I really hate tweets when they start with a premise which can't really be explored in the short-form model.

If he has good reasons to believe his actual data is being sold, he needs to say so. If he is concerned they scan, well sure. If they can, they do. they all do. And, apple went further than many with on-handset scanning. But they are at some pains to disclaim they can recover stuff if you lose your keys. That goes against the idea they can see all things.

What I believe remains that apple can't see inside a lot of things easily, and if they could, they'd incur massive liabilities. What they can see, what is un-encrypted at rest, they reserve the right to look at and monetise in some ways.

No links, no proof, too emotional, and somewhat childish — I'm too old for this stuff.

I'm way more happier reading stuff that has citations and references to supplement their research - try to publish a research paper without any of these and you get laughed out the door.

”Considered harmful” considered harmful