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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#171

Post by rms_returns »

briandear wrote: post #153
rms_returns wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. What you say about Facebook is true, but Google's Android is open source, so there is no way they can plant a privacy-invading code and get away with that.

Just because it's open source doesn't mean it's safe. You have no control of what happens to that code before it gets installed on a phone. Samsung, whomever can and do modify the code -- those modifications aren't generally open source. Ruby on Rails is open source but that doesn't mean that all applications on rails are open source.

> Samsung, whomever can and do modify the code -- those modifications aren't generally open source.

That will certainly change quite soon. In the earlier days, FOSS was not a concept that masses were aware of, but now is different. There is increasing competition in the smart-phone world and if one of the other manufacturers (say ASUS) makes their Android modifications open-source, they will see a drastic increase in Sales. To keep up with competition, Samsung, etc. will also have to do the same. In other words, competition will ensure the success of open source.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#174

Post by WA »

I wonder why no one pointed out that privacy boils down to trust:

That letter might be the truth or could be some kind of decoy. Maybe the backdoor will come and Apple knows that already and they try to limit the damage to their brand.

Like "we tried to resist having a backdoor installed, but we couldn't do it ultimately".

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#175

Post by threatofrain »

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…

I'm afraid I'm too skeptical to get the same assurances as you.

Apple accuses the FBI of playing language games with the term "backdoor", but I think Apple has done the same. The fact that they can push weak OS updates to a locked phone is the backdoor. This means that they can already comply with the court order, and they likely will. This letter covers them from PR damage.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#176

Post by spacelizard »

chimeracoder wrote: post #152
spacelizard wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, but you can come close. I have Cyanogen installed on all my Android devices and I try to use as little proprietary software as possible. However I am patiently waiting for the Neo900, which is a free (libre) hardware design based on the Nokia N900: https://neo900.org/ According to them, there are unfortunately no baseband modems on the market that can legally have their firmware distributed as free softwar…

> According to them, there are unfortunately no baseband modems on the market that can legally have their firmware distributed as free software. What is the legal restriction here? (It sounds like you're referring to some restriction beyond simple copyright protection on some of their components - are there FCC regulations regarding the firmware?) EDIT : Ah, of course, the FCC needs to certify devices before they can…

From their FAQ: https://neo900.org/faq#peripherals

>We unfortunately cannot provide free baseband modem firmware, as there is no option available on the market which would be able to fulfil this requirement. Even if it existed, it would bring very little value to the users, as operating a radio device with modified firmware on public networks without recertification is prohibited in most jurisdictions of the world and privacy concerns in cellular networks are mostly related to what happens on the network side, not inside the device.

I don't have any more information than this. If someone can quote specific FCC regulations to back this up, I would find that very interesting :)

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#177

Post by elmigranto »

bambax wrote: post #163
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…

I don't see how this "reassuring"; to me it's rather very confusing (as mentioned in many other comments). If Apple could in fact write a software backdoor, doesn't it mean that the backdoor exists, at least potentially? And how can one be sure that Apple is the only company able to build that door? At the very least, couldn't the right Apple engineer be either bribed or forced (by terrorists or the government) to bu…

Not possible without backing it into iOS with some update that FBI is claiming will be used on one particular phone in this particular case.

Apple reasons that there is no way to guarantee no one will take the same update and apply it to other iOS devices. Or government taking this a step further by making Apple to build that into future update for the whole user base.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#178

Post by Umn44 »

djkslgjeklas wrote: post #162
ank_the_elder wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I'm quite amazed they had the guts to go through with this and I applaud it. I will support them with my dollars as much as possible.

Talk is cheap and these internet posts - from Tim Cooke, you, and me - are just talk. The security of this nation depends on Apple (and Google et. seq.) supporting us with its dollars as much as possible. And I'm not optimistic that the stockholders care about anything more than doing the opposite.

You are correct... see this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#179

Post by AshleysBrain »

While basically being on Apple's side here, as I understand it, jailbroken devices are unofficial builds of iOS that have some security features removed (e.g. limits on which apps can be installed).

Is it not possible for law enforcement to get what they want from that, if all they want is a custom build of iOS that can be hacked around? And why is it even possible for that to work if the data is supposed to be kept secure?

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#180

Post by epaga »

bambax wrote: post #163
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…

I don't see how this "reassuring"; to me it's rather very confusing (as mentioned in many other comments). If Apple could in fact write a software backdoor, doesn't it mean that the backdoor exists, at least potentially? And how can one be sure that Apple is the only company able to build that door? At the very least, couldn't the right Apple engineer be either bribed or forced (by terrorists or the government) to bu…

What it means is that the best the FBI can come up with is "Make a way for us to brute force attack the passphrase." And brute force attack is worthless for a strong enough passphrase. That's what is reassuring.

Not to mention that this is for the iPhone 5c. As other comments have mentioned, newer iPhones have the hardware-based Secure Enclave which add to the difficulty of breaking into the phone. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Post reply on HN