this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
47 points (75.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43919 readers
1206 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. If someone is telling you that Apple is doing that, they are lying to you. Demand proof, because no one can provide that. Because Apple is not doing that, and if they’re telling you they are, they are lying.
If you demand proof to state they do, you should provide proof when stating they don't. It's not like Apple is the most trustworthy company in the world. With big tech it's always reasonable (definitely not certain) to assume they could be spying on your activity, and unless you are able to download your software source code, check it and compile it yourself, it's almost impossible to tell.
That's a burden of proof fallacy. 😕
It's no one's job to prove the opposite. The burden is on the initial claim.
The only thing we know without a proof is that they might be doing it. We don't have a proof they do it but we also don't have any proof they are incapable of doing so. A reasonable course of action would be to take precautions against it while not condemning them either, until they are either proven actually guilty or actively unwilling to up their security, which would also strongly imply the former.