3 ms·
And plenty of people would be willing to make that trade-off on security for convenience. (This is locksmith right? Like...you realize if he actually cared he c
by ghostly_s 10y ago
And plenty of people would be willing to make that trade-off on security for convenience. (This is locksmith right? Like...you realize if he actually cared he could get in your house without keys?) Others wouldn't. Depends how sensitive your personal information is; or in the locksmith analogy, to what extent you consider your valuables irreplaceable. Seems kind of silly to expect every layperson to operate to the same security standards as a security professional. My mother does not have credentials to dozens of business systems on her phone; she has pictures of her cats and maybe a credit card account stored somewhere.
- gonvaled 10y agoThe locksmith analogy breaks down fast: the locksmith can enter into your house if he really tries, but Apple can not enter into your phone without your help (if it can, it's utterly broken)
- sangnoir 10y agoRemember Apple (the organization, not some random 'Genius') has code that runs as root on all Apple devices and can remotely update that code. > but Apple can not enter into your phone without your help Of course Apple can - that is why the FBI asked them to do just that. Apple won't as a matter of principle, not due to any technological limitation.
- gonvaled 10y ago> Of course Apple can - that is why the FBI asked them to do just that. If they can, it's broken. Do not buy those devices.
- ghostly_s 10y agoYou are hopelessly naive. Do you have some method for independently verifying Microsoft and Google cannot remotely access their respective consumer OS's that you'd like to share with us?