Neither of your links documents any kind of cooperation, let alone documenting it well.

Your links do not document cooperation with PRISM other than that the NSA believed they got information from them, which is very different. For all we know, it could have been the NSA abusing an API endpoint. Also, it said that it got lots of stuff like email, address, and so on when all of these services were combined which made it PRISM.

For all we know, it could have been checking the emails from Apple (because of FaceTime), getting address from Facebook, using address to look up other info on LinkedIn, and so forth. If anything, PRISM shows NSA abuse of services more than intentional compliance.

> definitely more secure devices you could be using.

I hate that I have to say this, but Linux phones are not more secure. They do have a company they don't phone-home to, but if a Linux phone was found on the side of the road, I have no doubt that the NSA would find a way in (unlike the iPhone, which as lately as the Rittenhouse trial, the latest model has not been cracked and the government ultimately struck a deal with the defense for a PIN code).

Linux phones are only secure by obscurity in that less research has been done on them and they are less common - but if government agencies were (or are) putting some research cash into them, I would not be surprised if they burst open from a million attacks that iPhones and Androids have found and fixed over the last decade.

> It's no coincidence that MacBooks force you to use NIST-designed crypto

Stop being conspiratorial - almost everyone, including many companies outside the US, use Curve25519 or P-256, and a big reason why is that the algorithm is very fast to calculate while being reasonably secure, which is a plus for fast encryption. Also, nobody has seriously alleged that Curve25519 is backdoor, unlike Dual_EC_DRBG which was suspect almost immediately. Also, NIST did not invent Dual_EC_DRBG. The NSA did and submitted it to NIST as a standard which NIST reluctantly accepted.

> Shied away from that kind of compliance with a known abuser of human rights

Yes - but Microsoft, Google, etc still make their phones in the same factories, and the reason they didn't hand over the server keys was because they don't really offer any services in China. Google doesn't work in China, and Microsoft's involvement is minor and China doesn't care because Windows doesn't encrypt data unless you have the Pro version and it's switched on. Also, your bias is showing in your use of Apple "happily" complying. How do you know that?

I can go on.

PRISM wasn't really a cooperative program, it was a highjacking of the internet backbone wasn't it? Your citation doesn't confirm any kind of cooperation.

I didn't really make any claim about Apple doing extra, I was challenging the idea that they some how do worse. They seem to play as fair as you can in the given political environments across the various nations they work in.

Not knowing what kind of keys or encryption I use on my device, I'm not sure you can make any reasonable comment on what I think, or what the US wants me to think. MacBooks don't force any particular type of crypto, you can kind of do whatever you like. Are you referring to something in particular?

Domestic data sovereignty is not unique to china. A number of countries ask for that. I agree it's not ideal, and mandated backdoors (which Countries like Australia have) add to the problem here. Google don't service the Chinese market directly, Microsoft have in country storage, as do Yahoo, so not sure your point there. "Every other big tech company"? Tencent/Alibaba are obviously also in china. I'm not sure what the alternative to compliance with countries laws are. Do you think it's better if companies do not obey local laws?

A lot of countries are "Known abusers of human rights"... if you made a prerequisite of not working with those countries, you'd be out of business pretty quick. Agree that's not ideal... but it is the reality.