3 ms·
I suspect Apple's policy is "we're going to turn a blind eye on this until it becomes public". If it leaks, we'll act.
by ppeetteerr 8y ago
I suspect Apple's policy is "we're going to turn a blind eye on this until it becomes public". If it leaks, we'll act.
- chooseaname 8y agoDon't they have to? They don't know what every company is actually doing with the Enterprise certs.
- garyb2 8y agoThey know how many installations are active and how many people work for the org. When wildly out of line they could send a lawyer-gram and then shut it down if they don't get a response that accounts for the difference. Enterprise apps still phone home to the mother ship (Apple) and will refuse to run if, for example, the device doesn't have an internet connection for some number of days. (90 if memory serves.)
- chooseaname 8y agoOk, but this is now Apple having to police thousands of organizations. That's just not practical. I think they should handle it on a case by case basis.
- saagarjha 8y ago> Enterprise apps still phone home to the mother ship (Apple) and will refuse to run if, for example, the device doesn't have an internet connection for some number of days. (90 if memory serves.) I would not be surprised if the list of apps that a user has is not disclosed to Apple, and the only thing that is exchanged is Apple's "blacklist" of revoked certificates.
- ppeetteerr 8y agoThis illegal use of enterprise certificates must have leaked. How big is Facebook, after all.
- mnx 8y agoI'm not sure if "in violation of contract" counts as illegal in this case.
- ppeetteerr 8y agoYou're right, not illegal in that way. I miswrote.
- beezischillin 8y agoVery few publicly traded super giant companies act with any spine. Most just employ this tactic. Apple still seem to be one of the very rare companies with this much power who even half-heartedly try. Not to defend Apple, of course, since they've done stuff that doesn't need to be defended. I'm very curious to see how this plays out, though.