7 ms·

I've been very impressed with what I've learned in the last few weeks regarding Apple's efforts to provide privacy for its customer using what it seems some ver

by geertj 11y ago

I've been very impressed with what I've learned in the last few weeks regarding Apple's efforts to provide privacy for its customer using what it seems some very robust engineering and design. I'm currently an Android user (Samsung S6 edge) but am considering seriously going back to the iPhone because of this. The cynical side of me says that Apple's marketing tactics have worked. But I've got a feeling, heck, I want to believe, that this is actually driven by company values and not a short-term marketing benefit.

Udik 11y ago
Do you really need such strong security? Or after the FBI forced Apple to apply their best engineering minds to crack your phone, they'd just find a grocery shopping list and pictures of your cats? Because this sounds a bit like Tesla's "operating room air quality" - something that might be useful 0.001% of the customers, and it's just marketing for the remaining 99.999%
- erkkie 11y ago
  How can you ask a question like this? Define "so strong" in this context? It's similar to asking "do you need so free speech". We're not talking about anything special here beyond a standard expectation of reasonable security. The fact that apple is trying to make it "so secure even they can't hack it" is just a means for them to protect themselves that happens to align with the interests of the user.
  - Udik 11y ago
    General, unbreakable crypto security applied to all contents is a feature that very few people ever needed or even tried to achieve. Until a few years ago you were perfectly content with keeping an agenda in your pocket and pictures in your living room's drawer. A minimum of privacy is of course needed and welcome; however, unless you're planning a major terror attack, or strategic war plans, or you have incredibly valuable industrial secrets (all cases in which you'll probably be using specialized SW to keep your information) you don't really need incredibly advanced security simply because nobody is going to spend vast amounts of time and resources to uncover your little secrets. The GP is talking about switching phone (spending money) to obtain a level of security that he won't need in a million years.
    - songshu 11y ago
      Your agenda in your pocket wasn't subject to unconditional dragnet surveillance. Copies of it weren't going to find their way on to security contractors' systems. Such copies wouldn't have then been stolen and distributed by whoever, and made available for search as you type. The intimacies of daily life are very precious.
    - vlunkr 11y ago
      For me it's not really about my personal security because, you're right, there's nothing interesting on my phone. My issue is with one entity having access to ALL of our phones. Have you read 1984? Because that's what that sounds like. It's too much power for the government to have.
      - Udik 11y ago
        I think I missed the part where anybody asked Apple to build a backdoor into every phone that could be accessed without appropriate control from the authorities and without passing through Apple each time. Of course I'm not saying that your data should be uploaded daily to a government's server for anybody with a badge and free time to spare to look through.
        15charlimit 11y ago
        Yes, you did miss it. The FBI/etc are very clearly and deliberately looking to set a precedent for use in any and all future instances. Just because you don't seem to value personal privacy and security doesn't mean the rest of us are willing to throw it away for no good reason. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-standoff-escalates-local-cases-20160219-00047 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-standoff-escalates-local... http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2016/02/20/Officials-keeping-eye-on-cellphone-dispute.html http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2016/02/20/Off... http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2016/02/18/sf-police-chief-apple-fbi-feud-big-deal/80566280/ http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2016/02/18/sf-police-c...
        nickik 11y ago
        The FBI here only represents the 'legal' government and not the world of secret courts and the NSA. The NSA did infact try to build backdoors into important hardware and software standards. They did push companies into using worse crypto. The do massiv port scanning and build themself botnets from where thet attack other nation states. And thats just a tiny fraction of what they do. So yes, I absolutly do need computer hardware and software that even the manufacturer cant break. Low level security for boot and authentification is only the first in many, many steps that we have to take all the way up to imroving usability in end user applications to make it hard to do the wrong thing. The FBI are not the o ly player, all governments want such control, all governments have things like the NSA. Even private actors are getting better and better. We do need better security to protect the integrety of all our data, this includes all our communication and even, if possible metadata that we produce.
- unprepare 11y ago
  >Do you really need such strong security? Do i really need a quad core smartphone with a dedicated GPU 3GB of ram a higher pixel density than i can possibly distinguish, etc etc? Why would i settle for shitty crypto just because the information isnt a state secret?
  - Udik 11y ago
    Maybe you don't need it, but you'll have fun every day with it. While you'll never be able to enjoy the difference between "almost unbreakable" and "unbreakable".
    - unprepare 11y ago
      and whats the cost differential to me as an end user? And whats the difference to me between 452 ppi or 532 ppi? I'll never be able to enjoy the difference between the two, yet i would still go for the higher ppi all else being equal.
      - Udik 11y ago
        It's never the case of "all other things being equal". The GP was saying that he switched from Apple to Android - presumably because there was a relevant difference between the two - but he's considering switching back to have a feature that he'll never use. Of course there is always an appeal in the numbers. I'd go for a 40MP camera instead of a 20MP one - who cares if the quality of the lens is such that there is no difference beyond 10MP. It's marketing. It's curious how people so wary of being observed or exploited make themselves so prone to basic manipulation by entities who want to get their money.
        unprepare 11y ago
        ah, i'm thinking more of something like WEP vs WPA2 - like, why the heck would i want to downgrade my crypto? I agree there may be other reasons the user switched, but maybe they switched to android because they believed it to be more secure? Or maybe the user wants to vote with their wallet for the company they see as most in support of security/privacy. I do agree though, switching for a feature you are unlikely to use is silly, but i think there are definitely reasons enough to make a switch like that from a 'voting with your wallet' type standpoint
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  Do you drive around in a 1 litre CC car? Or do you buy a car with a bigger engine? In both cases, when was the last time you drove it at its maximum speed all the time? Or ensured that you were using maximum torque at all times and always sitting in the maximum power band for the engine? If you find that you haven't done these things, you probably should ask yourself why you have a car, right? After all, you're never going to drive the full speed of the car, so why have the car in the first place?
- rogerhoward 11y ago
  Yes. Because I've got plenty to lose from criminals too.
erkkie 11y ago
Anything specifically missing on android side except the PR? Seriously asking if I'm missing something. The nexus series has comparable crypto hw and similar options for encryption + wiping.
- geertj 11y ago
  Two things come to mind. First an equivalent of the secure enclave. Second a single company that is willing to go this far to protect its users. For Samsung this is complicated because both Google and Samsung are involved, and Samsung is not a US company so I'd expect them to cave in under pressure from the US govt more easily. Edit: a Nexus device bought directly from Google with the right hw may address both points.
  - tantalor 11y ago
    Looks like the Nexus 5X/6P have ARM TrustZone (http://phandroid.com/2015/09/30/nexus-fingerprint-security/ http://phandroid.com/2015/09/30/nexus-fingerprint-security/). Secure Enclave is a variant of TrustZone (http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-5s/apples-new-secure-enclave-details/ http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-5s/apples-new-secure-enc...).
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    > For Samsung this is complicated because both Google and Samsung are involved, and Samsung is not a US company so I'd expect them to cave in under pressure from the US govt more easily. Why? I'd expect just the opposite.
    - geertj 11y ago
      > Why? I'd expect just the opposite. To many Americans, Apple is the example of American innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, and a proof that the American model works. Apple employs 10s of thousands of Americans directly, and probably provides jobs for 100s of thousands indirectly. Going too aggressive on Apple, e.g. at the level where executives could be charged in court, or products embargoed, would be a decidedly unpopular move with many voters and politicians. Samsung is a much easier target here. Also as an American company, Apple can legitimately enter the democratic debate, see the calls it makes to congress. Samsung can't really do that. Imagine Samgsung putting out press release quoting the founding fathers or referring to the first amendment. That would not be credible. Edit: grammar
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Of course it's a short-term marketing benefit. But, if the encryption is secure, then the marketing benefit is matching up with the customer benefit, so hey.
- d-m 11y ago
  It's not clear that it IS a short-term benefit. Poll results are mixed (although the wording has a significant impact on the results) and a leading presidential candidate is calling for a boycott of their products. Marketing campaigns tend to be less polarizing. Also, I would imagine that losing the case would negatively impact sales more than if they had quietly complied.
  - ccvannorman 11y ago
    Polls say whatever the poll-maker wants. Ask people if they support government surveillance, they say "Sure." Ask if they want the government to be able to access their Dick-Pics and the answer is a resounding NO[1]. Apple is on the right side of history here. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
    - d-m 11y ago
      Right, but the question here is of the obvious short-term marketing benefit, which to me is not that obvious. I think that in the short term Apple has more to lose financially by not aiding the FBI in an emotionally-charged request than if they had silently complied, particularly if they end up losing the case.
richmarr 11y ago
Maybe I'm being cynical, but if I were Apple and had just been forced to implement back doors with a gag order, I might be announcing that my new phones were unhackable too. Is anyone aware of anything that makes this more than a leap of faith?
criddell 11y ago
I wonder if Microsoft came out with Palladium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computi...) today, if it would be hailed as a great development for privacy or would still garner lots of criticism as it did 10 years ago. Of Palladium, Bruce Scheier said: > "There's a lot of good stuff in Pd, and a lot I like about it. There's also a lot I don't like, and am scared of. My fear is that Pd will lead us down a road where our computers are no longer our computers, but are instead owned by a variety of factions and companies all looking for a piece of our wallet. To the extent that Pd facilitates that reality, it's bad for society. I don't mind companies selling, renting, or licensing things to me, but the loss of the power, reach, and flexibility of the computer is too great a price to pay." I think his fears have come true to some extent in iOS, but knowing what we know now about government surveillance of everybody, it may no longer seem like too great a price to pay. That is, if you trust the vendor. Apple seems to be worthy of that trust. But Microsoft...? Edit: formatting
- maqr 11y ago
  > Apple seems to be worthy of that trust. Oh no... it's working...
- markman 11y ago
  Wait, are you saying you trust apple yet not Microsoft or more than?
  - criddell 11y ago
    I do trust Apple more than Microsoft.
- odbol_ 11y ago
  I thought that's the opposite of what Palladium did. Doesn't it make it so the apps and data on your computer aren't actually yours? Like Microsoft would have total control over what you put on your computer? I was under the impression it didn't do anything to protect your privacy: instead it actually put backdoors in your computer that Microsoft could access any time they wanted?

by geertj 11y ago

Udik 11y ago

Do you really need such strong security? Or after the FBI forced Apple to apply their best engineering minds to crack your phone, they'd just find a grocery shopping list and pictures of your cats? Because this sounds a bit like Tesla's "operating room air quality" - something that might be useful 0.001% of the customers, and it's just marketing for the remaining 99.999%

erkkie 11y ago
How can you ask a question like this? Define "so strong" in this context? It's similar to asking "do you need so free speech". We're not talking about anything special here beyond a standard expectation of reasonable security. The fact that apple is trying to make it "so secure even they can't hack it" is just a means for them to protect themselves that happens to align with the interests of the user.
- Udik 11y ago
  General, unbreakable crypto security applied to all contents is a feature that very few people ever needed or even tried to achieve. Until a few years ago you were perfectly content with keeping an agenda in your pocket and pictures in your living room's drawer. A minimum of privacy is of course needed and welcome; however, unless you're planning a major terror attack, or strategic war plans, or you have incredibly valuable industrial secrets (all cases in which you'll probably be using specialized SW to keep your information) you don't really need incredibly advanced security simply because nobody is going to spend vast amounts of time and resources to uncover your little secrets. The GP is talking about switching phone (spending money) to obtain a level of security that he won't need in a million years.
  - songshu 11y ago
    Your agenda in your pocket wasn't subject to unconditional dragnet surveillance. Copies of it weren't going to find their way on to security contractors' systems. Such copies wouldn't have then been stolen and distributed by whoever, and made available for search as you type. The intimacies of daily life are very precious.
  - vlunkr 11y ago
    For me it's not really about my personal security because, you're right, there's nothing interesting on my phone. My issue is with one entity having access to ALL of our phones. Have you read 1984? Because that's what that sounds like. It's too much power for the government to have.
    - Udik 11y ago
      I think I missed the part where anybody asked Apple to build a backdoor into every phone that could be accessed without appropriate control from the authorities and without passing through Apple each time. Of course I'm not saying that your data should be uploaded daily to a government's server for anybody with a badge and free time to spare to look through.
      - 15charlimit 11y ago
        Yes, you did miss it. The FBI/etc are very clearly and deliberately looking to set a precedent for use in any and all future instances. Just because you don't seem to value personal privacy and security doesn't mean the rest of us are willing to throw it away for no good reason. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-standoff-escalates-local-cases-20160219-00047 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-standoff-escalates-local... http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2016/02/20/Officials-keeping-eye-on-cellphone-dispute.html http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2016/02/20/Off... http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2016/02/18/sf-police-chief-apple-fbi-feud-big-deal/80566280/ http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2016/02/18/sf-police-c...
      - nickik 11y ago
        The FBI here only represents the 'legal' government and not the world of secret courts and the NSA. The NSA did infact try to build backdoors into important hardware and software standards. They did push companies into using worse crypto. The do massiv port scanning and build themself botnets from where thet attack other nation states. And thats just a tiny fraction of what they do. So yes, I absolutly do need computer hardware and software that even the manufacturer cant break. Low level security for boot and authentification is only the first in many, many steps that we have to take all the way up to imroving usability in end user applications to make it hard to do the wrong thing. The FBI are not the o ly player, all governments want such control, all governments have things like the NSA. Even private actors are getting better and better. We do need better security to protect the integrety of all our data, this includes all our communication and even, if possible metadata that we produce.
unprepare 11y ago
>Do you really need such strong security? Do i really need a quad core smartphone with a dedicated GPU 3GB of ram a higher pixel density than i can possibly distinguish, etc etc? Why would i settle for shitty crypto just because the information isnt a state secret?
- Udik 11y ago
  Maybe you don't need it, but you'll have fun every day with it. While you'll never be able to enjoy the difference between "almost unbreakable" and "unbreakable".
  - unprepare 11y ago
    and whats the cost differential to me as an end user? And whats the difference to me between 452 ppi or 532 ppi? I'll never be able to enjoy the difference between the two, yet i would still go for the higher ppi all else being equal.
    - Udik 11y ago
      It's never the case of "all other things being equal". The GP was saying that he switched from Apple to Android - presumably because there was a relevant difference between the two - but he's considering switching back to have a feature that he'll never use. Of course there is always an appeal in the numbers. I'd go for a 40MP camera instead of a 20MP one - who cares if the quality of the lens is such that there is no difference beyond 10MP. It's marketing. It's curious how people so wary of being observed or exploited make themselves so prone to basic manipulation by entities who want to get their money.
      - unprepare 11y ago
        ah, i'm thinking more of something like WEP vs WPA2 - like, why the heck would i want to downgrade my crypto? I agree there may be other reasons the user switched, but maybe they switched to android because they believed it to be more secure? Or maybe the user wants to vote with their wallet for the company they see as most in support of security/privacy. I do agree though, switching for a feature you are unlikely to use is silly, but i think there are definitely reasons enough to make a switch like that from a 'voting with your wallet' type standpoint
72deluxe 11y ago
Do you drive around in a 1 litre CC car? Or do you buy a car with a bigger engine? In both cases, when was the last time you drove it at its maximum speed all the time? Or ensured that you were using maximum torque at all times and always sitting in the maximum power band for the engine? If you find that you haven't done these things, you probably should ask yourself why you have a car, right? After all, you're never going to drive the full speed of the car, so why have the car in the first place?
rogerhoward 11y ago
Yes. Because I've got plenty to lose from criminals too.

erkkie 11y ago

Anything specifically missing on android side except the PR? Seriously asking if I'm missing something. The nexus series has comparable crypto hw and similar options for encryption + wiping.

geertj 11y ago
Two things come to mind. First an equivalent of the secure enclave. Second a single company that is willing to go this far to protect its users. For Samsung this is complicated because both Google and Samsung are involved, and Samsung is not a US company so I'd expect them to cave in under pressure from the US govt more easily. Edit: a Nexus device bought directly from Google with the right hw may address both points.
- tantalor 11y ago
  Looks like the Nexus 5X/6P have ARM TrustZone (http://phandroid.com/2015/09/30/nexus-fingerprint-security/ http://phandroid.com/2015/09/30/nexus-fingerprint-security/). Secure Enclave is a variant of TrustZone (http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-5s/apples-new-secure-enclave-details/ http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-5s/apples-new-secure-enc...).
- emodendroket 11y ago
  > For Samsung this is complicated because both Google and Samsung are involved, and Samsung is not a US company so I'd expect them to cave in under pressure from the US govt more easily. Why? I'd expect just the opposite.
  - geertj 11y ago
    > Why? I'd expect just the opposite. To many Americans, Apple is the example of American innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, and a proof that the American model works. Apple employs 10s of thousands of Americans directly, and probably provides jobs for 100s of thousands indirectly. Going too aggressive on Apple, e.g. at the level where executives could be charged in court, or products embargoed, would be a decidedly unpopular move with many voters and politicians. Samsung is a much easier target here. Also as an American company, Apple can legitimately enter the democratic debate, see the calls it makes to congress. Samsung can't really do that. Imagine Samgsung putting out press release quoting the founding fathers or referring to the first amendment. That would not be credible. Edit: grammar

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Of course it's a short-term marketing benefit. But, if the encryption is secure, then the marketing benefit is matching up with the customer benefit, so hey.

d-m 11y ago
It's not clear that it IS a short-term benefit. Poll results are mixed (although the wording has a significant impact on the results) and a leading presidential candidate is calling for a boycott of their products. Marketing campaigns tend to be less polarizing. Also, I would imagine that losing the case would negatively impact sales more than if they had quietly complied.
- ccvannorman 11y ago
  Polls say whatever the poll-maker wants. Ask people if they support government surveillance, they say "Sure." Ask if they want the government to be able to access their Dick-Pics and the answer is a resounding NO[1]. Apple is on the right side of history here. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
  - d-m 11y ago
    Right, but the question here is of the obvious short-term marketing benefit, which to me is not that obvious. I think that in the short term Apple has more to lose financially by not aiding the FBI in an emotionally-charged request than if they had silently complied, particularly if they end up losing the case.

richmarr 11y ago

Maybe I'm being cynical, but if I were Apple and had just been forced to implement back doors with a gag order, I might be announcing that my new phones were unhackable too. Is anyone aware of anything that makes this more than a leap of faith?

criddell 11y ago

I wonder if Microsoft came out with Palladium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computi...) today, if it would be hailed as a great development for privacy or would still garner lots of criticism as it did 10 years ago. Of Palladium, Bruce Scheier said: > "There's a lot of good stuff in Pd, and a lot I like about it. There's also a lot I don't like, and am scared of. My fear is that Pd will lead us down a road where our computers are no longer our computers, but are instead owned by a variety of factions and companies all looking for a piece of our wallet. To the extent that Pd facilitates that reality, it's bad for society. I don't mind companies selling, renting, or licensing things to me, but the loss of the power, reach, and flexibility of the computer is too great a price to pay." I think his fears have come true to some extent in iOS, but knowing what we know now about government surveillance of everybody, it may no longer seem like too great a price to pay. That is, if you trust the vendor. Apple seems to be worthy of that trust. But Microsoft...? Edit: formatting

maqr 11y ago
> Apple seems to be worthy of that trust. Oh no... it's working...
markman 11y ago
Wait, are you saying you trust apple yet not Microsoft or more than?
- criddell 11y ago
  I do trust Apple more than Microsoft.
odbol_ 11y ago
I thought that's the opposite of what Palladium did. Doesn't it make it so the apps and data on your computer aren't actually yours? Like Microsoft would have total control over what you put on your computer? I was under the impression it didn't do anything to protect your privacy: instead it actually put backdoors in your computer that Microsoft could access any time they wanted?