13 ms·

So, let's get the facts straight here: 1. The apps used MDM profiles, intedned for control of employee's smartphones and/or vpns to filter access to apps. 2.

So, let's get the facts straight here: 1. The apps used MDM profiles, intedned for control of employee's smartphones and/or vpns to filter access to apps. 2. Those approaches gave the app makers enormous control over the devices. If they used vpns, all internet traffic from the device could be intercepted. If they used MDM profiles, they had deep access to all the device's settings. It was a huge privacy risk. 3. This was clearly against Apple's policies. APIs were used for the purpose they were not intended for. That was what Facebooks's certificates were revoked for. They should've feared removal since the day they wrote their first line of code. 4. I guess that Apple understood the need for parental control apps and allowed them, with the privacy risks, as there was no other way to get parental control at the time. 5. Apple knew how important iPhone addiction has become and developed their own, privacy respecting solution, screen Time. 6. The need for parental control has now been filled and the privacy risks of those apps now outweigh the benefits. Apple made the decision to remove. 7. Apple, in general, doesn't allow other apps to access such information on your device, for privacy and security reasons. It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. Apple's philosophy sacrifices some features you might have for your own security. If you're not fine with it, use Android and sideload, but don't run screaming to the police when it suddenly turns out that the online banking app you've just installed was a very good fake. [1]. [1] https://www.tahawultech.com/industry/technology/android-warning-fake-banking-apps-on-the-rise/ https://www.tahawultech.com/industry/technology/android-warn...

javiermares 8y ago
Thanks for this. What a sensationalistic title.
tyingq 8y ago
"1. The apps used MDM profiles, intedned for control of employee's smartphones and/or vpns to filter access to apps." Anyone know where Apple's language on this is? MDM is "mobile device management", which sounds very much like what a parental control app is. I don't see much difference in the employer vs parent use cases.
- eugeniub 8y ago
  Start a family restaurant, hire your kids, problem solved.
  - sbr464 8y ago
    That was my thought, I’m not sure why the relation to mdm and enterprise keeps coming up, in the sense that it’s limited to enterprise use cases only. Many people use enterprise hardware and software for personal use cases. Things like the Meraki Mdm and Duo 2fa free level. I use separate licenses of LastPass Enterprise for company and personal reasons, because it has more features. I would also argue that a family would have equal or more rights/choice over how they manage their devices/family.
- pandatigox 8y ago
  MDM is used for enterprise. IT Admin has certain escalated privileges, which is different to a parental control app. It can be especially dangerous if the person in control of MDM has malicious intent. Refer to the Mobile Device Management tab in the link. https://support.apple.com/en-au/business https://support.apple.com/en-au/business
  - otabdeveloper2 8y ago
    > IT Admin has certain escalated privileges, which is different to a parental control app. So a random employer is allowed to control employee devices, but a parent isn't allowed to control their children's devices? Really? This is flat-out evil on Apple's part.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
      IT admins are given powers over devices that would be considered domestic abuse if given to parents.
      - whydoineedthis 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
otabdeveloper2 8y ago
Parental control is basically the only technically valid and ethical use-case for MDM.
- monochromatic 8y ago
  If an employer issues phones to its employees, is it really unethical to maintain control over its own devices?
NoblePublius 8y ago
Setting up MDM is a long and complicated process, the parents are told about 10000 times the implications of doing so, and “privacy” is a total canard created by Apple for marketing purposes to make you fear Google.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The point of these apps is to make the MDM process seamless to non-technical users.
  - NoblePublius 8y ago
    I’ve built such an app, and it’s not seamless. It’s literally 20 steps.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      What are these 20 steps? As far as I was aware, you install an app and it tells you to go to Settings to install their profile.
      - NoblePublius 8y ago
        Here are the instructions for OurPact . Each of these 8 instructions contain many sub-steps. Launch the Safari browser on your child's device. Navigate to pair.ourpact.com. Enter your OurPact account credentials. Tap New Child to create a fresh child profile, or assign the device to an existing management profile. If creating a NEW child profile, enter your child's name. Tap PAIR. If asked to open settings, tap ALLOW. Accept the installation prompts to add management to your child's device: Install Enter your child's iOS device entry pin (the code used to unlock the device) Install Install Trust Done Manage your child's device from the parent OurPact app on your Android device, or our Web App (app.ourpact.com) in a mobile or desktop browser.
sigmar 8y ago
>It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. Doesn't it seem weird to you how they only cared about "making iOS secure" once they had their own product? If Google or Microsoft did this the reaction here on HN would be so different. Any anti-competitive practice could be rationalized by saying it makes the platform more secure.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Anti competitive how? Apple doesn’t make money from their solution. On the other hand, they would make 30% on third party solutions. Wouldn’t it be in their financial interest to allow third party spyware?
  - wayneftw 8y ago
    Microsoft didn't make money on their free Internet Explorer web browser but they lost an anti-trust case for giving it away free with Windows. And before anyone says Apple isn't a monopoly...well they are in certain markets. For instance, among the younger generations they have like +80% market share and in the US they have close to 50%. There's also an anti-trust case pending against them in the Supreme Court right now.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      They didn’t “lose” because of bundling. They lost because they forced exclusive third party OEMs not to bundle Netscape. Do you notice that MS never stopped bundling IE? Have any of the console makers or smart TV makers been told what they can and can’t put on their own devices? Has any physical store been fined for limiting what they sell in their own store? And that’s not how monopolies are defined.
      - wayneftw 8y ago
        Not allowing users to put competing third party apps on their own devices is exactly what Apple is doing. Should users have less rights on their devices than OEMs do e.g. in the Microsoft case? And market percentage is too one major metric of how monopolies are defined.
amelius 8y ago
> It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. They could compensate the app makers, at least.
blueboo 8y ago
It's not complicated: Overly-broad rules + selective enforcement = yes, targeted crackdown
asveikau 8y ago
Don't be an apologist. To introduce your own feature and stopping there, declaring the problem solved (when this article claims the solution doesn't work as well as the third party ones did) is irresponsible. If this is the road they want to take, the right way is to introduce any and all public hooks needed to create a solution, and then, importantly, make the Apple one use only public APIs. But it seems they chose to be significantly more lazy and bigger jerks than that. And here you come with the 7 point plan to say they are really commendable instead.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Introducing all the public hooks to make this possible puts us back in the situation where some apps can monitor and collect data on usage of other apps.
  - zamalek 8y ago
    You could do a whole lot short of that. Restricing app use does not need such powers.
johnmarcus 8y ago
Thanks for presenting the facts in a SLANTED manner so that I can straighten them for you. 1) The apps used MDM profiles, intended for anyone that requires "Multi Device Management". 2) Children and employees should have no expectation of privacy on devices owned and permitted use by an adult whom could be jailed or fined for my behavior, hence the tight monitoring. 3) If it was so "clearly" against policy, Apple should have noticed it in the past 10 years of submitals. 4) They could have developed the feature when the realized it was needed, that's at least one way they could have accomplished their goal at the time. 5) Apple finally decided to do number 4, because it's been apparent forever. 6) Now that Apple has gained market dominance and developed their own version, they decided to give a very short amount of notice in order to cripple these now competing companies. They could have given something like 6 months notice or something - since the "privacy risks" have been in existence for 10 years, and mostly used to control snot nosed kids from sexting dick picks that could get them arrested. 7) Apple, in general, doesn't allow competition with it's own software products. In any case, they will attempt to diminish competition value - value that helped build their phone and app store in a dominent position to begin with. 8) MDM solutions still exist, else corporations will go tell Apple to fuck themselves and they will buy Androids for their employees. Apple isn't the only control freak in the room. Also, you can sideload and trust apps on an iPhone as well, it's not just an Android thing. Apple's 'philosophy' is to protect it's own "intellectual" property when it can, and bully and steal from others when it can get away from it.
- miki123211 8y ago
  1. I think Apple did notice, the problem just didn't use to be that big. A few years ago you had way less people talking about it and wanting such solutions. WHen they became too popular, they went up Apple's priority list and the solution was created. As I've explained a few times, until Apple had the resources to dedicate to screen time, they allowed the less safe solutions using mdm. 2. I've been wanting to avoid the subject of whether parental controls should be used alltogether, but, since you brought it up, I have to comment. I've met people for whom parental controls made life hell. They weren't used to protect them, they were used to enforce parents' religious and political views on a teenager who was able to think on their own. She basically wasn't able to make friends locally b/c disability, and they monitored all her online communications, even with people they knew personally, all thanks to parental controls. Back when she had Windows, someone could always hack her out, well, with Apple, it's not that easy. [1]
jplayer01 8y ago
Unfortunately, their solution is far worse than something like Rescue Time, so the only real winner here is Apple. My Apple devices (iPhone, iPad) are effectively a black hole where I have no idea where my time goes, while I have detailed graphs and data whenever I use my laptop (Linux) or desktop (Windows).
- gnicholas 8y ago
  >where I have no idea where my time goes Apple’s solution does show the apps used the most. But I agree it’s not at good as Mute or other 3rd party apps. I’d use those if they didn’t kill my battery on account of needing to track movement at all times (which is their only way to get access to device usage data). I wish Apple would just let these apps access the bare usage information so they could stop pretending that location is a critical part of their apps.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    The amount of detail and information provided by Screen Time just pales in comparison. The UI to work with it also isn't great. And the data is locked into Apple's ecosystem, where other solutions allow a true cross-platform and open (exportable data) experience. Not sure why I'm being so downvoted.
- DenseComet 8y ago
  What software do you use to do time tracking on Linux?
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    I’ve settled on Rescue Time for everything. I’d prefer a non-cloud based one but I haven’t found a decent one yet.
dingo_bat 8y ago
So no privacy for employees then? It seems to me they should have more privacy from employers than kids from parents.
ajross 8y ago
> It's a bit anti competitive, yes, [...], but [...] Reasonable enough, but it's really worth pointing out the interpretation skew here. If this was another major platform vendor, HN would have multiple heads on stakes posted at the top of the topic and flamethrowers would be deployed deep into the subthreads. But it's Apple, so "it's bad, but" is what we're greeted with on opening the page.
- dwaite 8y ago
  Why would I be upset if Google or Microsoft were banning spyware targeting children from their stores?
  - ajross 8y ago
    See, this is exactly what I mean. That's not the headline to which you're responding, it's the spin you're applying. You're taking the facts presented, interpreting them as charitably as you can, and making that your default interpretation. Only Apple gets that kind of "monopolistic, but..." affection here. Everyone else (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Tesla...) get crucified for the same kind of thing, every day. I'm just pointing it out because it's tiresome and at this point frankly embarassing. I'm not particularly offended by your spin in this instance, and honestly don't even disagree with you that this is a non-issue.
mcv 8y ago
It seems to me that these techniques only hurt the security of the user if they're used without the user's knowledge. As long as the apps are very clear about what they do to the phone and its traffic, and the user is fine with that, I don't see what business of Apple it is to disallow it. Let's face it, Apple also has deep control over people's iPhones. Is that a security threat, or is it something that users choose by buying Apple? It is absolutely anti-competitive. I think it's time for an anti-trust case against the way Apple abuses their control over the app store.
- miki123211 8y ago
  The thing is, users usually don't know what they're doing. Users are accustomed to clicking through promtps and usually have the "meh, some stupid security thingy again, who cares" attitude. There are the HN people who can actually read prompts on screen and understand what stuff means, but most people can't (or don't). They can't differentiate between a legitimate app that, say, wants to re route all your traffic through a server b/c parental controls, and another app that wants to do it for "making your internet traffic faster" while spying on you. People installed fake RAM extending Android apps, what are we even talking about. Even if the users understood what they were doing, they probably didn't know the risks associated with installing an MDM profile. THey didn't know what data exactly the app makers were getting and how they were using it. Even I don't know that. I know where to find such information if I need to, but I don't know exactly the permissions of an mdm profile by heard.
  - mcv 8y ago
    Sure, but the same is true for whatever security Apple offers. Why is what Apple offers necessarily better? And in my opinion, a big part of the reason why many people have no idea what those security permissions mean, is that iOS and Android are way too vague about them.
xg15 8y ago
> The need for parental control has now been filled and the privacy risks of those apps now outweigh the benefits. Apple made the decision to remove. The article explains in quite detailed terms why Apple's solution is inadequate and does not "fill the need" at all. Also, on what ground would those risk/benefit calculations be made and by whom?
kalleboo 8y ago
> I guess that Apple understood the need for parental control apps and allowed them, with the privacy risks, as there was no other way to get parental control at the time. Everyone is assuming that Apple was aware of the MDM abuse and tolerated it, but seeing how they completely missed Facebook's and Google's abuse of enterprise certificates, it seems just as plausible that the Facebook revelation spurred them to do a re-evaluation of the actual use of all these enterprise programs at which point they found this issue.
sjg007 8y ago
If you want to give another company control over your MDM and VPN then you should be able to.

javiermares 8y ago

Thanks for this. What a sensationalistic title.

tyingq 8y ago

"1. The apps used MDM profiles, intedned for control of employee's smartphones and/or vpns to filter access to apps." Anyone know where Apple's language on this is? MDM is "mobile device management", which sounds very much like what a parental control app is. I don't see much difference in the employer vs parent use cases.

eugeniub 8y ago
Start a family restaurant, hire your kids, problem solved.
- sbr464 8y ago
  That was my thought, I’m not sure why the relation to mdm and enterprise keeps coming up, in the sense that it’s limited to enterprise use cases only. Many people use enterprise hardware and software for personal use cases. Things like the Meraki Mdm and Duo 2fa free level. I use separate licenses of LastPass Enterprise for company and personal reasons, because it has more features. I would also argue that a family would have equal or more rights/choice over how they manage their devices/family.
pandatigox 8y ago
MDM is used for enterprise. IT Admin has certain escalated privileges, which is different to a parental control app. It can be especially dangerous if the person in control of MDM has malicious intent. Refer to the Mobile Device Management tab in the link. https://support.apple.com/en-au/business https://support.apple.com/en-au/business
- otabdeveloper2 8y ago
  > IT Admin has certain escalated privileges, which is different to a parental control app. So a random employer is allowed to control employee devices, but a parent isn't allowed to control their children's devices? Really? This is flat-out evil on Apple's part.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
    IT admins are given powers over devices that would be considered domestic abuse if given to parents.
    - whydoineedthis 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

otabdeveloper2 8y ago

Parental control is basically the only technically valid and ethical use-case for MDM.

monochromatic 8y ago
If an employer issues phones to its employees, is it really unethical to maintain control over its own devices?

NoblePublius 8y ago

Setting up MDM is a long and complicated process, the parents are told about 10000 times the implications of doing so, and “privacy” is a total canard created by Apple for marketing purposes to make you fear Google.

saagarjha 8y ago
The point of these apps is to make the MDM process seamless to non-technical users.
- NoblePublius 8y ago
  I’ve built such an app, and it’s not seamless. It’s literally 20 steps.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    What are these 20 steps? As far as I was aware, you install an app and it tells you to go to Settings to install their profile.
    - NoblePublius 8y ago
      Here are the instructions for OurPact . Each of these 8 instructions contain many sub-steps. Launch the Safari browser on your child's device. Navigate to pair.ourpact.com. Enter your OurPact account credentials. Tap New Child to create a fresh child profile, or assign the device to an existing management profile. If creating a NEW child profile, enter your child's name. Tap PAIR. If asked to open settings, tap ALLOW. Accept the installation prompts to add management to your child's device: Install Enter your child's iOS device entry pin (the code used to unlock the device) Install Install Trust Done Manage your child's device from the parent OurPact app on your Android device, or our Web App (app.ourpact.com) in a mobile or desktop browser.

sigmar 8y ago

>It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. Doesn't it seem weird to you how they only cared about "making iOS secure" once they had their own product? If Google or Microsoft did this the reaction here on HN would be so different. Any anti-competitive practice could be rationalized by saying it makes the platform more secure.

scarface74 8y ago
Anti competitive how? Apple doesn’t make money from their solution. On the other hand, they would make 30% on third party solutions. Wouldn’t it be in their financial interest to allow third party spyware?
- wayneftw 8y ago
  Microsoft didn't make money on their free Internet Explorer web browser but they lost an anti-trust case for giving it away free with Windows. And before anyone says Apple isn't a monopoly...well they are in certain markets. For instance, among the younger generations they have like +80% market share and in the US they have close to 50%. There's also an anti-trust case pending against them in the Supreme Court right now.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    They didn’t “lose” because of bundling. They lost because they forced exclusive third party OEMs not to bundle Netscape. Do you notice that MS never stopped bundling IE? Have any of the console makers or smart TV makers been told what they can and can’t put on their own devices? Has any physical store been fined for limiting what they sell in their own store? And that’s not how monopolies are defined.
    - wayneftw 8y ago
      Not allowing users to put competing third party apps on their own devices is exactly what Apple is doing. Should users have less rights on their devices than OEMs do e.g. in the Microsoft case? And market percentage is too one major metric of how monopolies are defined.

amelius 8y ago

> It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. They could compensate the app makers, at least.

blueboo 8y ago

It's not complicated: Overly-broad rules + selective enforcement = yes, targeted crackdown

asveikau 8y ago

Don't be an apologist. To introduce your own feature and stopping there, declaring the problem solved (when this article claims the solution doesn't work as well as the third party ones did) is irresponsible. If this is the road they want to take, the right way is to introduce any and all public hooks needed to create a solution, and then, importantly, make the Apple one use only public APIs. But it seems they chose to be significantly more lazy and bigger jerks than that. And here you come with the 7 point plan to say they are really commendable instead.

saagarjha 8y ago
Introducing all the public hooks to make this possible puts us back in the situation where some apps can monitor and collect data on usage of other apps.
- zamalek 8y ago
  You could do a whole lot short of that. Restricing app use does not need such powers.

johnmarcus 8y ago

Thanks for presenting the facts in a SLANTED manner so that I can straighten them for you. 1) The apps used MDM profiles, intended for anyone that requires "Multi Device Management". 2) Children and employees should have no expectation of privacy on devices owned and permitted use by an adult whom could be jailed or fined for my behavior, hence the tight monitoring. 3) If it was so "clearly" against policy, Apple should have noticed it in the past 10 years of submitals. 4) They could have developed the feature when the realized it was needed, that's at least one way they could have accomplished their goal at the time. 5) Apple finally decided to do number 4, because it's been apparent forever. 6) Now that Apple has gained market dominance and developed their own version, they decided to give a very short amount of notice in order to cripple these now competing companies. They could have given something like 6 months notice or something - since the "privacy risks" have been in existence for 10 years, and mostly used to control snot nosed kids from sexting dick picks that could get them arrested. 7) Apple, in general, doesn't allow competition with it's own software products. In any case, they will attempt to diminish competition value - value that helped build their phone and app store in a dominent position to begin with. 8) MDM solutions still exist, else corporations will go tell Apple to fuck themselves and they will buy Androids for their employees. Apple isn't the only control freak in the room. Also, you can sideload and trust apps on an iPhone as well, it's not just an Android thing. Apple's 'philosophy' is to protect it's own "intellectual" property when it can, and bully and steal from others when it can get away from it.

miki123211 8y ago
1. I think Apple did notice, the problem just didn't use to be that big. A few years ago you had way less people talking about it and wanting such solutions. WHen they became too popular, they went up Apple's priority list and the solution was created. As I've explained a few times, until Apple had the resources to dedicate to screen time, they allowed the less safe solutions using mdm. 2. I've been wanting to avoid the subject of whether parental controls should be used alltogether, but, since you brought it up, I have to comment. I've met people for whom parental controls made life hell. They weren't used to protect them, they were used to enforce parents' religious and political views on a teenager who was able to think on their own. She basically wasn't able to make friends locally b/c disability, and they monitored all her online communications, even with people they knew personally, all thanks to parental controls. Back when she had Windows, someone could always hack her out, well, with Apple, it's not that easy. [1]

jplayer01 8y ago

Unfortunately, their solution is far worse than something like Rescue Time, so the only real winner here is Apple. My Apple devices (iPhone, iPad) are effectively a black hole where I have no idea where my time goes, while I have detailed graphs and data whenever I use my laptop (Linux) or desktop (Windows).

gnicholas 8y ago
>where I have no idea where my time goes Apple’s solution does show the apps used the most. But I agree it’s not at good as Mute or other 3rd party apps. I’d use those if they didn’t kill my battery on account of needing to track movement at all times (which is their only way to get access to device usage data). I wish Apple would just let these apps access the bare usage information so they could stop pretending that location is a critical part of their apps.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  The amount of detail and information provided by Screen Time just pales in comparison. The UI to work with it also isn't great. And the data is locked into Apple's ecosystem, where other solutions allow a true cross-platform and open (exportable data) experience. Not sure why I'm being so downvoted.
DenseComet 8y ago
What software do you use to do time tracking on Linux?
- jplayer01 8y ago
  I’ve settled on Rescue Time for everything. I’d prefer a non-cloud based one but I haven’t found a decent one yet.

dingo_bat 8y ago

So no privacy for employees then? It seems to me they should have more privacy from employers than kids from parents.

ajross 8y ago

> It's a bit anti competitive, yes, [...], but [...] Reasonable enough, but it's really worth pointing out the interpretation skew here. If this was another major platform vendor, HN would have multiple heads on stakes posted at the top of the topic and flamethrowers would be deployed deep into the subthreads. But it's Apple, so "it's bad, but" is what we're greeted with on opening the page.

dwaite 8y ago
Why would I be upset if Google or Microsoft were banning spyware targeting children from their stores?
- ajross 8y ago
  See, this is exactly what I mean. That's not the headline to which you're responding, it's the spin you're applying. You're taking the facts presented, interpreting them as charitably as you can, and making that your default interpretation. Only Apple gets that kind of "monopolistic, but..." affection here. Everyone else (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Tesla...) get crucified for the same kind of thing, every day. I'm just pointing it out because it's tiresome and at this point frankly embarassing. I'm not particularly offended by your spin in this instance, and honestly don't even disagree with you that this is a non-issue.

mcv 8y ago

It seems to me that these techniques only hurt the security of the user if they're used without the user's knowledge. As long as the apps are very clear about what they do to the phone and its traffic, and the user is fine with that, I don't see what business of Apple it is to disallow it. Let's face it, Apple also has deep control over people's iPhones. Is that a security threat, or is it something that users choose by buying Apple? It is absolutely anti-competitive. I think it's time for an anti-trust case against the way Apple abuses their control over the app store.

miki123211 8y ago
The thing is, users usually don't know what they're doing. Users are accustomed to clicking through promtps and usually have the "meh, some stupid security thingy again, who cares" attitude. There are the HN people who can actually read prompts on screen and understand what stuff means, but most people can't (or don't). They can't differentiate between a legitimate app that, say, wants to re route all your traffic through a server b/c parental controls, and another app that wants to do it for "making your internet traffic faster" while spying on you. People installed fake RAM extending Android apps, what are we even talking about. Even if the users understood what they were doing, they probably didn't know the risks associated with installing an MDM profile. THey didn't know what data exactly the app makers were getting and how they were using it. Even I don't know that. I know where to find such information if I need to, but I don't know exactly the permissions of an mdm profile by heard.
- mcv 8y ago
  Sure, but the same is true for whatever security Apple offers. Why is what Apple offers necessarily better? And in my opinion, a big part of the reason why many people have no idea what those security permissions mean, is that iOS and Android are way too vague about them.

xg15 8y ago

> The need for parental control has now been filled and the privacy risks of those apps now outweigh the benefits. Apple made the decision to remove. The article explains in quite detailed terms why Apple's solution is inadequate and does not "fill the need" at all. Also, on what ground would those risk/benefit calculations be made and by whom?

kalleboo 8y ago

> I guess that Apple understood the need for parental control apps and allowed them, with the privacy risks, as there was no other way to get parental control at the time. Everyone is assuming that Apple was aware of the MDM abuse and tolerated it, but seeing how they completely missed Facebook's and Google's abuse of enterprise certificates, it seems just as plausible that the Facebook revelation spurred them to do a re-evaluation of the actual use of all these enterprise programs at which point they found this issue.

sjg007 8y ago

If you want to give another company control over your MDM and VPN then you should be able to.