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

Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#101

Post by mmaunder »

We came out and vocally supported Apple on our blog yesterday. The response from our customers, mostly consumers and small businesses, was overwhelming. Many long comments and passionate views.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/02/wordfence-supports-st...

I'd encourage every other tech company who has the ability to talk about this (in other words you don't sell to the intelligence community), to also inform your customers and take a viewpoint on this issue.

This is obviously nothing new, but we're finally at the point of inflection we've all been anticipating. If Apple caves, it will set a precedent that the government can use a law from the 1700's (and anything else they can dredge up) to force surveillance and backdoors on tech companies in the name of security. For startups alone, even if you ignore the chilling effects and impact on privacy, to simply comply could be onerous enough to hurt innovation.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#102

Post by venomsnake »

vinceguidry wrote: post #87
venomsnake wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is the root of the problem. Apple can control how the system is unlocked, they can update it, so they are able to circumvent their own measures. I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to do it with secure enclave too. So apple didn't provided their users security. They provided security with potential backdoor in the design. So I say - it is good if FBI can force apple to exploit their own backdoors - to l…

> They provided security with potential backdoor in the design. I'm not certain what you're asking for here. A device that is completely impregnable?

Depends on completely - but device that does not store critical encryption keys and allows users to set their master keys is a good start. The problem for apple is that every device that could be secured against malicious apple cannot be forced to be part of their walled garden.

Or just some honest marketing. Like - your device is not secure if we cooperate with LEO and let consumer make their choice.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#103

Post by ntakasaki »

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…

This one comes to mind, which they left unfixed for years.

http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/Apple...

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#104

Post by Sakiina_ »

mconley wrote: post #100
gtrubetskoy wrote: post #3

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. This is why the others have little to say on the subject - there is no issue of a "backdoor", because there is no wall to begin with when it comes to Google or FB, their business model depends on reading and analyzing your emails and posts.

> 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.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#105

Post by eridius »

ntakasaki wrote: post #103
eridius wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This one comes to mind, which they left unfixed for years. http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/Apple...

From the article, it sounds like it was a hard problem to solve.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#106

Post by weinzierl »

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…

   > 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 basically a CalDAV server. You can setup your own CalDAV and sync with that if you like. On the iDevice you have to set the parameters for your server which makes it slightly harder to setup than iCloud, but that's just the way it is and not Apple's fault. There are no other stumbling blocks to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Once set up it works like a charm. I can say "Hey Siri, remind me to buy pasta" and a split second later I have a new VTODO on my CalDAV server.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#107

Post by mcphage »

BEEdwards wrote: post #39
mcphage wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something wrong if people don't want to express their opinions because of fear. Not people—companies.

They have the same free speech rights as people, so companies arguably do have opinions.

They do, but the implications of their fears are different.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#108

Post by vinceguidry »

venomsnake wrote: post #102
vinceguidry wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They provided security with potential backdoor in the design. I'm not certain what you're asking for here. A device that is completely impregnable?

Depends on completely - but device that does not store critical encryption keys and allows users to set their master keys is a good start. The problem for apple is that every device that could be secured against malicious apple cannot be forced to be part of their walled garden. Or just some honest marketing. Like - your device is not secure if we cooperate with LEO and let consumer make their choice.

I see. Never let profit stand in the way of principles. I can understand the appeal, even if I don't share it.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#109

Post by karlshea »

harryjo wrote: post #92
karlshea wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't think Apple gave one second's thought about Google when they decided to take a stand on this issue.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/29/9413655/apple-privacy-poli...

Right, they are sometimes using it as a marketing advantage, but I don't think "hurting Google" is why they care about encryption/privacy in general or why they are standing up about this court case specifically.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#110

Post by mstade »

mordocai wrote: post #64
ignoramous wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just made me realise that Apple is a true "do no evil" company and not Google, for all its technology powress and fancy marketing. A sad realisation as I have been using Google products for almost everything-- they pitch up everything under the F/OSS banner and it's so tempting. I think I should consider moving to iOS pretty seriously. I had been dismissing it for being over-priced and not being OSS. But the tru…

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 from Apple to any other vendor – regardless of whether it's software (migrating data, chiefly) or hardware. At least, I don't think they're significantly worse than any other vendor.

Post reply on HN