upvote
You may want to reevaluate.

Apple has a great PR (propaganda) department that has convinced many people they respect your privacy. In truth, they do not. They're "better" than Google, but only slightly. And only so slightly that realistically it doesn't matter.

"Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo

It happened in the UK; it will not be long before it happens in the US.

--

Also, USA: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36084244

--

Also, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Japan: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/pdf/requests-2024-H...

--

Also, Russia: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-04/apple-fil...

--

Also, China: https://www.article19.org/resources/apple-cares-about-digita...

--

Also in general: https://proton.me/blog/iphone-privacy

reply
Did you just post an article where Apple refused a UK government order to weaken their encryption as "proof" that Apple doesn't respect customer privacy?

Also, the US Government has already demanded that Apple weaken device encryption.

Apple fought it in court, and the government dropped their demand rather than set a privacy precedent they wanted to avoid.

reply
I'm confused what you think Apple should have done differently there. If the government presents you with a legal demand generally your only options are to either comply or leave the market. Would you prefer Apple to have pulled out of the UK entirely?

I'm not even much of a fan of Apple but I really don't think you can hold it against them when they loudly protest but ultimately comply with legal demands.

reply
>> "Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data."

They did exactly what they should have. Their choices were build a backdoor or disable the advanced data protection feature in the UK. They also made it incredibly public.

reply
It's brilliant how they've laundered their "privacy" reputation through Google etc. and people believe it so fully.
reply
A great example is Apple's new in-house cellular modem design, which gives you the option to stop reporting your exact location to your cellular provider.

The best way to prevent the Feds from getting access to customer data is to not collect it in the first place.

reply
Google's Health Connect system doesn't share this data either (without a consent prompt for third party apps, off course). This is to the point where I wish it would just support some kind of sync, because two devices hooked up to the same accounts need a third party app to transfer the health info.

Apple is subject to the same laws Oura is. The competition is too.

reply
I believe the Apple one is E2E encrypted so they physically can't give useful data. Thats the core issue with Oura here.
reply
Apple might be pretty good now. There's no assurance they always will be.
reply
Yeah there's no one I'd trust with my personal data except Apple. Their track record of refusing to bow down to the feds has been golden. 24 carat infact.
reply
In the US. Apple's policies are flexible when it comes to other nation states.

All it takes is a political sea change for E2EE to go away.

Apple already has to hand over a wealth of information when asked by the feds.

reply
Apple literally removed encrypted file storage as a feature in the UK rather than comply with demands for access to encrypted customer data from the UK government.

Previously, they refused US government demands for a backdoor that would allow them to unlock locked devices.

reply
> Apple literally removed encrypted file storage as a feature in the UK rather than comply with demands for access to encrypted customer data from the UK government.

Does that mean that instead of UK government accessing the data (through a backdoor), UK government can now access to data (because it's not encrypted at all)?

reply
Nope.

After Apple's announcement that they would remove encryption from UK users rather than weaken it, the bad press and public pressure forced the UK government to back down.

reply
Not exactly. Apple kept it for existing users but stopped offering it to new users. So new users are vulnerable.
reply
Nope.

> UK backs down in Apple privacy row, US says

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj2m3rrk74o

reply
"Things might change in the future" is a perfectly general statement which applies to any state of affairs which is not restricted by natural law.

That makes it very nearly meaningless.

reply
Maybe, weren't it for the fact that we're having age verification and IDV ("protect the kids"), hardware attestation, removal of 3rd party APKs, etc. heaved upon us.

We've never had so many threats to our privacy and liberties heaved upon us, and the rate is accelerating.

reply
Apple certainly lobbied against this stupidity.

> Cook conveyed to lawmakers that device-level age assurance proposals should not require the collection of sensitive data like birth certificate or social security number, and that parents should be trusted to provide the age of a child when creating a child's account. Any data used for determining age should not be kept by app stores or developers, according to Apple.

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/12/10/tim-cook-age-verificati...

reply