12 ms·

They seem to be the only body capable (and willing) to enforce privacy measures, so god I hope your wrong.

flukus 8y ago
My linux machines don't have a lot of privacy problems and don't have the overbearing corporate control. Walled gardens are great, but so are gates.
- quantummkv 8y ago
  The typical Linux gardens have caretakers with backgrounds in navy seals and are fully capable of protecting their gardens without gates. The average iOS and Android users don't even know they are in a garden, much less know how to protect it.
  - flukus 8y ago
    You're looking at the current state and not the model itself. > The average iOS and Android users don't even know they are in a garden, much less know how to protect it. If you took those same users and put them on the linux equivalent (ignoring other practicalities) the same will be true, any software they want will be coming from the ubuntu software center or something equivalent and they wouldn't have to protect themselves. Yet they'd still have the freedom to get software from other sources if they wished. Corporate users could build their own repository and have software installed from there without involving anyone else. Windows didn't have such a malware problem because they gave users the freedom, it was because downloading installers from websites was the default way to install software. Without this history windows could be (I don't know how trusted the windows store should be) in the same position as linux today, with users trained to install what they want from the store but still able to go around it. The apple desktop is in basically the same situation as windows. Android isn't a walled garden, you can install apps from elsewhere. Unfortunately the play store isn't a trustworthy source of software like apple store or a linux repository, all sorts of crap ends up there. Google even generates a per device Id to help software track you.
- geofft 8y ago
  Your Linux machine is neither a walled garden nor a gate; it's an unlocked house in the countryside. Its lack of privacy problems is because it's not a target. Have you built something from source by downloading a tarball and running `make install`? Did you look at the Makefile before you did so?
  - flukus 8y ago
    It's a walled garden because the default way to install apps is from the repository, a trusted source that isn't filled with spyware. The gate is that I can download and run software without it. It's the best of both worlds and has been before app stores existed. An unlocked house in the countryside would be running software without my intent, the only place that happens is inside the browser. You trust the app store just as I trust the repositories, I just have other choices available as well. > Have you built something from source by downloading a tarball and running `make install`? Did you look at the Makefile before you did so? Again, it's all about trust. Under this model companies like google can even build their own extensions to the garden.
    - fyfy18 8y ago
      As a Linux user I agree with GP that Linux is only as safe as it is because it's not a target. It's pretty clear that large tech companies cannot be trusted, I definitely wouldn't run a binary provided by Facebook on my machine. I am hesitant about running apps like Slack and Dropbox, and would prefer not to give them full access to my user account[0], but I need to use them so. Desktop container technologies are maturing nicely, so hopefully one day we'll have permission prompts where we can restrict what an app can access. [0] Yes I understand I could run them as a different user but that's not very user friendly at the moment.
      - z3t4 8y ago
        You could use Apparmor.
  - glennpratt 8y ago
    I don't understand. Some Linux machines I'm responsible for are targets. I build what few things I need from source in a sandbox, fetch the source from entities I trust and verify the integrity. And yes, I do read the code, because if I'm building it that usually means I needed to patch it.
- Scene_Cast2 8y ago
  The enforcing of privacy was done at a political level, not at a technical level. Linux (as a group? vague hand-wavy term) focuses hard on the technical merits of its own product, but ignores the ecosystem.
coder543 8y ago
I don't understand how allowing people the option to download things outside of the App Store mitigates the iPhone's ability to enforce privacy measures. It's completely possible to sandbox apps that don't come from the App Store, and they could even default to only allowing you to install apps from the App Store, with a secondary security tier of "allow installation of signed apps" and a third security tier of "allow installation of unsigned apps". If you choose to install things outside of the App Store, you would be in the minority. Very, very few people have ever installed anything outside of the Play Store on Android... with the exception of Fortnite. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition... and I'm definitely not suggesting "iOS should run all code encountered on the internet as root".
- saagarjha 8y ago
  This is how macOS works currently. Unfortunately, macOS has also had more aggressive malware because of this: it's easy to socially engineer users into removing security barriers.
  - coder543 8y ago
    More aggressive malware than what? There has been very little malware, and almost all of it gets shutdown within hours by Apple blacklisting the malware. I don't use macOS, so maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard of malware ravaging the macOS landscape. Windows has gotten a lot better about malware, and macOS is still not even at the same level of risk as modern Windows. I'm certain that Apple could do even better with iOS since they have the advantage of not needing to maintain compatibility with an existing ecosystem of software being distributed outside of the App Store.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Than iOS.
      - coder543 8y ago
        But again, if it's a non-issue on macOS (which it is, by all accounts of my Mac using friends and coworkers), then it would be even more of a non-issue on iOS, where they have a clean slate to design a security model "the right way" for apps distributed outside of the App Store. If users willingly choose to give up their information in exchange for a $20 gift card, isn't that their choice? I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, but as long as they're adults, isn't that their choice, not yours? If apps are trying to steal information without informing the users, those could be blacklisted outside of the App Store just as well as they can be blacklisted inside it if Apple requires centrally managed signing certificates... but I would still favor an option of allowing unsigned software to be installed. The user's choice should be their choice. Being outside of the App Store wouldn't necessarily be carte blanche, although it would hopefully enable developers to do more and better stuff, as well as make development more accessible to hobbyists who don't want to pay to distribute their stuff on the App Store.
Dravidian 8y ago
Apple was part of the PRISM program. If their integrity on privacy is true, they why lie about the PRISM program? What assurance do we have that Apple isn't part of PRISM or similar program anymore. Apple as a hardware company,privacy narrative has worked in its favour & yes the consumers as well; but seeing it as a saviour of our privacy is just naive.
- simonh 8y ago
  What I respect about Apples approach to this is their commitment to not being able to access your data themselves anyway. That way the NSA can hit them with whatever secret court orders they like, Apple cannot help them. They’re not completely there yet, but they appear to be doing it and nobody else seems to be even trying.
- neuronic 8y ago
  > If their integrity on privacy is true, they why lie about the PRISM program? Because they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Seems a bit of a double standard around here. When Apple's doing it, "shut up and take my freedom!" When anyone else is doing it, it's "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
- mikestew 8y ago
  Seems a bit of a double standard around here. It’s almost as if the contradictory opinions were voiced by...different individuals.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    Yes, but they're being upvoted by the same collective.
fatjokes 8y ago
I'm really impressed that Apple has been able to convince a significant number of people that it genuinely cares about privacy.
- wheelerwj 8y ago
  its not that surprising when, among other things, it's willing to standup to the US Government.. what evidence do you have to the contrary.
  - jhasse 8y ago
    PRISM
    - wheelerwj 8y ago
      every major tech company and lots of others has received the NSL, what do you recommend doing about it?
- simonh 8y ago
  I think it’s the fact that whenever the government has tried to force them to unlock phones for them or install backdoors allow them to do so, they’ve very publicly crashed flat into an Apple brick wall.
- halbritt 8y ago
  It's not so much that anybody has been convinced, but that Apple themselves are incentivized to preserve the privacy of their customers to some degree.
- nicky0 8y ago
  Say what you mean - are you saying that Aopple doesn't respect privacy, or that do but they somehow don't "care" about it?
HenryBemis 8y ago
And this is why I NEVER install anything Google on my iPhones, and I firewall EVERYTHING Google on my Androids (apart from when I want to download/update a new app)(No Root Firewall). FB and Google just don't give a rat's ... for anything except profit. Unless they start getting fines in the region of $XXm per month, they won't stop. Apart from that, yes great companies, great services, but next-to-zero ethics.
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Meanwhile, the Chinese government got Apple to ban VPN apps from the Chinese app store (and block the requisite API in sideloaded applications). So because of Apple's closed system, an entire nation of people is more liable to be spied on by their government. But yes, let's encourage Apple to keep their system closed, to protect users from purposefully opting in to tracking.
- y0ghur7_xxx 8y ago
  They can just buy an other phone. It's not like you HAVE to buy an iPhone.
- kpcyrd 8y ago
  Are you using china as a strawman to advocate for corporate userdata harvesting?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    No. I'm not in favor of "corporate data harvesting", but I am in favor of users being able to run whatever software they want on devices they own. I firmly believe that this gives users more self-empowerement in the long run, and that China is a good example of why. Trying to protect users from themselves is never a good solution. Educate, don't dictate.
    - lenocinor 8y ago
      The problem has always been, "what if you have users you can't educate?" (Or take too much time / effort to realistically educate, or don't want to be educated, etc.) If you have both groups of users, and they share a platform, and their security needs are at odds with each other, you have to pick either the educated group or the uneducated group, in a way which fundamentally disadvantages the unchosen group. You can't make both happy, ever. In these debates I often see the educated group advocate for more education of the uneducated group, which many times I think is disingenuous, impractical, and sometimes even a little hostile to the uneducated. It seems to fundamentally misunderstand many of the uneducated group's wants and needs. It's a bummer to be in the educated group and be subject to this problem, but I think it's fundamentally an intractable problem. If you don't like it, you have to leave for a platform which serves your needs, and that platform is almost certainly going to be a niche platform (at least eventually), because most users are not educated but want to have their needs served anyway. EDIT: One more thing. There's an implicit assumption about danger here and an appropriate level of education. It's appropriate to ask anyone, regardless of who they are, to undergo a lot of training before operating, say, a car. It's not appropriate, in my book, to ask people to undergo a lot of education before operating a phone.
writepub 8y ago
Like the nitro-boosted, high octane, adrenaline pumping privacy they extend to their users in China [1]? This whole "Apple is so special that thir brutalistic absolutism is warranted" attitude is tiring. More $ flow through Apple in mobile software in the US, than through the competition, effectively making them a monopoly. They need to be subject to the same monopoly regulation as any other monopoly. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-icloud-accounts-government-privacy-speed https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-ic...
UncleMeat 8y ago
Is there a body that enforced privacy measures on apt? What about on just random code on GitHub? Or web applications? Is a body enforcing privacy (even preventing people from consenting to give their data away) a good thing? In grad school I did some research that involved a mobile app and people willingly giving some of their information to me (after a lot of notice and consent forms). This was relevant for legal analysis of some data collection programs. Should my app have been shuttered?

My linux machines don't have a lot of privacy problems and don't have the overbearing corporate control. Walled gardens are great, but so are gates.

quantummkv 8y ago
The typical Linux gardens have caretakers with backgrounds in navy seals and are fully capable of protecting their gardens without gates. The average iOS and Android users don't even know they are in a garden, much less know how to protect it.
- flukus 8y ago
  You're looking at the current state and not the model itself. > The average iOS and Android users don't even know they are in a garden, much less know how to protect it. If you took those same users and put them on the linux equivalent (ignoring other practicalities) the same will be true, any software they want will be coming from the ubuntu software center or something equivalent and they wouldn't have to protect themselves. Yet they'd still have the freedom to get software from other sources if they wished. Corporate users could build their own repository and have software installed from there without involving anyone else. Windows didn't have such a malware problem because they gave users the freedom, it was because downloading installers from websites was the default way to install software. Without this history windows could be (I don't know how trusted the windows store should be) in the same position as linux today, with users trained to install what they want from the store but still able to go around it. The apple desktop is in basically the same situation as windows. Android isn't a walled garden, you can install apps from elsewhere. Unfortunately the play store isn't a trustworthy source of software like apple store or a linux repository, all sorts of crap ends up there. Google even generates a per device Id to help software track you.
geofft 8y ago
Your Linux machine is neither a walled garden nor a gate; it's an unlocked house in the countryside. Its lack of privacy problems is because it's not a target. Have you built something from source by downloading a tarball and running `make install`? Did you look at the Makefile before you did so?
- flukus 8y ago
  It's a walled garden because the default way to install apps is from the repository, a trusted source that isn't filled with spyware. The gate is that I can download and run software without it. It's the best of both worlds and has been before app stores existed. An unlocked house in the countryside would be running software without my intent, the only place that happens is inside the browser. You trust the app store just as I trust the repositories, I just have other choices available as well. > Have you built something from source by downloading a tarball and running `make install`? Did you look at the Makefile before you did so? Again, it's all about trust. Under this model companies like google can even build their own extensions to the garden.
  - fyfy18 8y ago
    As a Linux user I agree with GP that Linux is only as safe as it is because it's not a target. It's pretty clear that large tech companies cannot be trusted, I definitely wouldn't run a binary provided by Facebook on my machine. I am hesitant about running apps like Slack and Dropbox, and would prefer not to give them full access to my user account[0], but I need to use them so. Desktop container technologies are maturing nicely, so hopefully one day we'll have permission prompts where we can restrict what an app can access. [0] Yes I understand I could run them as a different user but that's not very user friendly at the moment.
    - z3t4 8y ago
      You could use Apparmor.
- glennpratt 8y ago
  I don't understand. Some Linux machines I'm responsible for are targets. I build what few things I need from source in a sandbox, fetch the source from entities I trust and verify the integrity. And yes, I do read the code, because if I'm building it that usually means I needed to patch it.
Scene_Cast2 8y ago
The enforcing of privacy was done at a political level, not at a technical level. Linux (as a group? vague hand-wavy term) focuses hard on the technical merits of its own product, but ignores the ecosystem.

coder543 8y ago

I don't understand how allowing people the option to download things outside of the App Store mitigates the iPhone's ability to enforce privacy measures. It's completely possible to sandbox apps that don't come from the App Store, and they could even default to only allowing you to install apps from the App Store, with a secondary security tier of "allow installation of signed apps" and a third security tier of "allow installation of unsigned apps". If you choose to install things outside of the App Store, you would be in the minority. Very, very few people have ever installed anything outside of the Play Store on Android... with the exception of Fortnite. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition... and I'm definitely not suggesting "iOS should run all code encountered on the internet as root".

saagarjha 8y ago
This is how macOS works currently. Unfortunately, macOS has also had more aggressive malware because of this: it's easy to socially engineer users into removing security barriers.
- coder543 8y ago
  More aggressive malware than what? There has been very little malware, and almost all of it gets shutdown within hours by Apple blacklisting the malware. I don't use macOS, so maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard of malware ravaging the macOS landscape. Windows has gotten a lot better about malware, and macOS is still not even at the same level of risk as modern Windows. I'm certain that Apple could do even better with iOS since they have the advantage of not needing to maintain compatibility with an existing ecosystem of software being distributed outside of the App Store.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Than iOS.
    - coder543 8y ago
      But again, if it's a non-issue on macOS (which it is, by all accounts of my Mac using friends and coworkers), then it would be even more of a non-issue on iOS, where they have a clean slate to design a security model "the right way" for apps distributed outside of the App Store. If users willingly choose to give up their information in exchange for a $20 gift card, isn't that their choice? I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, but as long as they're adults, isn't that their choice, not yours? If apps are trying to steal information without informing the users, those could be blacklisted outside of the App Store just as well as they can be blacklisted inside it if Apple requires centrally managed signing certificates... but I would still favor an option of allowing unsigned software to be installed. The user's choice should be their choice. Being outside of the App Store wouldn't necessarily be carte blanche, although it would hopefully enable developers to do more and better stuff, as well as make development more accessible to hobbyists who don't want to pay to distribute their stuff on the App Store.

Dravidian 8y ago

Apple was part of the PRISM program. If their integrity on privacy is true, they why lie about the PRISM program? What assurance do we have that Apple isn't part of PRISM or similar program anymore. Apple as a hardware company,privacy narrative has worked in its favour & yes the consumers as well; but seeing it as a saviour of our privacy is just naive.

simonh 8y ago
What I respect about Apples approach to this is their commitment to not being able to access your data themselves anyway. That way the NSA can hit them with whatever secret court orders they like, Apple cannot help them. They’re not completely there yet, but they appear to be doing it and nobody else seems to be even trying.
neuronic 8y ago
> If their integrity on privacy is true, they why lie about the PRISM program? Because they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

Seems a bit of a double standard around here. When Apple's doing it, "shut up and take my freedom!" When anyone else is doing it, it's "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

mikestew 8y ago
Seems a bit of a double standard around here. It’s almost as if the contradictory opinions were voiced by...different individuals.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Yes, but they're being upvoted by the same collective.

fatjokes 8y ago

I'm really impressed that Apple has been able to convince a significant number of people that it genuinely cares about privacy.

wheelerwj 8y ago
its not that surprising when, among other things, it's willing to standup to the US Government.. what evidence do you have to the contrary.
- jhasse 8y ago
  PRISM
  - wheelerwj 8y ago
    every major tech company and lots of others has received the NSL, what do you recommend doing about it?
simonh 8y ago
I think it’s the fact that whenever the government has tried to force them to unlock phones for them or install backdoors allow them to do so, they’ve very publicly crashed flat into an Apple brick wall.
halbritt 8y ago
It's not so much that anybody has been convinced, but that Apple themselves are incentivized to preserve the privacy of their customers to some degree.
nicky0 8y ago
Say what you mean - are you saying that Aopple doesn't respect privacy, or that do but they somehow don't "care" about it?

HenryBemis 8y ago

And this is why I NEVER install anything Google on my iPhones, and I firewall EVERYTHING Google on my Androids (apart from when I want to download/update a new app)(No Root Firewall). FB and Google just don't give a rat's ... for anything except profit. Unless they start getting fines in the region of $XXm per month, they won't stop. Apart from that, yes great companies, great services, but next-to-zero ethics.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

Meanwhile, the Chinese government got Apple to ban VPN apps from the Chinese app store (and block the requisite API in sideloaded applications). So because of Apple's closed system, an entire nation of people is more liable to be spied on by their government. But yes, let's encourage Apple to keep their system closed, to protect users from purposefully opting in to tracking.

y0ghur7_xxx 8y ago
They can just buy an other phone. It's not like you HAVE to buy an iPhone.
kpcyrd 8y ago
Are you using china as a strawman to advocate for corporate userdata harvesting?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  No. I'm not in favor of "corporate data harvesting", but I am in favor of users being able to run whatever software they want on devices they own. I firmly believe that this gives users more self-empowerement in the long run, and that China is a good example of why. Trying to protect users from themselves is never a good solution. Educate, don't dictate.
  - lenocinor 8y ago
    The problem has always been, "what if you have users you can't educate?" (Or take too much time / effort to realistically educate, or don't want to be educated, etc.) If you have both groups of users, and they share a platform, and their security needs are at odds with each other, you have to pick either the educated group or the uneducated group, in a way which fundamentally disadvantages the unchosen group. You can't make both happy, ever. In these debates I often see the educated group advocate for more education of the uneducated group, which many times I think is disingenuous, impractical, and sometimes even a little hostile to the uneducated. It seems to fundamentally misunderstand many of the uneducated group's wants and needs. It's a bummer to be in the educated group and be subject to this problem, but I think it's fundamentally an intractable problem. If you don't like it, you have to leave for a platform which serves your needs, and that platform is almost certainly going to be a niche platform (at least eventually), because most users are not educated but want to have their needs served anyway. EDIT: One more thing. There's an implicit assumption about danger here and an appropriate level of education. It's appropriate to ask anyone, regardless of who they are, to undergo a lot of training before operating, say, a car. It's not appropriate, in my book, to ask people to undergo a lot of education before operating a phone.

writepub 8y ago

Like the nitro-boosted, high octane, adrenaline pumping privacy they extend to their users in China [1]? This whole "Apple is so special that thir brutalistic absolutism is warranted" attitude is tiring. More $ flow through Apple in mobile software in the US, than through the competition, effectively making them a monopoly. They need to be subject to the same monopoly regulation as any other monopoly. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-icloud-accounts-government-privacy-speed https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-ic...

UncleMeat 8y ago

Is there a body that enforced privacy measures on apt? What about on just random code on GitHub? Or web applications? Is a body enforcing privacy (even preventing people from consenting to give their data away) a good thing? In grad school I did some research that involved a mobile app and people willingly giving some of their information to me (after a lot of notice and consent forms). This was relevant for legal analysis of some data collection programs. Should my app have been shuttered?