131–140 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android has required the user to enter the unlock code to back up the device for years now. This is Apple playing catch-up.
Android = Google (No, aosp is unusable, and Google is working to make it more unusable). Google = no privacy Therefore, Android = no privacy Q.E.D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS devices have always required the device to "trust" the computer before allowing the backup. Looking at the article, the only real difference now appears to be that you can't just use TouchID, you're forced to use the passcode.
You are correct. Android does not require you to enter a passcode to trust a computer if you have a fingerprint registered. The change is that Apple now requires you to enter a passcode if you have set up a passcode on the device in the past. If you haven't, the attack vector still exists, and if you are traveling with a trusted laptop with fingerprint unlock, the attack vector still exists with one level of indirect…
You can't setup TouchID without a passcode. The "attack vector" only exists if you 0 security on your iPhone to begin with. (So , yes, technically the attack vector exists if you choose to use no locks at all).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android = Google (No, aosp is unusable, and Google is working to make it more unusable). Google = no privacy Therefore, Android = no privacy Q.E.D
IOS = Closed Source, Therefore only their word there is no backdoor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis? Can't wait for iOS to have the deniability factor of having different passwords unlock different things :) For the sensitive stuff, have periods of time that require several computers to solve cryptographic challenges in order to unlock the phone. Some of which may be your friends' devices. If they don't hear from you and your intended hosts in a certain amount of time, phone stays locked.…
That's the worst case for rubber hose. Even if you give up all your passwords they can still keep beating you to get the "real" pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis? Can't wait for iOS to have the deniability factor of having different passwords unlock different things :) For the sensitive stuff, have periods of time that require several computers to solve cryptographic challenges in order to unlock the phone. Some of which may be your friends' devices. If they don't hear from you and your intended hosts in a certain amount of time, phone stays locked.…
So, since the vendor will undoubtedly inject themselves into this complex situation for 'usability', you are basically arguing for devices that are never actually controlled by their user because terrorism. Good 9/11 argument there.
The user controls their device to the exact same extent now. You have to trust the apps and OS you use. And iOS isn't exactly open source either.
I am saying the user can choose to select beacons to unlock their phone during a trip somewhere. The user CHOOSES to lock their phone in a way that requires things additional to the password, things that represent having made it safely past the security lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the same thing reading this title and it makes me want to invest. Companies who ignore user privacy are in for a hit I think, in the wake of equifax. I'd support companies with excellent privacy / data security records being exclusive brokers of my information. Apple is on that very short list.
> Companies who ignore user privacy are in for a hit I think, in the wake of equifax. Are they? Do people care that much? I think, except for those who actually have their credit stolen, the average person just sees it as another headline of the world today, and will move on, the way people still fly United.
Until people's lives are actually impacted by the lack of privacy, they'll continue doing what they always do. Once something requires action on the person's part, (either credit being stolen from them, or something along those lines) most people won't take preemptive actions. And this would need to happen on a massive scale for giant corporations to change their ways.
For anyone concerned that authorities force you to give up your password to them (thus allowing them to image your device), you can pair your iPhone to a computer with a MDM (managed device profile), which will prevent any other device from connecting to it. iOS security researcher (now Apple employee) Jonathan Zdziarski has 2 blog posts on this: Counter-Forensics: Pair-Lock Your Device with Apple’s Configurator: htt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I choose to read this as sarcasm, but the fruit fandom here doesn't seem to think so. I'll trust Google's engineering prowess and rigor before I trust Apple, who couldn't even bother to verify emails before leaking Apple ID attributes towards that email, and who allowed things to "fappen." But I'll trust none of them to "guard my privates." Please.
It sounds an awful lot like you've had an embarrassing personal experience and are blaming Apple
Apples security record is not better than say, Adobe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish Google Fi would support iOS devices. I'm curious - how can a carrier support and not support certain networks? Isn't that like saying I wish my ISP supported Linux?
Google Fi only allows Their Nexus and Pixel phones on their network. It is like an ISP seeing that you are running Linux and not letting your traffic through, just a bit more complicated than that. (SIM Card, Modems, Frequencies)
So, I don't think it is physically possible to do the "two provider at the same time" thingy without a special hardware (you'd need two parallel "radio" circuits on your phone).
And with that, your analogy falls sadly on its face, as you seem to indicate an artificial "software" limitation has been set to prevent us from using Google Fi on our iPhones.