141–150 of 393 posts
Some good comments on this from cryptographer Matt Green here: https://x.com/matthew_d_green/status/1800291897245835616?t=C... (I wonder if Matt realizes nobody can read his tweets without a X account? Use BlueSky or Masto man) Edit: here's his thread combined https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1800291897245835616.html?...
https://nitter.poast.org/matthew_d_green/status/180029189724...
It is not possible for this to be fully private in the United States because the government not only can force Apple to open up the kimono, it can also forbid it to talk about it. There’s not really anything Apple can do to work around this “limitation”. Thank your “representative” for extending the PATRIOT Act when you get a chance.
Slightly off-topic, "open up the kimono" sounds disturbing and creepy to me as an Asian. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
It is not possible for this to be fully private in the United States because the government not only can force Apple to open up the kimono, it can also forbid it to talk about it. There’s not really anything Apple can do to work around this “limitation”. Thank your “representative” for extending the PATRIOT Act when you get a chance.
Slightly off-topic, "open up the kimono" sounds disturbing and creepy to me as an Asian. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
Read through it all, it still comes down to "trust us". Apple can sign and authorise an update at any time that will backdoor it, and the government is the stroke of a pen away from forcing them to, all completely silently. I get that there's benefit to what they are doing. But the problem of selling a message of trust is you absolutely have to be 100% truthful about it, and them failing to be transparent that people…
They already have root. Their software is closed source. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from uploading all of your data right now. If you don't trust the people making your OS, your problems are much deeper than fretting about off-device AI processing.
Even if the org has been trustworthy to this point, I think this step makes it more likely (maybe still unlikely, but more likely) that in the future they do look at your data, as less things have to change for that to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have root. Their software is closed source. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from uploading all of your data right now. If you don't trust the people making your OS, your problems are much deeper than fretting about off-device AI processing.
That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that direction.
What makes you think this?
The main difference seems to be verifiability down to the firmware level.
Nitro enclaves does not provide measurements of the firmware[0], or hypervisor, furthermore they state that the hypervisor code can be updated transparently at any time[1].
Apple is going to provide images of the secure enclave processor operating system(sepOS), as well as the bootloader.
It also sounds like they will provide the source code for these components too, although the blog post isn't clear on that.
[0]: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/enclaves/latest/user/set-up-atte....
[1]: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/pdfs/whitepapers/latest/security...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have root. Their software is closed source. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from uploading all of your data right now. If you don't trust the people making your OS, your problems are much deeper than fretting about off-device AI processing.
That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have root. Their software is closed source. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from uploading all of your data right now. If you don't trust the people making your OS, your problems are much deeper than fretting about off-device AI processing.
That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that direction.
Trust can be abused, certainly, but it also allows collaboration and specialisation, and without those I doubt we'd have gotten very far.
Read through it all, it still comes down to "trust us". Apple can sign and authorise an update at any time that will backdoor it, and the government is the stroke of a pen away from forcing them to, all completely silently. I get that there's benefit to what they are doing. But the problem of selling a message of trust is you absolutely have to be 100% truthful about it, and them failing to be transparent that people…
They already have root. Their software is closed source. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from uploading all of your data right now. If you don't trust the people making your OS, your problems are much deeper than fretting about off-device AI processing.
That said I really don't disagree with this point at all in terms of it being a valid problem. It's not a fixable problem either (it comes down to, again, building trustworthy computers) but it could be biased way towards being solved whereas today it is still "trust me bro". I don't think Apple will be the company to make progress towards this, though.