If you’re presenting a conspiracy theory, you have to at least poke holes in the claims you consider false.
Under the system described in the linked paper, your scenario is not possible. In fact, the whole thing looks to be designed to prevent exactly that scenario.
Where do you see the weakness? How could a secret order result in undetectable data capture?
No. The information is all out there - secret courts, secret judgements, its all been put out there. I don't need to dissect any technical information, to recognise that I cannot know what I do not know.
In case anyone was uncertain about whether to trust what we are told - we heard that the US government was taping millions of phone records from the Snowden revelations.
So, we are told there are secrets, and we are told that there are mechanisms in place to prevent this information from being made public.
You are also free to believe that the revelations are no longer relevant... I'd like to hear the reason.
IMO - the reverse is the case - in that you need to show why Apple have now become trustworthy. Why would Apple not be subject to secret judgements?
I know there is a lot of marketing spin about Apple's privacy - but do you really think that they would actually confront the government system, in a way that isn't some further publicity stunt? Can one confront the government and retain a license to operate, do you think? Is it not probable that the reality is that Apple have huge support from the government?
Perhaps this kind of idea is hard to understand - that one can make a big noise about privacy, and how one is doing this or that to prevent access, and all the while ensuring that access is provided to authorised parties. Corporations can say this sort of thing with a straight face - its not a privacy issue to private information - its a (secret) legal issue!
Sorry, but secret courts and secret judgements, along with existing disclosure that millions were being spied upon, means one needs to expect the worst.
It is fair, I don't accept attempts to mitigate. The trust is gone, and nothing can recover it. The idea of trusting government and corporations was ridiculous in the first place as these entities are not your friends.
You wouldn't expect a repeat abuser to stop abusing just because of 'time' or a marketing campaign. And yet this is the case here. People keep looking to their tormentors for solutions.
Not expecting healing from those also inflicting the trauma, ie changing one's expectations, seems like a minimum effort/engagement in my view, but it's somehow inconceivable.
Under the system described in the linked paper, your scenario is not possible. In fact, the whole thing looks to be designed to prevent exactly that scenario.
Where do you see the weakness? How could a secret order result in undetectable data capture?