6 ms·

What times these are. The EFF is supporting a security-by-partial-obscurity company who loves to control what its customers can do with their own devices just s

by jordigh 11y ago

What times these are. The EFF is supporting a security-by-partial-obscurity company who loves to control what its customers can do with their own devices just so that the FBI can't set a terrible legal precedent, possibly worldwide. Enemy of our enemy is our friend this time, I suppose.

adevine 11y ago
This is a ridiculous non sequitur. Doesn't matter who the company is, the fact that Apple is trying to fight a court order that is on shaky legal ground, and would set a terrible precent, is what the EFF is supporting.
- jordigh 11y ago
  As the EFF explains, there are important details about how iPhones' security operates that are not public. Since when do we support an obscure security that depends on Apple's control instead of a public security in the hands of the end user? Answer: since defending Apple's control of users' devices is also defending against the FBI setting a terrible legal precedent.
  - natch 11y ago
    Their control of users' devices is for the purpose of keeping out malware, not quite the evil thing you're making it out to be. You make a good observation that the EFF and Apple are on the same side here. I just don't see how that's a surprise, given that all the control of users' devices Apple exerts is primarily for the purpose of protecting the privacy of the user, something EFF also cares about.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      All control is always sold to users and citizens under the guise of security. Governments do this, companies do this. In this case, we also know that Apple's control of users' devices has another motive: having the final say over what kind of 3rd party software users are allowed to use and install. Apple uses this control to censor apps that they deem inappropriate or directly compete with their own software, amongst other inscrutable whims.
ossreality 11y ago
"just so" ? really?
harryh 11y ago
I dunno why you're getting down voted here. There is definitely some major nerd cognitive dissonance going on. The ability to have full control over one's own hardware is supposed to be a core tenant of hacker-dom. Amazing how quickly it's been thrown out in this case.
- empressplay 11y ago
  I don't get it either. A black box that prevents you from running your own code on it = bad. A black box that encrypts your data and keeps it away from the evil gubbermint (let's be clear here, that _is_ what the community is saying) = good ? It's confusing.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    The iPhone has never prevented you from running your own code on it. It shipped with a javascript SDK and then within the year they opened it up to objective-c programs. They charge you $99 a year for the certificate signing service, but it's really no big deal... if you can afford an iPhone you can afford $99 a year. (Hell, I think these days you don't even need to be a paid developer, the free developers can run their code on their phones.)
    - rimantas 11y ago
      You no longer need to pay $99 to run code on your phone. You pay only if you want to distribute it through AppStore.
  - sago 11y ago
    > I don't get it either. You may be missing it, yes. As I understand it, the issue is not about software, but about the security keys. It isn't about some code being written, but about signing that code with the root certificate of all iOS devices. Nobody is celebrating their closed-source codebase as a paragon of security. If Apple used open source code, sure the FBI could pay a third party to write the code, but Apple would still be right to refuse to sign it. [edit: softened tone]
- 11y ago
Natsu 11y ago
I'm not sure what part of their secure enclave system counts as 'obscurity' and it wouldn't make sense to hate on a company just for the sake of hating on them when they're doing the right thing this time. Surely that would just make one a mindless hater, no?
millstone 11y ago
Honest question - would this case look like if the iPhone ran some GPL3 FSF-friendly OS? Since all the source code would be publicly available, and the FBI would have installation privileges thanks to the GPLv3, could they just install whatever they wanted?
- willvarfar 11y ago
  Strong Encryption doesn't rely on the algorithm being secret, it relies on the key being secret.

by jordigh 11y ago

adevine 11y ago

This is a ridiculous non sequitur. Doesn't matter who the company is, the fact that Apple is trying to fight a court order that is on shaky legal ground, and would set a terrible precent, is what the EFF is supporting.

jordigh 11y ago
As the EFF explains, there are important details about how iPhones' security operates that are not public. Since when do we support an obscure security that depends on Apple's control instead of a public security in the hands of the end user? Answer: since defending Apple's control of users' devices is also defending against the FBI setting a terrible legal precedent.
- natch 11y ago
  Their control of users' devices is for the purpose of keeping out malware, not quite the evil thing you're making it out to be. You make a good observation that the EFF and Apple are on the same side here. I just don't see how that's a surprise, given that all the control of users' devices Apple exerts is primarily for the purpose of protecting the privacy of the user, something EFF also cares about.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    All control is always sold to users and citizens under the guise of security. Governments do this, companies do this. In this case, we also know that Apple's control of users' devices has another motive: having the final say over what kind of 3rd party software users are allowed to use and install. Apple uses this control to censor apps that they deem inappropriate or directly compete with their own software, amongst other inscrutable whims.

ossreality 11y ago

"just so" ? really?

harryh 11y ago

I dunno why you're getting down voted here. There is definitely some major nerd cognitive dissonance going on. The ability to have full control over one's own hardware is supposed to be a core tenant of hacker-dom. Amazing how quickly it's been thrown out in this case.

empressplay 11y ago
I don't get it either. A black box that prevents you from running your own code on it = bad. A black box that encrypts your data and keeps it away from the evil gubbermint (let's be clear here, that _is_ what the community is saying) = good ? It's confusing.
- MCRed 11y ago
  The iPhone has never prevented you from running your own code on it. It shipped with a javascript SDK and then within the year they opened it up to objective-c programs. They charge you $99 a year for the certificate signing service, but it's really no big deal... if you can afford an iPhone you can afford $99 a year. (Hell, I think these days you don't even need to be a paid developer, the free developers can run their code on their phones.)
  - rimantas 11y ago
    You no longer need to pay $99 to run code on your phone. You pay only if you want to distribute it through AppStore.
- sago 11y ago
  > I don't get it either. You may be missing it, yes. As I understand it, the issue is not about software, but about the security keys. It isn't about some code being written, but about signing that code with the root certificate of all iOS devices. Nobody is celebrating their closed-source codebase as a paragon of security. If Apple used open source code, sure the FBI could pay a third party to write the code, but Apple would still be right to refuse to sign it. [edit: softened tone]
11y ago

Natsu 11y ago

I'm not sure what part of their secure enclave system counts as 'obscurity' and it wouldn't make sense to hate on a company just for the sake of hating on them when they're doing the right thing this time. Surely that would just make one a mindless hater, no?

millstone 11y ago

Honest question - would this case look like if the iPhone ran some GPL3 FSF-friendly OS? Since all the source code would be publicly available, and the FBI would have installation privileges thanks to the GPLv3, could they just install whatever they wanted?

willvarfar 11y ago
Strong Encryption doesn't rely on the algorithm being secret, it relies on the key being secret.