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

Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

security-embedded.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 213 posts

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#121

Post by zepto »

craigsmansion wrote: post #106
zepto wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re exaggerating, and then falling into the same traps you are accusing him of. A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that. I agree with you about his use of loaded terms, and the dismissiveness. The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5706 The lie of omission you assert isn’t a lie. N…

> A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that. The exclusive "or" in "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?" still makes it a false dichotomy. > The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. "if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code.": is not somet…

Many invalid points, and straw men in your comment. Here are the more important ones:

“The argument here is that without Apple taking control of the user's software the user would fall prey to the privacy violating practices of the likes of Google and Microsoft, which is not true. Hence the "lie by omission".”

You say it’s ‘not true’. I think it’s quite likely to be true.

But more importantly - it’s an argument. Not a fact. You just happen to disagree with him. It’s not a lie of omission to simply come to a different conclusion.

He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist. You are arguing that he is an apologist. That is both ad hominem, and a loaded term, and it’s you who is using it.

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#122

Post by zepto »

api wrote: post #119
zepto wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary code signing is the only current solution to this problem. It allows fraudulent, malicious, or easily exploited code to be disabled.

How can revoking apps stop a phishing attack?

Easy: Revoke the certificate of the app doing the phishing.

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#123

Post by saagarjha »

zepto wrote: post #73
staticman2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not in my interest to have Apple censors control what web browser I run on my phone or what games I can play on my phone.

You aren’t their customer.

I’m an Apple customer and their interests don’t always line up with mine.

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#124

Post by zepto »

black_puppydog wrote: post #91
zepto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I bought a car knowing that is how it worked, then of course I do. Note: I agree that scenario isn’t desirable. However there is no slippery slope.

For me, the slippery slope is exactly allowing this sort of transaction to be called "buying". And yeah, when people lost access to their zune music, or their steam stuff, they did get upset. Mind you, I would not outlaw the transaction. But calling it a "sale" is false advertising in my book.

I own my Mac. I can do anything I want with it.

How is that not ‘buying’?

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#125

Post by zepto »

arvindamirtaa wrote: post #114
zepto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I bought a car knowing that is how it worked, then of course I do. Note: I agree that scenario isn’t desirable. However there is no slippery slope.

Unfortunately, there kinda is. This is what Tim Cook said about govt agencies wanting a backdoor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZmeZyDGkQ0 - right around 4:25. When I buy an Apple product, this is part of what I think Apple does to protect their customers' privacy - No matter what, not even if the govt says so. Now suddenly, we're back to talking about whether we can trust Apple after they expressly told us not t…

What has this got to do with a certificate revocation server performing poorly?

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#126

Post by alpaca128 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #40
bobince wrote: post #11

If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. > It comes down to an argument of trust - do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests No. I mean really very obviously no. Neither Microsoft. Nor Google. Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by act…

> Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by acting counter to them? I get what you're saying, but (as an Apple fanboy) I have to point out that Apple's incentives are to act in your, the customer's, interests since that is what they are selling now. They are differentiating themselves from the Googles by taking user privacy seriou…

> They are differentiating themselves from the Googles by taking user privacy seriously.

Then please explain how that is consistent with Apple setting Google as default search engine in Safari ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/1/21310591/apple-google-sear... ).

As always, Apple only aims for environmentally-friendly actions and privacy as long as they profit from it and it makes a good news article. But then they ignore privacy when you're not looking, and making it unnecessarily hard to repair your devices.

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#127

Post by alfonsodev »

coldtea wrote: post #108
bobince wrote: post #11

If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. > It comes down to an argument of trust - do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests No. I mean really very obviously no. Neither Microsoft. Nor Google. Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by act…

> If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. Well, "unacceptable mess" are your words. It's totally acceptable to me that there could be issues on a feature / launch that need to be ironed out, unless we're talking about aviation software or pacemakers. If we deemed "unacceptable" any misstep or early issue, we wouldn't even have fire,…

But this thing frezzes your whole computer, it happen to me while switching internet providers, I could have worked perfectly fine offline, but I've lost hours, which I'm not getting back. I don't know if there has been an apology but I would like to see one.

Edit: By saying this I'm not endorsing OP exact words, but the failure is not a minor, besides hours of work lost, it was a major stress, as I though I would have to take the computer to repair, or replace it, and I can still manage, but many people can't afford it right now.

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#129

Post by zepto »

jhardy54 wrote: post #62
jb1991 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your tone here does not seem proportionally appropriate to the level of discourse this article is attempting. The fact of the matter is that computers offer myriad ways to compromise your life and behave maliciously, and avoiding that is a tall challenge for any company. Apple is trying it their way, and you can try it yours. But to call it Stockholm Syndrome is an unfortunate take on these efforts.

Can you explain why? You've offered assertions but haven't explained why you feel that way.

It’s a form of bulverism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Re: Application trust is hard, but Apple does it well

#130

Post by zepto »

saagarjha wrote: post #123
zepto wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren’t their customer.

I’m an Apple customer and their interests don’t always line up with mine.

By ‘customer’ I mean target customer in a marketing sense.

In this sense, you are not their customer.

I am not either.

Post reply on HN