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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#801

Post by lotsofpulp »

Arch485 wrote: post #505
blindriver wrote: post #108

As someone in tech, I think it's awesome they were able to find a way into iMessage. As an iPhone user, I hate the idea that spammers can now use iMessage, and I'm glad the service was taken down. Both things can be true at once.

but... Spammers can still message you via SMS? In either case, they just need to get your phone number. SMS vs iMessage doesn't make much of a difference.

The difference is that spam is so rare on iMessage that the blue color message has the trait of being more trustworthy. In 15 years, I have only received 2 blue message, both within the last few months.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#802

Post by sbuk »

SirMaster wrote: post #280

So does this also now break iMessage for older iOS devices too? I thought someone said something about that to block beeper mini, Apple would have to also block older iOS devices as that’s the method they were using that wasn’t as locked down.

Take anything any of these "tech" YouTubers say with a dumpster-full of salt. It makes my blood boil when I read "But Linus says..." or "MKBHD did a s test where..." They are all just fanboys in the truest sense.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#803

Post by rezonant »

Grustaf wrote: post #786
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course you can. It's sitting there on your Mac where you can use it as much as you like. For what? I own a Mac an iPhone and an iPad but iMessage and FaceTime are entirely useless to me because no one I communicate with on a regular basis uses Apple devices. Same thing with various iCloud sharing features. Not using the family sharing offers is entirely uneconomical as well. So what happens is that I gravitate t…

If you don't want to communicate with other Apple owners over iMessage, then there is no issue. What Beeper set out to do was to solve the opposite problem, people who don't have Apple devices, but want to use iMessage. And the poster above did have an Apple device, and wanted to use iMessage, but didn't seem to realise that iMessage works on Macs too.

Only via email address. You need an iPhone to receive iMessage via phone number, and in a country where texting is dominant, you're going to be texted via that phone number, even by your iPhone friends.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#804

Post by sbuk »

globular-toast wrote: post #756
sbuk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's high time we demand open-source messaging standards across all platforms. What, like this https://github.com/signalapp ? The only thing holding this back are end users. Not corporations or governments. A safe, vetable 'standard' exists, it just needs ratifying by a standards body. It is available cross platform and is free of charge and free-as-in-beer (mostly AGPL I believe). Messages app exists to send SMS,…

Nope. You can't blame uses for this. The reason we have governments at all is because individuals all operating independently cannot get out of local optima like this

I can and I did - installing alternatives is easy, as is using them, as proven by literally the rest of the world oustside of North America. In fact, free and open alternatives exist.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#805

Post by twicetwice »

dwaite wrote: post #684
Zuiii wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed about the nonsensical first claim. We have many third-party clients for other messaging platforms where privacy and security are a primary feature. It's completely tenable, especially for a player like Apple. Or put another way: If the privacy and security of imessage is compromised by someone building another client, I'd argue that you never had either to begin with.

> Completely agreed about the nonsensical first claim. We have many third-party clients for other messaging platforms where privacy and security are a primary feature. I can't think of an any with independent implementations. For instance, have a few third party Signal clients, which work by using the official libSignal . These are not third party clients, but third party GUIs. Use of libSignal on the official Signal…

Does Matrix not qualify?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#806

Post by rezonant »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #707
crazygringo wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the hacker spirit here? The hacker spirit is the fun of reverse engineering. The hacker spirit is about personal use. It's not expecting to be able to turn it into a business , or a popular app, that wouldn't quickly be shut down. That's just common sense. > Myself for example owns a Macbook, but an Android phone. Am I not allowed to use iMessage? I paid the toll. Of course you can. It's sitting there on y…

> Of course you can. It's sitting there on your Mac where you can use it as much as you like. For what? I own a Mac an iPhone and an iPad but iMessage and FaceTime are entirely useless to me because no one I communicate with on a regular basis uses Apple devices. Same thing with various iCloud sharing features. Not using the family sharing offers is entirely uneconomical as well. So what happens is that I gravitate t…

> but I’m using my “spare” Pixel phone more often because the software suits me better.

Welcome! Pixel is all you need.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#808

Post by hoistbypetard »

danShumway wrote: post #640
cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is an entirely self-centred view. The only people that equate this sort of transparency with genuine security are computer nerds. These tend to be the sorts of people that don’t sit very highly on my internal list of “people who stand to benefit the most from increased privacy measures”. For…literally every other member of society, this sort of implementation detail doesn’t mean anything^. They hear some (fr…

> You know what is a much more realistic threat? Some stupid third-party client on the Play store that exfiltrates all messages sent and received. One way to avoid that outcome would be to have a first-party client on the Play store. Instead, Apple drops all message security entirely from cross-platform communications for iOS users, allowing anyone to read those messages whether or not they have a crowbar. This is se…

> Instead, Apple drops all message security entirely from cross-platform communications for iOS users, allowing anyone to read those messages whether or not they have a crowbar.

I think that's my biggest gripe with the situation. Or my second-biggest. My biggest gripe is that the only notification that your messages are now not end-to-end encrypted is the green bubble. They don't tell you anywhere that the green bubble (also) means that.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#809

Post by bongobingo1 »

nurettin wrote: post #793
dzikimarian wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Hacker spirit is owning your machine to its full extent. For fun, for profit or just for mayhem. Apple using instant messaging, where no meaningful innovation happened for decades to build their moat is pathetic and disgusting.

> Hacker spirit is owning your machine to its full extent. I thought it was about owning anyone's machine to the full extent. Did this change during the past 30 years?

hacking vs cracking

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#810

Post by kevincox »

georgespencer wrote: post #219
LordDragonfang wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) is exactly what that quote is pointing out. If Apple actually cared about its users' security, they would see this as a gap, and would have addressed it already. The fact that they haven't means that, despite all their posturing about being a security-first platform, they care more about lock-in and marketing than they do about user security.

Putting aside that I count at least two glaring examples from this list[^1] in your reply, I suspect Apple would argue that it is in fact _solely_ preoccupied with its users' security: that's why iMessage is end to end encrypted and Apple does not offer 2FA / OTPs via SMS. Apple does not generally try to mitigate security issues which are beyond its control (e.g. non-Apple devices, protocols). [^1]: https://en.wikipe…

This is like making a car where the airbags only deploy if you hit another car of the same brand.

Sure, if this car is super safe it may be better if both you and the other driver both had it. But it is clearly better to have airbags, even if the other car is less safe than it could be if it was from the first-party brand.

It is one thing to not try to mitigate security issues outside their control and another thing to remove possible security because you don't control it entirely.

Post reply on HN