9 ms·
This is an excellent step for protecting MacBook Pro users against hardware invasions (such as US and China border authorities). If you trust the user to replac
by floatingatoll 8y ago
This is an excellent step for protecting MacBook Pro users against hardware invasions (such as US and China border authorities). If you trust the user to replace hardware, you permit the user’s hardware to be altered by malicious actors. By restricting final approval of hardware replacement to a vetted subset of all humanity, you ensure that it’s vastly more difficult for the vast majority of malicious humanity.
Yes, in a theoretical world, you could set up your own crypto authority and sign your own device repairs, assuming Apple were to build support for this. But if you brick your CA you’d brick your laptop if it ever needed repairs someday, which would leave you thousands of dollars poorer and in need of a laptop.
I trust Apple to run this CA and gate access to it _far_ more than I trust my personal self to do so. This security improvement will make me safer, as well as my non-engineer coworkers, and my mom.
- colejohnson66 8y agoI highly doubt that’s Apple’s reason considering they didn’t give a comment when asked for one
- threeseed 8y agoApple rarely comments on anything. You can't make assertions based on that.
- bsheir74 8y agoProhibiting 3rd party repairs doesn't make you any safer than you are now. If you were concerned about hardware attacks you could continue to bring your computer to the apple store, and never have to worry. All this action does is remove options for those of us who do wanna fix their own machines. And this is assuming you trust apple to inspect their parts closely. Their computers are still made in china. Why couldn't the chinese governnent coerce their suppliers to commit sabotage? Also, when was the last time your Mom was the target of a hardware attack? Is she a foreign diplomat or intelligence officer?
- gst 8y ago> All this action does is remove options for those of us who do wanna fix their own machines. I don't see how this removes any choices. It's still possible to buy other non-Apple hardware that doesn't have those restrictions.
- paavoova 8y agoConsider this: the majority of the consumer demographic is largely ignorant to these issues. As such, Apple's largest customer demographic is in no place to make informed decisions. By restricting hardware and serviceability, Apple directly fosters mass consumerism by selling non-repairable, disposable gadgets. This undoubtedly contributes to climate change and non-renewable resource drain. Even if every Apple customer decided to make a change with their next purchase, you would still have a huge number of devices heading to the landfill, all simply because of Apple deciding to impose hardware restrictions for profit. And note that, as mentioned in the article, Apple is actively lobbying against Right-to-repair, which will help other corporations get away with similar practices. So for how long is it "still possible" to have any choice whatsoever? Can you buy, for example, a mobile device with an open baseband? No - already the consumer can't vote with their wallet nor have choice in many, if not most, matters of consumer technology.
- floatingatoll 8y agoI hope you see the irony in asking me whether my mom is a spy. Your question is rhetorical and unhelpful to this conversation. If she isn’t, the answer is no. If she is, the answer is still no. Please don’t use conversational warfare tactics here.
- Rjevski 8y agoWouldn't state actors be able to steal the software used by Apple to re-enable the software? With a network of thousands of "Apple Authorized Service Providers" there's gotta be leaks (that is, if state actors didn't have access to Apple's own internal systems).
- awakeasleep 8y agoYou're committing the most common sin of thinking-about-security: considering possibilities without adding the weight of probabilities.
- noobermin 8y agoIf I'm going to be targeted by state actors then I wouldn't fix my computers anyway, I'd have professionals worry with that. For example, if I was an important worker for another state, the hope is that the state that employed me would take care of it. Re probabilities, the probability that a random hacker who wants to tinker will be targeted by a state actor is nilch.
- caf 8y agoAgreed, there is zero chance that Apple is doing any deep background checks on these Authorized Service Providers and all their employees. In fact chances are, most third-party repair shops are going to end up finding such an employee who's prepared to authorize a bunch of additional repairs for a little extra cash on the side.
- paxy 8y agoThe number of users who simply want/need cheaper repairs and upgrades dwarfs those who are at risk of getting their hardware bugged by state-sponsored actors. And considering these laptops are made in China in the first place, any assurances of security are already moot. If security was the primary concern, Apple would sell this as a separate model variant (manufactured in the USA) and charge a lot more for it.
- threeseed 8y agoI also used to believe that privacy was only for spys but I have very quickly changed my position. Gays, minorities, journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers etc are all being targeted and jailed in many countries in the world. And in China it's entire swathes of the general public. And so much of this is directly attributable to lax privacy and security. And I don't know believe that there is a huge market for cheaper repairs of Macs. Most people are still just going to local service providers who are authorised by Apple anyway. Otherwise getting hold of parts can be difficult.
- drb91 8y agoWhy not sell to both markets?
- paxy 8y agoThe repair market for Apple products isn't huge precisely because Apple has done everything it can to kill it.
- paulie_a 8y agoThe repair market for apple laptops is probably small anyways because apple is a small fish in that market. Why bother?
- parrellel 8y agoBecause your three thousand dollar laptop has shat the bed, and you couldn't shell out for Apple Care or they failed to help in proper corporate fashion. If they weren't actively shitting on repair companies, I'd say there'd be more of a market.
- fermienrico 8y agoMy opinion about Apple has changed recently. They're now actively promoting privacy and I am OK with trading repairability with privacy. Also, Louis Rossmann on Youtube one of the most vile, deeply corrosive personalities out there and his audience enjoys the bashing of Apple left and right. He has essentially marketed himself as Anti-Apple and his message is always "Apple is Evil".
- andrewflnr 8y agoEven if anyone had mentioned Rossman, your second paragraph is one of the most textbook ad hominem arguments it's possible to make.
- busterarm 8y agoYeah, what a baseless, unprovoked attack that was.
- FireBeyond 8y agoHow on earth is this being spun into "Apple protecting your privacy!"? This is the RDF in action.
- qubax 8y agoIt's amazing how so many of these comments read like Apple PR. "I trust Apple to run this CA and gate access to it _far_ more than I trust my personal self to do so. This security improvement will make me safer, as well as my non-engineer coworkers, and my mom." Holy goodness. In the 2000s it was Google will save the world "Do no evil". Now it's Apple "Keeps us safe".
- solomatov 8y agoWhy do you think malicious actors won't get their hands on these programs?
- pnw_hazor 8y agoWatching Rossmann vids is why I have given up on Apple. He points out bad engineering/manufacturing in $2000+ laptops and I agree with his insights regarding how Apple makes it seem like the customer/user is wrong to cover their bad engineering. Ala -- the antenna is fine, it's your fault you have bad reception. You are not holding the phone correctly
- sparky_z 8y agoAnd if this were an optional service that Apple provided for security-conscious customers, then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hobs 8y ago"By restricting final approval of hardware replacement to a vetted subset of all humanity, you ensure that it’s vastly more difficult for the vast majority of malicious humanity." This is a foolish statement. Any bad actors with power can just add themselves to that subset of humanity - this is the same reason we dont add software special backdoors that only special sets of humanity can unlock.
- matt4077 8y agoWell, the FBI famously DIDN'T manage to get themselves onto your "bad actors with power" list. Sometimes I think people vastly overestimate the skills and powers of the security services... And the analogy to backdoors doesn't work, because for the user who isn't a crypto-analyst (and, tbh, even for those) this system is almost tautologically safer than not having it. It bears mentioning that security of personal computers has vastly improved over the last decade or so, both Windows and Mac. It's ridiculous to disparage their efforts as useless.
- sianns 8y agoYou must be with the nSa
- toasterlovin 8y ago> Any bad actors with power can just add themselves to that subset of humanity - this is the same reason we dont add software special backdoors that only special sets of humanity can unlock. This analogy doesn't make sense. The alternative to adding backdoors is to not add backdoors (which is safer). The alternative to restricting hardware repairs to a subset of humanity is not restricting them at all (which is more dangerous).
- drb91 8y agoWhat about protecting our computers from Apple? I’m far more concerned about them dictating our future than China.
- microcolonel 8y ago> If you trust the user to replace hardware, you permit the user’s hardware to be altered by malicious actors. The correct way to handle this, however, is to offer to sign the customer's key for a given unit or order, with a mechanism for succession (i.e. simultaneously sign a successor key, and expire the current one).
- userbinator 8y agoThis security improvement will make me safer If society as a whole constantly falls for the "security" argument then it won't be long before every aspect of your life is controlled by some central entity. I feel obligated to bring up that timeless quote again: "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
- matt4077 8y agoThat argument is slightly lazy, in that it applies to far too many situations where it's obviously wrong... Looking both ways before crossing the street does not make my life controlled by some central entity, etc..
- fghtr 8y agoYou do not give up any right when you look both ways before crossing the street. Which other situations you can suggest?
- jvolkman 8y agohttps://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- cmurf 8y agoWhy do you assume such malicious actors can't get a copy of the software, or leverage someone who has access?
- sschueller 8y agoThis also enables governments like China to prevent its citizens from modifying apple hardware. In essence it provides a tool for a government to retain control. You might trust Apple but do you trust your government to not pressure Apple? Apple cares about making money, not its users.
- michaelmrose 8y agoYou could allow EITHER party to authenticate a repair. You could even let Apple issue you a new key. Hardware attacks are virtually a non issue now. Pretending this is about security is just nonsense.