1) I agree by accident
2) They thankfully stopped nagging me
3) Or they buggy implemented it and even though I kept cancelling after few tries they assumed I agreed.
If they don’t, they end up having data from different licenses. If you have many of those, figuring out what you can and cannot do with data becomes a nightmare.
You could get questions such as “Can you make a backup in country C for user U? He’s under the 2019 terms, so in principle, yes, but alas, user V has shared content with U, and V still is under the 2017 terms. Also, U has been in the EU for the past weeks, so EU regulations apply, at least as far as we catered for them in the 2019 terms”
Not changing the terms isn’t an option, either, as they have to be changed to cater for changes in laws. If you operate in 100+ countries,
That's their problem to figure out. If they can't then they should terminate customers who don't agree and ship them their data.
Obviously they'll never do that since it would be a terrible look and they'd lose customers, because they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
I am not sympathetic to how hard it would be for a corporation to do something. "It's too hard" is not an excuse, not least of all if they're a multi-billion dollar corporation.
If, for example, your bank changes their terms, your electricity provider increases prices, landlords increase rent, etc. they will inform you and often silently enrol you in the new scheme. Cancelling the agreement always (and maybe not even that) is an option, but that is opt-out, not opt-in.
So, why would cloud providers be different?
In short, other countries outside the US _do_ hold other service providers to similar standards.
Or do something equally pointless, but just as signally.
I feel like so many of these unstoppable force meets immovable wall situations warp both functionality and discourse (on all sides) on said functionality.
This comes about because everything is getting so centralized. The government wants to be in everything, and Apple (stand in for all big tech) does too. This pits them against each other, with the consumer only acknowledged when there is vast consumer agreement and motivation.
Similar to App Store, Apple wants total control, then governments use Apple's control to cut of access to particular apps. Consumers that understand the severe loss of freedom this creates (for them and developers) both immediate and in lost innovation don't like it. But there isn't a huge consumer uproar on that one ... so freedom wilts.
Bundling these basic features (cloud backups, app stores) with operating systems is creating an unholy government/platform axis that wins every time consumers are unable to drum up the motivation to speak as coherent allies pushing back.
I'm not a businessman, but I believe Apple's main customers are not governments, so I suppose that it's not good business for Apple to ignore their users' preferences. Governments in most of Apple's marketplaces change every few years, after all.
They pulled documents about the scanning, but we don't actually know they pulled the scanning itself.
> when Apple switches to not having access the keys to decrypt iCloud photos and documents.
We don't know that they are/were going to do that either. It's just a popular 'fan theory.'