Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Message to Our Customers

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#101

Post by cyphar »

rms_returns wrote: post #81
firloop wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not too sure about this. Keep in mind that in most commercially sold Android phones, closed source, self updating, Google Play Services is installed by the manufacturer with system level privileges. That alone is enough to create a non insignificant back door.

But you can always root your phone and install Cyanogenmod from scratch, right? Agreed that this is not too trivial right now because of standardization issues, but it could be done if you really care about privacy.

Not all of CyanogenMod is free software (you still have a bunch of binary blobs, and everyone has to use Google Play Services anyway because every app seems to implicitly require it). Replicant would be a much better alternative if it actually supported anything newer than 2G.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#103

Post by chimeracoder »

noja wrote: post #91
rms_returns wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Google's Android, this issue will never arise because Android is open source. Any attempt to plant a backdoor will be outright monitored by the community.

Nobody builds their Android from source. Nobody uses Cyanogenmod. And nobody runs Android on a phone where the entire stack is open source and blob free. Anyone who does is a rounding error.

> And nobody runs Android on a phone where the entire stack is open source and blob free.

> Anyone who does is a rounding error.

I'm actually curious if there is literally anyone who uses no proprietary software, including the radios and the SoC, on their Android device.

My bet is that there's not even a single device out there for which this is possible. (If there is, I'd love to see it.)

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#105

Post by BWStearns »

camillomiller wrote: post #88
nindalf wrote: post #42

I'm really impressed that Apple is standing up to the government and protecting its users' rights. I've never really considered the iPhone worth the premium price tag, but policies like this have changed my mind. Could someone answer a question I have though? The government wants Apple to create this backdoor and tailor it to the specific device, so presumably it will have a line that goes if (!deviceID.equals("san_b…

Technically you're right, legally think of the huge precedent. FBI is using the San Bernardino case as a legal crowbar, and it's awful.

If they beat the order they could always do what GP said, crack the password, and hand in a decrypted copy of the device. Everyone goes home happy: no precedent set, FBI gets their data, going into the future as old iOS devices die Apple won't even be able to pull that stunt again if they want to.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#106

Post by wodenokoto »

asymmetric wrote: post #65

I see a lot of people saying they're impressed, admired, etc. at Apple for doing this. It's not about giving props: Apple is not doing this out of goodwill, or because they believe in protecting privacy. Apple has a competitive advantage against Google/Facebook in that its business model does not depend on violating their customer's privacy. They are just exploiting that competitive advantage. Cfr. https://ar.al/note…

If you want to describe Apple's actions in terms of market competition, then you should also describe the consumer (our) reaction in similar terms.

We as consumers should support the companies that have the best, in terms of product usability as well business ethic, market strategy by buying said companys product and recommending and commending their actions.

So props to Apple for leading an ethical business strategy.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#107

Post by onion2k »

nindalf wrote: post #42

I'm really impressed that Apple is standing up to the government and protecting its users' rights. I've never really considered the iPhone worth the premium price tag, but policies like this have changed my mind. Could someone answer a question I have though? The government wants Apple to create this backdoor and tailor it to the specific device, so presumably it will have a line that goes if (!deviceID.equals("san_b…

To make the backdoor general purpose, this line would need to be removed.

Or the ID on the device be changed to match "san_b_device_id".

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#109

Post by hosay123 »

epaga wrote: post #2

Huge props to Apple - here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this. One thing I was wondering is how Apple is even able to create a backdoor. It is explained toward the end: "The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force…

What it sounds like is they've been asked to prepare a new OS release that allows an unlimited number of attempts to enter the passphrase via some network link. The press release is written to sound like without a software release, it wouldn't be possible to mount this kind of attack, however attacks like this are generally possible regardless of having some specially modified and signed OS image: for example, by cutting power to the hardware precisely when it is clear a password was incorrect, before the hardware has time to implement any destructive actions. Attacks like this have been used against SIM cards since the 90s.

I'm ambivalent regarding Apple's stance. In principle they are doing the right thing, but in practice, it seems they may be kicking up a whole lot of fuss over a relatively minor issue (with the exception that providing an easy means to brute force a phone to the authorities sets a horrible precedent). As for creating a universal backdoor, it seems highly unlikely they couldn't produce a signed OS / coprocessor firmware image that wasn't locked to one of the various serial numbers associated with this particular device

edit: as mentioned below, this order entirely originates with Apple's use of DRM to prevent software modification. Had users actual control over the devices they own the FBI wouldn't need to request a signed firmware in the first place. Please think twice about what Apple might really be defending here before downvoting

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#110

Post by rms_returns »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #64
marak830 wrote: post #14

Im generally not an apple supporter(i dont like the closed eco system), i am very plesantly surprised they posted this. I am quite disappointed that the us courts are trying to force apple todo this, and in my opinion, its just to use this case to set a precedent. I hope Apple cant get it to work, but id hate to see what the courts would do if that happened.

There are basically two groups of large software companies around right now: those which make their business by collecting data, and those which make their business by licensing software[1]. The first group has an overwhelming incentive to not support privacy too strongly. The second group has an overwhelming incentive to not allow too much openness. Until a better business model (or zero-knowledge machine learning)…

Actually, there is a third business model which doesn't exploit its users' privacy, nor does it have to resort to closed-source licensing (but selling add-on services like support and customization). This is the model adopted by companies like Red Hat, Canonical and to some extent Google (in a few products).

The future, in fact, belongs to this third business model that helps a business earn profits without hurting its users in any manner. Ultimately, all the IT companies will have to embrace this model in order to stay in the market and survive. Competition will ensure that they will.

Post reply on HN