Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#51

Post by crucini » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:10 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #15

wheels wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People also use their home internet connections to violate IP, confidentiality and insider trading agreements. Using the purported Apple-logic from this post, Apple is (indirectly) paying for that too, so shouldn't they be able to monitor those connections as well? A utility argument here, I don't believe is the way to approach this. There are all sort of "useful" things that companies could do that most folks would…

Scott, employees generally are only able to use their home Internet connections to violate confidentiality because their work computers and connections are poorly policed. And, it is as a direct result of rampant abuse of company resources that companies are now deploying draconian security controls on worker machines, locking down USB connections and intercepting and parsing Word documents in the OS kernel. I've bee…

    parsing Word documents in the OS kernel.

This is fascinating. What's the use case? And can you point me to the product?

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#52

Post by ajju » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:13 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #37

tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is a stupid analogy.

I don't think it is. People will often trade something for money that they really shouldn't. If a person has $a and wants $b, and someone will give them $b in exchange for $a, people will often give up $a regardless of the long-term consequences. Apparently selling children was a problem for society, so it is generally not legal now. People made the wrong decision, and it hurt society, so now making the wrong decisio…

So you think people are stupid enough that they cannot decide whether selling their privacy is a good decision, therefore the government should make this decision for them?

How about health..we know that people are so stupid that they will sell their health for food (eat cheap fast food that is horrible for their health). Should we ban fast food?

May be we should let people decide what people are comfortable with.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#53

Post by CamperBob » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:16 AM UTC

They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them. If the cellphone is an iPhone, it gets backed up onto a laptop. "In fact, at the beginning they used to say that the iPhones were really their property, since Apple gave every employee a free iPhone," he points out. All the employees are asked to unlock and disable any locking features in their cellphones, and then the special forces will proceed to check them for recent activity.

ROFL. Gizmodo.com has been trolled.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#54

Post by antonovka2 » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:22 AM UTC

wooster wrote: post #50

brown9-2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

"They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them." I mean, really, come on. That's just laughable.

I can also confirm that Apple does not have a "no camera" policy on campus.

Or a "gestapo". The security is very well run, however.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#55

Post by antonovka2 » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:23 AM UTC

sown wrote: post #49

geekles wrote: post #16

This sounds like due diligence to protect shareholder interests. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - overheard in an interview somewhere.

And if I'm not a criminal, I shouldn't be treated as such. It's a tad selfish, if you don't mind me saying, of you to automatically assume it's OK to give away my rights in addition to yours.

This is Apple, not the Government. If you don't like the legal terms of employment, California is an at-will state. Quit.

That said, this article is total ridiculous bunk. Gizmodo has been trolled.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#56

Post by antonovka2 » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:28 AM UTC

cmelbye wrote: post #45

tptacek wrote: post #2

I'm pretty sure people are in fact allowed to bring cameras onto the Apple campus, and, from what I can tell, there are no metal detectors or bag searches of any sort there. My knowledge is secondhand, but I'm inclined to believe that much of this article is BS.

I remember seeing a photo of an iPhone developer in front of a huge banner with a screenshot of his app inside of an Apple building on their campus, and it was labeled something like "Secret photo of me in front of banner with our app!" or something of that nature, so it's a possibility that they have restrictions on cameras.

They have a restriction on taking pictures of things you shouldn't (which includes most of the campus), but they don't have restrictions on cameras.

In addition to there being no written rule against it, I've openly and regularly hauled digital video and still cameras across campus without ever hearing any complaint from the omnipresent security guards.

How do you think people work on iPhoto/iMovie/FCP? Check out cameras from a locked facility?

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#57

Post by silencio » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:32 AM UTC

antonovka2 wrote: post #54

wooster wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them." I mean, really, come on. That's just laughable.

I can also confirm that Apple does not have a "no camera" policy on campus. Or a "gestapo". The security is very well run, however.

While Apple employees aren't subject to that, if you're just wandering around as a visitor taking pictures, security will ask you to stop.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#58

Post by tptacek » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:34 AM UTC

crucini wrote: post #51

tptacek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott, employees generally are only able to use their home Internet connections to violate confidentiality because their work computers and connections are poorly policed. And, it is as a direct result of rampant abuse of company resources that companies are now deploying draconian security controls on worker machines, locking down USB connections and intercepting and parsing Word documents in the OS kernel. I've bee…

parsing Word documents in the OS kernel. This is fascinating. What's the use case? And can you point me to the product?

Not the specific one, for NDA reasons, but Google for "Win32 data loss prevention" and you'll find a bunch.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#59

Post by tptacek » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:36 AM UTC

wooster wrote: post #50

brown9-2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

"They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them." I mean, really, come on. That's just laughable.

"Getting into the campus" is also a giveaway, in that "the campus" is basically "everything in Cupertino within 5 minutes of 280".

And of course, if you've ever walked up to those buildings, they're just "guarded" by receptionists.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#60

Post by jrockway » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:46 AM UTC

ajju wrote: post #52

jrockway wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is. People will often trade something for money that they really shouldn't. If a person has $a and wants $b, and someone will give them $b in exchange for $a, people will often give up $a regardless of the long-term consequences. Apparently selling children was a problem for society, so it is generally not legal now. People made the wrong decision, and it hurt society, so now making the wrong decisio…

So you think people are stupid enough that they cannot decide whether selling their privacy is a good decision, therefore the government should make this decision for them? How about health..we know that people are so stupid that they will sell their health for food (eat cheap fast food that is horrible for their health). Should we ban fast food? May be we should let people decide what people are comfortable with.

May be we should let people decide what people are comfortable with.

The problem is when people stop caring about privacy because so many others made that decision for them, and the choice completely disappears. I would want to ban fast food if all healthy food became unavailable as a result of its popularity.