• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    These things you write, they are not in any way substantiation of the claim that Apple doesn’t make backdoors.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        In theory you can learn mind reading from some fantasy universe and check every Apple person. Or ask a crystal ball. Or use some other way to collect full information about our universe, check every rabbit hole, so to say, and then confidently confirm “there’s no Apple backdoor here”. “Here” meaning this plane of existence.

        In practice yes.

        EDIT: Forgot - the “refused to cooperate” and “they have disagreements” things even in daily wisdom don’t change the probability of Apple having made backdoors. It’s PR. You most likely won’t learn it from the news if they do, in fact, cooperate.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Even in your made up scenario it doesn’t prove the negative. Maybe your mind reading didn’t work because Apple has a mind wiping device that made them forget. Maybe the crystal ball didn’t work because Apple made an even more powerful “crystal ball blocking” device. You can’t prove that’s not what’s really happening.

          So no, you in fact can’t prove a negative.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            With that additional detail in possibilities it’s also not possible to ever fully prove a positive.

            My example was with an assumption that you have the full information. Hypothetically.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I didn’t say “prove”, I used another word with bigger allowance. Of “likely backdoors vs likely not” kind. I wanted to say that their “public” conflicts with governments and their statements of the “trust us, we won’t sell you” kind are all worth nothing, because being caught lying won’t cost them anything.