search

freedomofpress / encryption-works

Encryption Works: How to Protect Your Privacy in the Age of NSA Surveillance
https://freedom.press/training/
Other
354 stars 58 forks source link

Give Apple a fair shake #204

Closed psivesely closed 8 years ago

psivesely commented 8 years ago

I think our treatment of Apple is a little too tilted in their favor. I think to them privacy is a product; just like they are less than forthcoming about the sweatshop origins of their electronics, I believe it is reasonable to assume they are less than forthcoming about when and how they have cooperated with spy organizations. I have tried to keep this balanced and not go anti-Apple when we have no hard proof; I have just tried to balance our praise of their privacy policy by also preseting a more suspicious view (e.g., the added Appelbaum quote).

Signed-off-by: Noah Vesely fowlslegs@riseup.net

conorsch commented 8 years ago
psivesely commented 8 years ago
  • [ ] We'll need a citation for the Appelbaum quote.

I transcribed the Appelbaum quote myself from "To Protect and Infect: Part 2" from CCC 2013. Should I just link to the time in the video he says that on YouTube?

  • [ ] Use em dashes rather than double-hyphens, for consistency with the rest of the document.

There are no double-hyphens in my PR, but I'll do this for other PRs where I might have lazily never looked up how to write an em dash in Vim.

  • [ ] You change open source to open-source only in a few places, when open source is standard in the rest of the document. Do we need to change this?

I'm going to change it in the rest of the document. The use was already mixed. There are a number of PRs to come and this consistency issue will be taken care of.

psivesely commented 8 years ago

@trevortimm mentioned we may want to re-consider because (a) the Appelbaum quote is pretty speculative (even though this is mentioned) and (b) we don't want to be too hard on Apple when they're doing a good job standing up to governments demanding backdoors in crypto. I can agree with that. The only reason I don't want to roll back this commit is because this section was a little disorganized and had some weird flowing sentences before--that was part of the reason for the change as well. Probably the best thing to do would be to roll it back though, and then create a separate pull that fixes the language use. Would like to hear from @trevortimm on this first though.