> Can you point to a single instance where it was used for ulterior purposes?
That's the sick genius of parallel construction: without leaks, we'd never be able to know. (And yes, there are plenty of instances of abuse, brought to the public despite the risk whistleblowing entails.)
Ask yourself this: even if the "right" people are in control of this system now, could the "wrong" people ever gain control of it? If the answer is yes, maybe the system should not exist.
Then to be consistent, you cannot use closed source, proprietary systems. That's the trade off.
You _NEVER_ know what Apple is doing under the covers. This principle is well understood and has been espoused by RMS for over a decade.
But saying "well Apple could use this system for evil if they want..." is silly. Apple could ALWAYS use their system for evil if they wanted. This addition does nothing to improve that position.
That's the sick genius of parallel construction: without leaks, we'd never be able to know. (And yes, there are plenty of instances of abuse, brought to the public despite the risk whistleblowing entails.)
Ask yourself this: even if the "right" people are in control of this system now, could the "wrong" people ever gain control of it? If the answer is yes, maybe the system should not exist.