The Chinese government says they can break Apple's AirDrop feature that lets people share files with each other using iPhones. This is important because it was used by protesters in Hong Kong and China to share messages and videos against the government. The feature now works over the internet too, so even if your devices are not close to each other, you can still send files. Apple has not said anything about this claim yet. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Apple's AirDrop feature is no longer secure because of the Chinese government claims to have cracked it. However, there is no clear evidence or details provided in the article about how or why the Chinese government has allegedly done so, or what implications this might have for other users around the world.
- The article relies heavily on unnamed sources and vague references to reports, without verifying their credibility or accuracy. This makes it difficult for readers to assess the reliability of the information presented and question the motives behind the claims.
- The article does not provide a balanced view of the situation, nor does it consider alternative perspectives or potential counterarguments. For example, it does not mention any possible security measures or updates that Apple might have implemented to address the issue, or how other countries or regions might be dealing with similar challenges.
- The article uses emotional language and phrases such as "escalating anti-government protests", "restriction in China" and "potential global trend". These words evoke negative associations and feelings in the reader, without providing any factual basis or context for them. They also suggest a political agenda or bias behind the article's authorship.
- The article ends with a question that seems unrelated to the main topic: "Why It Matters". This implies that there is some urgency or significance to the issue, but does not explain why or how it matters for the reader or the audience. Instead of providing a clear and concise summary of the key points and implications, the article leaves the reader with an unanswered question and a vague impression.