iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs • Hacker News Board

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#111

Post by tajen » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

Loic wrote: post #17

jacquesm wrote: post #4

It's totally dumb that a functioning phone is bricked by an update because of repairs done in the past. Imagine the same thing happening to your car. "Sorry sir, the software update done to your car has now disabled the vehicle because in the past someone not related to x (insert name of car company here) has repaired it, your car is now junk (you can't even resell it) and you'll have to buy a new one". It's just pet…

It may even be against the law in Europe because the phone was working perfectly after the repair and only the later update locked the phone without the ability to unlock it. To keep with the care maker example, in Germany, the car makers used to void the 10 years guarantee on the painting of the car if the regular checks were done by an independent car shop. This was then declared as illegal. I suppose Apple will so…

It would be definitely illegal in France which has a law against planned obsolescence - but EU doesn't have it yet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#Regulat...

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#112

Post by tajen » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

mootothemax wrote: post #85

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. "Anyone can access your private photos and emails! Just replace the home button with one programmed with your own fingerprints!" Can you imagine the comments if that were a story? The problem here is that Apple didn't find a way to tell repair shops and users that this could be an issue.

They could invent another architecture which doesn't tie a mechanically failible element with an identity system.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#113

Post by DanBC » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

_cipher_ wrote: post #84

minikites wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how has that led to you being passed over for employment or otherwise put you at a disadvantage when competing with others?

Because wearing glasses makes me feel insecure. Yes, a person with disabilities can be ridiculed and feel like crap. A fat one can too. Also one with glasses, long hair, or long nose (or very short, let's include them too, it's the PC thing to do). Where do you draw the "disadvantage" line? As much as you are being offended when people are using a series of letters that forms certain words, so do I when people act li…

> ridiculed and feel like crap

It's not about ridicule. It's not about offence. Why do people always make this same point about offence?

"My freedom of speech allows me to say what I like; FUCK YOU if you want to use your freedom of speech to tell me how much harm my words cause"

People with LD have been subjected to genocidal actions; they've been forcibly sterilised (without their (or their family's) knowledge or permission; they've been used as the subjects of harmful medical experimentation (again, without knowledge or permission); they often find themselves under DNR (without knowledge or permission); they face levels of bullying higher than other other group; they face levels of discrimination higher than any other group; this bullying and discrimination is bad enough when it comes from people in society, but it's often coming from care professionals; they are deliberately excluded from most of society who know nothing about LD.

About "it's just a string of letters" (there are a few strings I'd like to use about you but on HN it'd probably get me a ban): http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/osu-wys012616...

> researchers found that participants showed less tolerance toward people who were referred to as "the mentally ill" when compared to those referred to as "people with mental illness."

> For example, participants were more likely to agree with the statement "the mentally ill should be isolated from the community" than the almost identical statement "people with mental illnesses should be isolated from the community."

> These results were found among [...] and even professional counselors who took part in the study.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#114

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #40

markyc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can't say anything anymore in the us because of the pc police

You can't use pejoratives against people's ethnicity or mental/physical disability in polite society. That's not the same as being actually oppressed, sorry.

[deleted]

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#115

Post by andromeduck » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #81

taspeotis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scenario they're protecting against appears (to me) to be a bad actor changing the hardware. If the Touch ID sensor is bad, and you propose falling back to a PIN, who's to say the digitizer isn't compromised too and is recording touches? Sounds a bit like a downgrade attack if they didn't fail fast and hard at the earliest opportunity.

I don't think they are protecting against that scenario so much as not accounting for it. I expect Apple's assumption is that they provide all components for their devices. People who install unauthorised third party components can no longer have those devices serviced by Apple — so it no longer matters to Apple whether those devices are compromised, because they aren't really "Apple" devices at that point anyway. Th…

There's no need to be so hostile and assume malice when there's plenty of perfectly sound explanations otherwise.

Apple is a fairly security conscious company now so security tradeoffs should not be a surprise.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#116

Post by unfamiliar » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:07 PM UTC

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #109

mootothemax wrote: post #85

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. "Anyone can access your private photos and emails! Just replace the home button with one programmed with your own fingerprints!" Can you imagine the comments if that were a story? The problem here is that Apple didn't find a way to tell repair shops and users that this could be an issue.

It doesn't have to be either or. Apple could provide a better fail over behavior for the home key, including a way for a consumer to validate the changed hardware. For instance: "IOS has detected a change in your Secure Home Key. Please contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure!" add a 1-800 number and some security questions. Or automate it by requiring a login to your Apple account, e…

> Please contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure

There's no way the customer or Apple can do that with third party hardware installed. The only solution I can see is to disable all of the features relying on Touch ID.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#117

Post by DanBC » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #10

minikites wrote: post #8

>retarded Don't say this.

What would you suggest instead and why?

Using the word retard victimises a group that is already significantly marginalised while simultaneously not doing much to the intended victim. The word has a greater affect on unintended, innocent, victims than the intended target.

If you're talking about IQ less than 70 use whatever is relevant in the country you're in. In the US this is usually intellectual disability (which is a subset of learning disability, which in US also includes eg dyslexia which doesn't have IQ requirement), but for some small groups it might be retard (although other groups see that as hate speech.)

If you're talking about a difficult to understand action call it dumb or stupid or idiotic or almost anything but retarded.

In the UK the word retard is pretty much equivalent to kikes or nigger or faggot. I'm not sure people in the US recognise that when they say retard people outside the US see a word like nigger. If that's the level of offence you want to create then sure, go ahead.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#118

Post by DominikR » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

Yetanfou wrote: post #106

DominikR wrote: post #61

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand this is done to protect the customers from tampered with Touch ID sensors. It may be overly paranoid but I can at least understand the motivation behind this. Changing the display also involves disconnecting the Touch ID sensor so technically a malicious person might have done something that exposes the user of the device in some way. Statement from an Apple spokesw…

Did you really believe them when they said that? Just like all other similar decisions made by other companies under the guise of 'protect[ing] the customers', it should be clear that this is no more than a guise. If protection is what they had in mind they'd simply disable any functionality which could be impacted by a dodgy part. Disabling the whole device has the single, self-serving purpose of channelling the cas…

It sounds plausible, but none of us can know for sure as we don't have the source code and internal access at Apple. (maybe they can't just deactivate TouchID on its own, maybe they can but they want to protect the already existing fingerprint data on the device)

I don't see how killing the entire 3rd party repair network worldwide can create a positive outcome for Apple, because they are unlikely to even have the resources for repairing every device in a timely manner and with acceptable costs.

It's easy to say that they'll just earn more from repairs and sell more devices, but customer satisfaction is also important and I believe Apple takes issues that essentially brick devices very seriously.

It is also well known that they take privacy very seriously (although implementations might not be perfect), so I am inclined to believe that in this case privacy concerns have won against customer satisfaction concerns.

Edit: Apple Pay is also a _very_ important product for Apple, I imagine they simply cannot afford any issues that might make this seem unsafe to customers.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#119

Post by andromeduck » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #102

mppm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just say short sighted? Not everybody has perfect eyesight, you know, but that doesn't make us stupid. You hater, you.

People with learning disabilities face significant levels of violence and discrimination. People with short sightedness, not so much. No one kills a person who is short sighted just because they are short sighted, but this routinely happens to people with learning disability. Not just random fuckheads in public, but doctors will put people with LD under DNR orders without the knowledge or permission of the person or…

Baning the use of one euphemism in favor of another has never resolved the root issue and will not do so now.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#120

Post by scholia » Sat, Feb 06, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #103

interpol_p wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems more like short sightedness than "petty revenge." The new home button hardware can't be securely validated, and a future OS update fails on the unexpected condition of invalid Touch ID hardware. I can imagine that this wasn't a prioritised testing scenario, likely not even considered by Apple when developing iOS. It's a lousy way to fail — the phone should just disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, and anything that…

There's a lot of stuff that depends on the secure element - in fact the phone would be quite useless without it. In fact, when you first reboot your phone, even contacts cannot be accessed until you authenticate with your passcode to unlock the secure element. Incoming text messages only show the phone number. You're right, however - a Touch ID sensor that cannot be verified should not brick the phone. Apple should j…

> There's a lot of stuff that depends on the secure element - in fact the phone would be quite useless without it.

Disclaimer: I don't own an iPhone with Touch ID.

However, it seems to me that the phone should still work if you logged on with your PIN instead of with TouchID. It should therefore be as useful as most phones that didn't have TouchID in the first place (which happens to be all my Android and iOS smartphones).