4 ms·

I disagree. Limit what we can do on computing devices we own is the worst offence to a democratic mind. Data privacy is of course important, but we don't need A

by chj 8y ago

I disagree. Limit what we can do on computing devices we own is the worst offence to a democratic mind. Data privacy is of course important, but we don't need Apple to fix that, we can fix it on our own once the first problem is addressed.

sjwright 8y ago
That is horrifically naive, as it would only solve the problem for the few. It would create a two tier society where the highly technically literate get privacy and everyone else are limited to whatever the big companies ship by default. Apple's products already respect my privacy; they don't need to be "fixed." Further, it is absurd to contend that there will be a net gain in privacy by letting the unwashed masses choose random shit they found on the internet to control the core of their devices. After all, installing random shit from the internet has totally never been a problem for privacy, ever.
- chj 8y ago
  To show the kind of real respect for privacy, we need to access every piece of code that we are running. If you don't have time or technical ability to do that, there are enough eyeballs out there. Can apple do that? Or are you going to simply trust?
  - sjwright 8y ago
    If you want to run entirely open source software on entirely open source hardware with every software component compiled by a personally verified compiler and with every hardware component manufactured under your personal scrutiny then you might have a point. Otherwise you are ultimately forced to trust someone—probably many someones—and I'd rather place that trust in as few entities as possible. For myself I've chosen an entity that I believe has an economic incentive to respect my privacy and has proven with their actions that they deserve my trust.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      All things being equal thought, it’s always better to have access to source code rather than none at all.
      - sjwright 8y ago
        Absolutely. And it's great that the option exists for anyone who has the technical literacy to understand how to benefit from that openness. But as soon as you encourage grandma to download Android roms, you can be certain that the internet will be flooded with dangerously exploited copies. These things seem simple for us because we deal with them every day. We understand how to interpret the components of a URL. We understand the reason why these critical downloads are paired with sha256 hashes. For most people on Earth, understanding computer security and the modes of trust in open source software is as likely as speaking Esperanto.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        Yes, I’m well aware of the trade off here, and unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a solution that combines both benefits. As a technical user, I’d love to be able to mess with my device, but I can see the problems it can cause and why Apple might not want this to be available to their users.
        sjwright 8y ago
        Agreed.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      You are equivocating additional weak points and additional verifiers when you are using the word "trust" for both. Having an additional entity the failure of which would lead to a failure of the system/product is an additional weak point. Obviously, you want as few of those as possible that you have to trust. Having an additional entity that watches/checks what is going on is an additional verifier. Obviously, you want as many of those as possible that you can build your trust on. You argument is essentially that you want fewer verifiers in order to have fewer weak points. That's just nonsense. By the same logic, you should prefer an intransparent dictatorship to a transparent democracy, because there are "fewer poeple to trust".
- tokyodude 8y ago
  that doesn't seem to hold. Once MS was forced to deal with their monopoly IE issues Firefox and then Chrome took off. Now to the point that Chrome is number 1 by user choice even if you remove Android from the picture. It would most likely be number one on iOS as well if Apple actually allowed Devs to implement a browser engine because Chrome follows 10s possibly even 100s of standards that Safari is dropping the ball on. The only single reason Apple can get away with this is their control over the platform and not allowing competition in that space. That's not just bad for iOS users and lack of choice (Chrome is provably more secure than Safari so by not allowing it Apple is not allowing users to choose a more secure browser ... see vulnerability lists), it's also bad for the entire web at large. By Apple controlling all iOS users access to the internet they have an effective stranglehold on what standards get adopted.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > Chrome is provably more secure than Safari You’re going to have to back this up with evidence. Both browsers are similarly secure, which is to say, they are probably good enough that you probably have other things to worry about than how secure your browser is.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    > Chrome is provably more secure than Safari What's the point of a "more secure" web browser that encourages you to sign in to the entire browser application with your Google account and leak huge amounts of your browsing habits to a company that derives incredible profits from your tracking your activities?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    > Chrome follows 10s possibly even 100s of standards that Safari is dropping the ball on. I went almost full Apple 14 months ago and I am yet to find a single website that I need that's not working at all or even well enough in Safari, desktop or mobile. The only argument I've seen so far is "but standard X is new, we need it!" without ever saying why do you need it. Care to elaborate?
intopieces 8y ago
>we don't need Apple to fix that, we can fix it on our own once the first problem is addressed. AOSP has been around for 10 years. People choose the Android model every day, and it droves higher than they choose the iOS model.

by chj 8y ago

sjwright 8y ago

That is horrifically naive, as it would only solve the problem for the few. It would create a two tier society where the highly technically literate get privacy and everyone else are limited to whatever the big companies ship by default. Apple's products already respect my privacy; they don't need to be "fixed." Further, it is absurd to contend that there will be a net gain in privacy by letting the unwashed masses choose random shit they found on the internet to control the core of their devices. After all, installing random shit from the internet has totally never been a problem for privacy, ever.

chj 8y ago
To show the kind of real respect for privacy, we need to access every piece of code that we are running. If you don't have time or technical ability to do that, there are enough eyeballs out there. Can apple do that? Or are you going to simply trust?
- sjwright 8y ago
  If you want to run entirely open source software on entirely open source hardware with every software component compiled by a personally verified compiler and with every hardware component manufactured under your personal scrutiny then you might have a point. Otherwise you are ultimately forced to trust someone—probably many someones—and I'd rather place that trust in as few entities as possible. For myself I've chosen an entity that I believe has an economic incentive to respect my privacy and has proven with their actions that they deserve my trust.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    All things being equal thought, it’s always better to have access to source code rather than none at all.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Absolutely. And it's great that the option exists for anyone who has the technical literacy to understand how to benefit from that openness. But as soon as you encourage grandma to download Android roms, you can be certain that the internet will be flooded with dangerously exploited copies. These things seem simple for us because we deal with them every day. We understand how to interpret the components of a URL. We understand the reason why these critical downloads are paired with sha256 hashes. For most people on Earth, understanding computer security and the modes of trust in open source software is as likely as speaking Esperanto.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Yes, I’m well aware of the trade off here, and unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a solution that combines both benefits. As a technical user, I’d love to be able to mess with my device, but I can see the problems it can cause and why Apple might not want this to be available to their users.
        sjwright 8y ago
        Agreed.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    You are equivocating additional weak points and additional verifiers when you are using the word "trust" for both. Having an additional entity the failure of which would lead to a failure of the system/product is an additional weak point. Obviously, you want as few of those as possible that you have to trust. Having an additional entity that watches/checks what is going on is an additional verifier. Obviously, you want as many of those as possible that you can build your trust on. You argument is essentially that you want fewer verifiers in order to have fewer weak points. That's just nonsense. By the same logic, you should prefer an intransparent dictatorship to a transparent democracy, because there are "fewer poeple to trust".
tokyodude 8y ago
that doesn't seem to hold. Once MS was forced to deal with their monopoly IE issues Firefox and then Chrome took off. Now to the point that Chrome is number 1 by user choice even if you remove Android from the picture. It would most likely be number one on iOS as well if Apple actually allowed Devs to implement a browser engine because Chrome follows 10s possibly even 100s of standards that Safari is dropping the ball on. The only single reason Apple can get away with this is their control over the platform and not allowing competition in that space. That's not just bad for iOS users and lack of choice (Chrome is provably more secure than Safari so by not allowing it Apple is not allowing users to choose a more secure browser ... see vulnerability lists), it's also bad for the entire web at large. By Apple controlling all iOS users access to the internet they have an effective stranglehold on what standards get adopted.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Chrome is provably more secure than Safari You’re going to have to back this up with evidence. Both browsers are similarly secure, which is to say, they are probably good enough that you probably have other things to worry about than how secure your browser is.
- sjwright 8y ago
  > Chrome is provably more secure than Safari What's the point of a "more secure" web browser that encourages you to sign in to the entire browser application with your Google account and leak huge amounts of your browsing habits to a company that derives incredible profits from your tracking your activities?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- pdimitar 8y ago
  > Chrome follows 10s possibly even 100s of standards that Safari is dropping the ball on. I went almost full Apple 14 months ago and I am yet to find a single website that I need that's not working at all or even well enough in Safari, desktop or mobile. The only argument I've seen so far is "but standard X is new, we need it!" without ever saying why do you need it. Care to elaborate?

intopieces 8y ago

>we don't need Apple to fix that, we can fix it on our own once the first problem is addressed. AOSP has been around for 10 years. People choose the Android model every day, and it droves higher than they choose the iOS model.