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

Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#441

Post by rvz »

russelg wrote: post #336

Where is the hacker spirit here? The number of Apple apologists that have crawled out to say "see? I told you so!!" is saddening. It is a bit dicey when you're charging for it, but since Mini was entirely client-side it would be feasible for a free version to exist. Apple claims iMessage is E2EE, do we have proof they aren't siphoning the messages from the client once it's been decrypted? The level of trust we have t…

> Where is the hacker spirit here? The number of Apple apologists that have crawled out to say "see? I told you so!!" is saddening.

You should not be surprised around the risk of depending on reverse engineered third party integrations which the provider can seek to cut you off of unauthorized interactions.

> It is a bit dicey when you're charging for it, but since Mini was entirely client-side it would be feasible for a free version to exist.

That makes no sense for Beeper.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#442

Post by pxeboot »

zxt_tzx wrote: post #427
pxeboot wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple didn't even need to block any device identifiers, just the IPs Beeper Mini was using to connect to the APN service. This could have been blocked in minutes. The delay was likely to get approval from Legal.

> just the IPs Beeper Mini was using to connect to the APN service. Hmm, wouldn't blocking IPs be overly broad and risked affecting regular users? Considering that IPs are scarce and constantly recycled by ISPs etc. Blocking device identifiers sounds more targeted and, for that reason, realistic.

If you take a look at their How it Works post [1] this is not an entirety client side implementation, so there would presumably be a small number of IPs that would need to be blocked.

[1] https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#443

Post by mjg59 »

For those arguing that this is a privacy or security response: the first pypush commit was in April, with the first working demo commit at the beginning of May. If it's a security or privacy issue, that means it's been exploited for over 6 months without Apple taking action. How many other iMessage conversations have already ended up in non-Apple clients? Why didn't Apple notice until there was a big public splash about it?

(edit: typo)

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#444

Post by [deleted] »

georgespencer wrote: post #364
maxlin wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a super serious comment, it's more about how ridiculous the tone of "We are doing this for YOUR protection" would be. On a more serious note though, in the end Apple absolutely has the power of increasing everyone's capability and security by doing something like setting up a playbook of how iMessage could just use Signal protocol and how other actors could join in, or really anything else but doing this.

> It's not a super serious comment, it's more about how ridiculous the tone of "We are doing this for YOUR protection" would be. Right now I can presume a basic level of device security across all iMessage threads I have. Beeper deranges that: E2EE is still there, but Beeper exposes my correspondence to device security weaknesses from other OEMs, malware, keyloggers, screen scrapers, etc. as a result of lax app marke…

[deleted]

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#445

Post by lotsofpulp »

prmoustache wrote: post #423
haswell wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An android user in an otherwise iMessage only group chat tends to mess things up. Those Apple users tend to get frustrated by it and group chat exclusion is a real thing. It’s less about a specific feature set and more about inclusion and acceptance from/by peers. This is especially prevalent among the younger crowd. Think high school group dynamics playing out with phones. And then on top of that, photos/videos are…

Are these iMessage group chat really a thing? In my part of the world Whatsapp is the defacto standard for group chat and even for things like scheduling anpointment to a doctor/dentist/hairdresser. And that is because it is available on android, apple devices and even those cheap kaios halfsmartphones.

> Are these iMessage group chat really a thing?

For some, but everyone knows and has the capacity to download WhatsApp.

The root issue is there is a lot of judgment about Android users, hence wanting to restrict chats to iMessage. It’s a signal that you are part of the in group vs out group.

Although, it is objectively convenient to have a group of all iMessage users at events, because any pics/video get shared at high quality with no extra work.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#446

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Say it with your chest:

Building an application on someone else’s platform means they control your product

Doesn’t matter that “we all know that” this will continue to happen as long as closed platforms are the only thing people are incentivized to build/use.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#447

Post by m3kw9 »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #45

> Reached for comment, Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky did not deny that Apple has successfully blocked Beeper Mini. “If it’s Apple, then I think the biggest question is... if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they stop a service that enables their own users to now send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using unsecure SMS? With their announcement of RCS su…

Is like saying if they care about privacy why do Apple allow users to buy android? Why not give your iPhone away for free so they don’t get to use it.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#448

Post by AndrewKemendo »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #378
runnerup wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember another post that was very well-received where an individual hacker wrote his own homebrew iMessage client for his own personal purposes. HN really liked that! I think HN exists at an intersection of individual hackerism and business. If a project is clearly by-hackers-for-hackers it gets a lot more leeway for unsustainable concepts / implementations. But this is building a business on adversarial interope…

You're allowed to admire the technical implementation while denouncing the business model at the same time.

This is IMO the exact spirit we should have

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#449

Post by jorvi »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #378
runnerup wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember another post that was very well-received where an individual hacker wrote his own homebrew iMessage client for his own personal purposes. HN really liked that! I think HN exists at an intersection of individual hackerism and business. If a project is clearly by-hackers-for-hackers it gets a lot more leeway for unsustainable concepts / implementations. But this is building a business on adversarial interope…

You're allowed to admire the technical implementation while denouncing the business model at the same time.

Is letting our hearts bleed for trillion dollar companies really the best way to spend our finite compassionate bandwidth?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#450

Post by Brian_K_White »

Pulcinella wrote: post #415
Brian_K_White wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes in fact they are. I have the amazing ability to recognize a problem even if I don't have it myself*. If you really can't do that, perhaps you should try. * Android user in the US where this dynamic primarily exists, but I just don't care because I'm not 20 any more. I only very occasionally need to send a video or picture to anyone, and in those cases, I know enough to use email or a google photos link or somethi…

[flagged]

Are you really this obtuse?
Post reply on HN