10 ms·
I think it's as simple as: Apple's business is determined much more by end users than by government regulation. Unlike telecoms or increasingly, Google/Facebook
by jkestner 8y ago
I think it's as simple as: Apple's business is determined much more by end users than by government regulation. Unlike telecoms or increasingly, Google/Facebook. And this is amplified by Apple deciding that, as the others can't follow it, it's a good differentiator to invest in.
- jimmy1 8y agoDon't they use Google Cloud for ICloud storage?
- ivanfon 8y agoLooks like they use Google Cloud and AWS. I assume they’ve built their platform in a way that they can easily use many different providers. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-cloud-platform-icloud-confirmation https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-clo...
- MBCook 8y agoI believe so but that’s an implementation detail. They could switch to AWS or Azure.
- zwily 8y agoThey heavily use AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure.
- george_perez 8y agoNot anymore for Azure. Google Cloud replaced Azure for them. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf Control (Command) + F and there's no mention of Azure anymore.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tinus_hn 8y agoThey use multiple types of cloud storage; the data is encrypted and Google isn’t processing it, just storing it.
- Klonoar 8y agoA common misconception - parts of iCloud data are encrypted at rest, but a good chunk of it is not. They've indicated they want to get there at various points in the past, but unless I've missed an update it's not there currently.
- twunde 8y agoAgreed. It's the main reason why iCloud isn't HIPAA compliant
- bogomipz 8y agoUsing multiple storage providers makes iCloud non-HIPAA compliant? Or did you mean something else?
- conradev 8y agoThe files are still encrypted at rest (using convergent encryption) to obscure their contents from the underlying storage service, but Apple holds the keys: > Each file is broken into chunks and encrypted by iCloud using AES-128 and a key derived from each chunk’s contents that utilizes SHA-256. The keys and the file’s metadata are stored by Apple in the user’s iCloud account. The encrypted chunks of the file are stored, without any user-identifying information, using third-party storage services, such as S3 and Google Cloud Platform. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf (page 56)
- yborg 8y ago>Apple holds the keys Unless you live in China, in which case Apple and the Chinese government hold the keys.
- tranqfx 8y agoI concur, and I would add that Apple is fundamentally different than the Facebooks and Googles in that Apple makes money off their hardware. They have a natural incentive to protect user data because it enhances the value of their products.
- knuththetruth 8y ago*Offer does not apply in China.
- admiralEyebrows 8y agoThis is why I am deeply skeptical of Apple's supposed security. As long as the company forfeits data to the Chinese government then there is no real data protection on their devices. I need that to change, or where I see Apple's products heading is not going to be what I'm hoping. What I'm hoping: Apple devices become the computer. Totally secure. The only one that can access the information on it is myself with no exceptions. This device (watch, phone, glasses whatever) would carry every possible detail about myself and my life on it, making it the perfect form of digital identification. Accepted at hospitals, accepted as a drivers license, accepted at banks, accepted as a log in for websites. It doesn't need to provide identification if I don't want it to. But if I do, then there is a mathematical certainty that I am who I am claiming to be, and no one can claim otherwise.
- keiyakins 8y agoSo, you want to put that much power into Apple's hands? How do you expect them to remain on your side in that case?
- admiralEyebrows 8y agoThat's why it's not going to happen with Apple's two faced position on privacy. As for what I want Apple to be as a company, if their devices become the theoretical vault where I am the only one with the key, it wouldn't matter if they remain on my side or not. They fulfill the role of design and engineering, not data hoarder, and wouldn't be able to change that even if they wanted to. At least that is the image that they have been pushing recently.
- hangonhn 8y agoThis is exactly the position I want in someone who I need to trust. Supposed corporate altruism and any promises of "don't be evil" goes out the window when enough money comes into play. However, if my interests and the monetary interests of the other party is aligned, then it compels the other party to behave in a way that helps my interests.
- feedmeseymour 8y agoI absolutely agree. When you remove government actors from industry, except where absolutely needed (e.g., preventing monopoly) this becomes the default modus operandi.
- slg 8y agoThis is a pretty ludicrous statement. We wouldn't need any consumer protection laws, anti-fraud laws, or a really a majority of business law if the default modus operandi was pro-consumer. The reason Apple is different here is because their financial incentive aligns with the consumer. That is not the case with many businesses regardless of government involvement.
- keiyakins 8y agoThat's why we never had to do anything to address rampant fraud, cutting food with dangerous materials, straight up lying about what you're selling, con artists, snake oil salesmen, or irresponsible management of hazardous waste, right?
- dmix 8y agoNot that I support the OPs absolutist statement, but courts could and do handle quite a few of those (I mean fraud is handled almost entirely by the courts). Especially if the effort over the last century was put into strengthening the law and property rights, instead of creating endless agencies, government economic power brokers, and pre-emptive hoops for companies to jump through, which encourage state-backed oligopolies to flourish at the expense of competition and any firm small enough to not afford a team of lawyers. Not to mention measuring efficacy and ROI on each individual agency involved in market intervention is largely absent once the agencies are in place. Unless you're conflating 'removing government actors' as completely removing the justice system and law enforcement? Which are two things which libertarians are very much in support of being government responsibility...Smaller government != no government.
- wpdev_63 8y agoDon't fool yourself. The NSA has a nice backdoor into IOS[0]. [0]: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
- gcommer 8y agoIn no way does that article claim there is a backdoor. It claims CIA and others have heavily invested in finding 0day exploits to gain access to the iphone; this news item is about apple closing some of those.
- x0x0 8y agoI'm not engaged in international crime or fighting nation states, I just want cops to have to get a warrant and my lawyer to get a chance to argue with them in order to read my phone.
- wpdev_63 8y agoHere ya go: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xdxg9/fbi-hacking-investigations-classified-remote-operations-unit https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xdxg9/fbi-hackin... This is not the CIA hacking into Kim Un Iphone in North Korea, this is local cops using these advance surveillance tools on US civilians.
- abritinthebay 8y agoI trust Wikileaks about as far as Assange ventures outside of the Ecuadorian embassy.
- dkonofalski 8y agoDon't fool yourself. That's not possible with the current iOS configuration and the link you provided doesn't dispute that. If anything, Apple has closed any potential backdoors that could have been exploited.
- kweinber 8y agoEven simpler. Apple doesn't have "enterprise" products that it sells to governments. Therefore, they can't be forced to comply through any wallet-based incentive. Having said all that. . . I'm not sure that the rights of criminals' privacy outweigh the rights of citizens to be protected by law enforcement. I wish there was a clear way for law enforcement to act on behalf of citizens without such risk of corruption/abuse.
- guptaneil 8y agoOne of the basic principles in the US justice system is the presumption of innocence. Therefore, Apple is actually protecting the rights of innocent people, until law enforcement can legally prove otherwise, at which point they usually don't need access to the phone anymore. This is why it is impossible to sacrifice phone security for "criminals" while keeping the rest of us safe.
- jkestner 8y agoYes, I was thinking about the Dells of the world, too. But it's bigger than that as, say, Dell hasn't sold any valuable consumer targets since the Venue smartphone in 2012. I suppose telecoms have enterprise products, but they're more interested in cooperating with the government where it doesn't cost them much (hey, consumers already hate them), in exchange for regulation/legislation that protects their business (hey, consumers have nowhere else to go now). Valid point on how we let law enforcement do its job. The other aspect of Apple's success here is timing. We don't trust government or law enforcement as much as we used to, and a new balance has to be found, perhaps by lawmakers who have foresight of both technology and human rights.
- mirimir 8y agoFrom what I've read, enterprises certainly love iOS for security. And for better or worse, LEA provides well-reported test cases. So it's not that Apple wants to protect criminals, it's that criminals are canaries. Indeed, the whole "going dark" vs privacy debate mostly misses the point.[0] > The heightened tension produced by the introduction of encryption by default into an environment where terrorism has magnified the need for efficient law enforcement access (surveillance) supported by a newly-expanded CALEA framework is often framed as a contest between privacy and security. It is, however, more accurately framed as a security issue on both sides, one side which integrates traditional privacy concerns with the growing focus upon cybersecurity ... The cybersecurity and, incidentally, pro-privacy position rejects exceptional access as a dangerous fiction that would, among other things, create new attack surfaces, rendering networks more vulnerable to every form of predation, from financial crime and IP theft to cyber espionage, ultimately generating unacceptable risks to our national and economic security. 0) https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=ncjolt https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
- jehlakj 8y agoI highly doubt it’s that simple. Most users don’t value these extra security measures let alone know about them. This leads me to believe that there’s a different reason why they’re upping their security more than other user oriented companies.
- yurishimo 8y agoIt could also be a product of their engineering teams and upper management. Most of the Apple development staff are in California and are highly technical. If a majority of the top dogs really believe in protecting privacy then it’s easy for them to get it done.
- headShrinker 8y agoApple has been clear from the beginning. They do not supplement revenue with personal data sharing or ads. There is not hidden agenda here. Their major competition shares data with other companies and is very forthcoming with the government. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung all sell access to their user's data. This is a winning strategy because Apple already charged a premium for it's products. Now more than ever that value added is win for the customer. Just to be clear Apple does give information to the government, but they stopped short of unlocking devices for the government. I see this as a very big important precedent.
- dkonofalski 8y agoIsn't that the point, though? Touch ID was a major security feature (industry-changing even) that was added to the phone without changing the behavior of users. It's nearly a perfect scenario of adding an incredible amount of functionality for users without requiring them to do anything. Apple has always been about user security regardless of whether or not it was obvious to users.