Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

Post by ENGNR » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 12:33 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #91

mordocai wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be "do no evil" on privacy, but apple heavily pushes vendor lock in and basically does everything they can to keep you from being able to easily switch to a different vendor. Google seems easier to switch from, they seem less concerned with vendor lock in (don't get me wrong though, they still have some vendor lock in. Just less than apple IMO). I think in this case it is "choose your evil" and for a lot of…

Google makes more money from iOS than they do from Android. Of course Google doesn't mind if you switch hardware vendors, just so long as you keep using Google products. Also, I disagree with the notion that Apple "heavily pushes vendor lock in". They certainly don't go out of their way to make it easy to switch, but I can't come up with any examples off the top of my head where they're deliberately making it harder…

Post by autoreleasepool » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 1:34 AM UTC

Sakiina_ wrote: post #104

mconley wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it. FWIW, Mozilla does the same thing for Firefox Accounts sync data - it's an opaque blob that we couldn't decrypt even if we wanted to. (Disclosure: Mozilla employee)

This is good to know. Might tempt me back to Firefox from Chrome.

    brew cask install chromium

Post by Matheus28 » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 4:15 AM UTC

mstade wrote: post #110

mordocai wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be "do no evil" on privacy, but apple heavily pushes vendor lock in and basically does everything they can to keep you from being able to easily switch to a different vendor. Google seems easier to switch from, they seem less concerned with vendor lock in (don't get me wrong though, they still have some vendor lock in. Just less than apple IMO). I think in this case it is "choose your evil" and for a lot of…

> They may be "do no evil" on privacy, but apple heavily pushes vendor lock in and basically does everything they can to keep you from being able to easily switch to a different vendor. This is often used as an argument against Apple, but having gone back and forth over the years, I just don't think it's true anymore. It certainly was a decade ago, but now I'm finding it hard to think of any issues I've had going fro…

Post by weinzierl » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 9:14 AM UTC

roghummal wrote: post #188

weinzierl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They certainly don't go out of their way to make it easy to switch, but I can't > come up with any examples off the top of my head where they're deliberately > making it harder to switch without having a good reason for that decision. Just an example for those that are not familiar with Apple devices. You can sync your calendar, reminders and contacts with iCloud. But you don't have to. iCloud calendar sync is basi…

What do you use as a CalDAV server?

Post by teacup50 » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

rqebmm wrote: post #198

teacup50 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when it comes to transparent, limited scope, reasonable writs. This isn't some NSA mass surveillance program, or clipper chip reloaded(TM). This is an active murder (and terrorism) investigation in which Apple's privileged position -- one they assumed by choice and to their own benefit -- already exists. It is not unusual, unethical, or establishing any new precedent for them to be compelled to use keys they alre…

> Apple does not need to, nor are they being asked to, provide a backdoor that can be used elsewhere. They are, however, being asked to _create_ a backdoor that can be used anywhere. The specific request is to remove the limits on guessing passcodes so that the FBI can brute force it.