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

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 645 posts

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#601

Post by jrm4 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #402
phendrenad2 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a citation needed for something that's logically obvious? Why do we need to provide links to an "expert" telling us 3+3=6 when we can just use a calculator?

Because you are getting the basics of economics wrong. You have spent many years of schooling learning to count. Have you studied economics for at least 1 year of formal education? Have you read a book by a real economist? Read 'Economics, the user's guide'. This is not how they think, this is not how they argue. What we have here, is a person who hasnt learnt math arguing that 3 + 3 = 7 and claiming it's logically o…

Lol, Making me flex this one.

I have an undergrad degree in economics from Harvard University. Gotta say it makes me pretty well equipped to poke at how BS it often is.

edit: this is me idiotically angrily responding incorrectly to the wrong person. leaving it for the message "don't trust these clowns with fancy degrees, they often are clueless" :)

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#602

Post by s3p »

rootusrootus wrote: post #551
xen2xen1 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had 25 IPhones all turn off the SMS fallback on the upgrade, and found Apple documentation for such. It was an intentional act, and happened over and over.

Can you link to the apple documentation? I've never experienced this phenomenon you are describing, nor has any of my friends & family.

Probably not since it likely does not exist. Will update or delete this if they do follow through.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#603

Post by microtherion »

oblio wrote: post #497
microtherion wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hotels and many other places have started offering USB A and USB C ports. I think we're close to the point (5-10 years away?) where you could go to the US from Europe with just a laptop, for 2 weeks, and you'd be able to charge it just by using USB C ports available in restaurants, hotels, bars, offices, etc. Yeah, but I don't think there are USB C razors yet. > On top of that, for wall outlets the EU is mostly sta…

> Yeah, but I don't think there are USB C razors yet. Give it a few years :-) I have a hair clipper that uses micro-USB. > France and Germany have different outlets (although there are plugs that work in both), and as far as I can tell, Italy has a completely different outlet from either of them. See this: https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/EuropePlugsSockets.html In continental Europe in practice you only care about 2…

> Sucks to be Italy or Switzerland, I guess :-)

Or Denmark. That still makes 3 incompatible standards in the EU, and 5 incompatible standards in Europe overall.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#604

Post by hellojesus »

areeh wrote: post #584
hellojesus wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Network effects can be overcome locally, by talking with your contacts and getting them to move to a new app/communication mechanism. It takes time, but compelling arguments will win in the end.

I think one of the big missing pieces in your parent comment about choice and negative externalities has to do with this network effect and I do not think the argument that it can be overcome locally is a very compelling counter.

It certainly is a difficult thing to do, but we see it happen time and time again. TikTok is now the biggest app, and it was nowhere a few years ago. Same with things like Insta, What's app, Signal, etc.

It is definitely a hard thing to overcome but not impossible. Especially as people become more privacy focused. I, for example, have had zero luck moving my family to Signal, and I'm the only non iPhone in the family network with my grapheneos phone and receive constant complaints about how I mess up group threads.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#605

Post by f_devd »

hedora wrote: post #593
f_devd wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encrypted at rest does not actually do anything against interoperability of protocols (as I put in my comment), a secure element/coprocessor is nice but still does nothing against compatibility. Even if the entire protocol is somehow in the coprocessor (ala BPF/SGX) there is nothing preventing the counterparty from running it on a regular CPU.

Interoperability can break security properties though. If I send you an iMessage, I can be confident that someone that steals your phone (while it is locked) cannot read that message (ignoring things like state-sponsored attacks).

Prolonged unsupervised physical access is usually already seen as a compromise. Regardless although there is a lot more publicity on Apple's "online attack" difficulty, it's mostly the same story on any semi-recent version of android[0] (barring any unknown zero-days/backdoors from specific manufacturers).

[0]: https://theconversation.com/what-if-the-fbi-tried-to-crack-a...

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#606

Post by hellojesus »

jrm4 wrote: post #600
hellojesus wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage. > All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Your very argument is contradictory. The law does require Apple to do something. It requires them to reveal trade secrets and IP.

This is nitpicky. Fine. It does not require Apple to "build" something or to engage in additional work.

Agreed. It was nitpicky. But it still remains that the legislation removes a competitive advantage and possibly forces IP to be revealed.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#607

Post by dcow »

_8j50 wrote: post #587
coldtea wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutley not true. The law codifies what is already true with respect to rights but the law also fails to codify rights as with womens rights and involuntary servitude, women and black people didn't suddenly gain rights when laws were passed, they've always had those rights Nope. They got them when those laws were passed. You might think that they always "should have had" those rights, which is valid, but differe…

> But they absoltely didn't have them, and if they attempted to exercize them as if they had them, they'd be ignored, prevented, beaten up, or worse. Our disagreement is that you think a right is something granted by the law and inability to excecise a right means you don't have it. A right simply means there is a valid justification to allow a person to do not do something. You can have a right and it can unjustly b…

I agree with your philosophical understanding of rights and law and government. I disagree that iMessage is free or that because it's free the government does have authority over it. And I disagree that you're applying your principles consistently to your argument or to the situation at hand.

First off, arguably it's very much not free because it's only available if you purchase an Apple product. The cost of operating iMessage is built into the price you pay to use Apple's services and software when purchasing their hardware. I can't go to Apple.com and freely sign up for iMessage.

Second, I can't set up a free lemonade stand on my lawn and secretly add harmful substances to the lemonade and gov't can't touch me because I didn't charge a fee. I mean come on, that's not how the government works either.

We cede a monopoly on violence to the government so they may govern all aspects of life where we believe they are needed, not just commerce. In order to protect and maintain a free society, the government must discourage and punish people that encroach on other peoples' rights universally.

If we reach consensus that as a society the mechanism we use to communicate with each other should be standardized and open so that anybody may interoperate with it, because it's in line with a free society where we believe individuals have a right to the liberty of running their own software in whatever way they see fit (much like your choice of car or clothing), then that's that and the government can step in and try to protect those rights.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#608

Post by jrm4 »

hellojesus wrote: post #606
jrm4 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nitpicky. Fine. It does not require Apple to "build" something or to engage in additional work.

Agreed. It was nitpicky. But it still remains that the legislation removes a competitive advantage and possibly forces IP to be revealed.

Yes. That would be the point. I don't think anyone would meaningfully argue AGAINST the idea that it is "detrimental to Apple and their interests," which is literally all this means.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#609

Post by dcow »

hedora wrote: post #592
dcow wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I don't think "formally verified" means what you want it to here. You mean there a hardware checks signature chain from boot to kernel, secure boot. Apple's software has too many security vulnerability to be considered "formally verified". 2. Android does support device attestation and secure boot. I 100% would love to see our future SMS replacement require frequent signatures from device attestation hardware (why…

It is a fork of this: https://people.cs.ksu.edu/~danielwang/BAS/klein-2014-microke... This is not the kernel that runs on the host CPU. It is the one that handles keys in the security coprocessor. I don’t know of many hacks of that, in practice. There was one where you could guess the pin, and use a timing attack to power down the chip before it persisted the “bad guess” count, which let people brute force pins (with…

Didn't realize you were talking about secure enclave.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#610

Post by coldtea »

_8j50 wrote: post #587
coldtea wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutley not true. The law codifies what is already true with respect to rights but the law also fails to codify rights as with womens rights and involuntary servitude, women and black people didn't suddenly gain rights when laws were passed, they've always had those rights Nope. They got them when those laws were passed. You might think that they always "should have had" those rights, which is valid, but differe…

> But they absoltely didn't have them, and if they attempted to exercize them as if they had them, they'd be ignored, prevented, beaten up, or worse. Our disagreement is that you think a right is something granted by the law and inability to excecise a right means you don't have it. A right simply means there is a valid justification to allow a person to do not do something. You can have a right and it can unjustly b…

>Our disagreement is that you think a right is something granted by the law and inability to excecise a right means you don't have it. A right simply means there is a valid justification to allow a person to do not do something. You can have a right and it can unjustly be taken from you.

Without a law granting/protecting your right to X, or at least the power to grant it to yourself and enforce it, you don't have a right to X.

You, at best have, a "justification for having the right to X". And even that is debatable. You might just think you have a justification, but ther people might disagree with you that X is any kind of right you oughta have.

So, where does this "valid justification" comes from? God? Some holy book? Some wise document written by founding fathers? Sorry, we don't believe in those things in these here parts. It needs to be based on either law or a body (could be "the people") that can force it into law.

> But nothing is being sold, iMessage is a free app so your point is invalid.

Doesn't matter to my argument whether its paid, or given free as a lure to keep you in the ecosystem (which is the money maker) - or even just given free in general, out of the goodness of their heart.

If a company doesn't like the terms under which a country or union of countries asks them them to sell and/or give away their app, they can always stop giving it to that country/union of countries. Easy as that.

>You're the bully here.

"Bully" against a company? For making make their app more open and compatible? That's some next level Ayn Rand shit right here...

Post reply on HN