system that “cares” about user “privacy” and “security” when they can just hand over your E2EE messages after it’s decrypted, if a company has a “plugin”.

I don’t really understand what the point is you’re trying to make here.

What does Apple have to do with what somebody you’re sending texts to does with the texts you sent them? What is any company supposed to do about that?

Tell it to your Discord kitten

Yes, back to enjoying your Reddit moderating

No, no moral high ground or grandstanding…just reality

No it’s 100% grandstanding, sorry. Thats the reality, if you’d care to join me in it.

What I’m pointing out is that, at the end of the day, it’s not your lump of clay to mold even if you disagree with the way it’s being molded.

This is not insight. You’re using so many words to say nothing of any substance. The fact that you’re saying this in response to the backlash is an implication that this is a reason people shouldn’t complain. If that’s not what you meant, you’d wouldn’t have said anything at all.

Hmm seems everyone is living in the same reality as you though, so your comment has no substance or meaning other than some weird self-enlightened moral grandstanding.

This type of pseudo-intellectual bullshit is the exact type of thing I’m talking about lol

People are absolutely justified and allowed to criticize the greed of this company. Part of living in objective reality is that you reap what you sow. Everything you just said is not really relevant to that simple fact.

Cool, nobody said you did.

Similarly, there’s no binding contract that says when you remove features from your software’s community edition in order to drive more profits without any added value, that I’m disallowed from criticizing you for it.

The users will have to deal with the loss of features, and you will just have to deal with the criticism.

I’m not a big fan of this sort of pseudo-philosophical contrarian fence-sitting.

I mean sure, he’s not technically wrong, but it also implies that while Developers have the freedom to perform these rug-pulls (they do), the author simultaneously wags their finger at the people who have equal freedom to react the way they have.

Developers (companies) are not entitled to be free from criticism or backlash for acting shitty.

ProtonMail has a free tier

“HugeNerd”

“Ok so that was a fucking lie”

Precedent isn’t a permanently binding law. The entire point of the judicial branch is that they get to interpret the law and decide when it applies. Precedent is binding on an individual basis, in that a particular judge or subset of judges are supposed to follow the precedent set by their court, but they have the ability to reinterpret that precedent, it usually just has to be done by the full circuit of judges or a higher court.

What happened to Roe v Wade sucks in a practical cause and effect level, but this process is necessary when you look at it in the context of this very case. If this case were to go south for this guy, you don’t want the precedent to forever be that this behavior is illegal on its face. Especially when decided by potentially one single judge. There has to be a path for a more balanced group of individuals to fix blind spots like that.

Another thing that complicates this is that America isn’t functionally just one nation with a set of laws and federal judges and a constitution, it’s 50 countries each with their own distinct laws, their own constitution, and their own judges. Federal law is just a loose binding box that’s supposed to keep the 50 states from getting too wacky.

No

Your original comment was likely deleted for being misinformation. Ultimately whether or not funding fascism is worth your protection from fascism is up to you.

You’re legally obligated to pay taxes and you have some say in how they’re spent in the form of state and federal elections (or your country’s equivalent). If you’re doing everything in your power to make sure that money isn’t used for evil then ultimately you can’t be faulted for what happens beyond that point.

But on the other hand you’re voluntarily choosing to pay Mullvad knowing full well that your money will be used to prop up far right extremism and you have no say in it beyond your choice to give them your money.

How you rationalize that to yourself is a personal matter but it certainly and absolutely does not give you a moral high ground over people who choose not to fund evil.