It’s inaccurate to say “Apple selling user data to US government”. That’s not what the article claims (the word “sell” doesn’t even appear in the text), and there are in fact many consumer data brokers who really do sell data to law enforcement.
I don't think it's inaccurate; the IC pays the data providers (presumably for implementation/overhead) for receiving the FAA702 (PRISM/FISA) data.
Which data is picked by the US government, and no warrant is required. Apple provided data on 30,000+ users to the US government without a warrant in 2019, per their own transparency report.
If they received money for the program, they are indeed "selling user data to [the] US government".
A reimbursement for effort/overhead is not the same as selling for profit. Again, there *really are companies who sell consumer data to law enforcement for profit*, so it's important to use the correct language and make the appropriate distinction. Do I like that Apple does that? No. Do I think the actual policy conversation is best served by accuracy in language? Yes.
