3 ms·

>With iOS, Apple is in control. With Android, apparently nobody is in control... A thousand times this. The state of the mobile universe right now is such tha

>With iOS, Apple is in control. With Android, apparently nobody is in control... A thousand times this. The state of the mobile universe right now is such that you have to either effectively trust Apple, or you have to effectively trust everyone. That's why HN User qwerty456127's choice to go to Android was fine, if he wants to be able to install his own apps, but it seriously compromised his privacy and security. What if you do not want to trust anyone? Nope. Sorry. No easy to use options for you out there.

gph 7y ago
>What if you do not want to trust anyone? >Nope. Sorry. No easy to use options for you out there. Sure but to an extent that's true about almost everything in modern society. If you don't want to have to trust those supplying you with food or water, there's really no easy options to completely supply yourself with either of those. And even with all the oversight and regulation there's still often good reasons not to fully trust (we all know about Flint at this point even if it was a bit overblown by the media) It's hard to imagine a situation where someone would supply you with something without you needing to trust them on some level.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Sure, you're at the mercy of your food and water suppliers. But you have choice. There are numerous food sources. And many choices about water. Bottled water. Your own well, or rain water collection. And home-scale treatment systems, for metals and organics. That's very different from trusting only Apple. I mean, if you want to use Apple's equipment, you must also use their software. And perhaps we can trust their software. They also curate apps in their store, but sometimes they miss stuff. Given Apple's position vs the FBI, it seems pretty clear that they won't intentionally pwn their customers. But it's clear from TFA that they do remove apps when governments demand. Maybe that doesn't directly pwn users, but some of the apps that they've pulled could have protected users better than remaining alternatives. For example, I gather that it's impossible to build custom email or VPN apps in iOS. You can just build wrappers for Apple's stuff. For email, that apparently limits ability to securely encrypt messages.
ghettoimp 7y ago
I can't see a way to "trust nobody" beyond abstaining entirely from phones, computers, etc. Imagine a Free Software utopia with open hardware running an open source OSes and apps. Someone is writing that code. Someone is manufacturing that device. Someone is compiling and packaging that distribution for you. Someone is running the network. Having access to the (alleged) source code for everything, and being able to compile it all yourself, would surely be worth something. But it'd be way too much code for you to audit alone. So you're going to have to trust Someone (security researchers, open source contributors) to be doing this for you...
- mwfunk 7y ago
  For some people, I think it's actually exciting for them to think about how independent they are and how nobody can spy on them or trick them out of money because they consider themselves to be so worldly and knowledgeable about such things. And maybe they are compared to their families or the people they deal with during their day-to-day. I've known plenty of people (myself included at times) who get some of their feelings of self-worth from this sort of thing. But because it's more of a fun or emotional or ego-boosting thing than a rational thing, they'll often make big bold binary blanket statements about all the products they refuse to buy or web sites they refuse to go to or companies they refuse to patronize. And that's all great, actually, as long as it's rational and based on facts rather than some narrative in their head. We need more skeptical people, we always do. But it's not always rational, and sometimes it is more like they're LARPing through some exciting narrative about the world, and in that narrative they're the heroes who know stuff that the normies don't. They're more like survivalists living an adventure in their head than rational people making rational choices. And that's where people can also get into trouble, both for having a false sense of confidence about their ability to avoid risk, and for giving others bad advice based on excessive confidence or rose-colored glasses about the same things. I'm all for better security practices based on ever more openness, but I agree 100% with your example: people are kidding themselves if they think just because they run binaries built by other people from open source, it's almost as good as if they had personally inspected every line of code themselves. And when people are making those sorts of utopian statements, it's generally coming from the LARPing survivalist narrative part of the mind rather than the skeptical rational part of the mind and should be viewed with that much more skepticism. Not rejected, but just considered with an extra dollop of skepticism, because they hopefully at least mean well.

gph 7y ago

>What if you do not want to trust anyone? >Nope. Sorry. No easy to use options for you out there. Sure but to an extent that's true about almost everything in modern society. If you don't want to have to trust those supplying you with food or water, there's really no easy options to completely supply yourself with either of those. And even with all the oversight and regulation there's still often good reasons not to fully trust (we all know about Flint at this point even if it was a bit overblown by the media) It's hard to imagine a situation where someone would supply you with something without you needing to trust them on some level.

mirimir 7y ago
Sure, you're at the mercy of your food and water suppliers. But you have choice. There are numerous food sources. And many choices about water. Bottled water. Your own well, or rain water collection. And home-scale treatment systems, for metals and organics. That's very different from trusting only Apple. I mean, if you want to use Apple's equipment, you must also use their software. And perhaps we can trust their software. They also curate apps in their store, but sometimes they miss stuff. Given Apple's position vs the FBI, it seems pretty clear that they won't intentionally pwn their customers. But it's clear from TFA that they do remove apps when governments demand. Maybe that doesn't directly pwn users, but some of the apps that they've pulled could have protected users better than remaining alternatives. For example, I gather that it's impossible to build custom email or VPN apps in iOS. You can just build wrappers for Apple's stuff. For email, that apparently limits ability to securely encrypt messages.

ghettoimp 7y ago

I can't see a way to "trust nobody" beyond abstaining entirely from phones, computers, etc. Imagine a Free Software utopia with open hardware running an open source OSes and apps. Someone is writing that code. Someone is manufacturing that device. Someone is compiling and packaging that distribution for you. Someone is running the network. Having access to the (alleged) source code for everything, and being able to compile it all yourself, would surely be worth something. But it'd be way too much code for you to audit alone. So you're going to have to trust Someone (security researchers, open source contributors) to be doing this for you...

mwfunk 7y ago
For some people, I think it's actually exciting for them to think about how independent they are and how nobody can spy on them or trick them out of money because they consider themselves to be so worldly and knowledgeable about such things. And maybe they are compared to their families or the people they deal with during their day-to-day. I've known plenty of people (myself included at times) who get some of their feelings of self-worth from this sort of thing. But because it's more of a fun or emotional or ego-boosting thing than a rational thing, they'll often make big bold binary blanket statements about all the products they refuse to buy or web sites they refuse to go to or companies they refuse to patronize. And that's all great, actually, as long as it's rational and based on facts rather than some narrative in their head. We need more skeptical people, we always do. But it's not always rational, and sometimes it is more like they're LARPing through some exciting narrative about the world, and in that narrative they're the heroes who know stuff that the normies don't. They're more like survivalists living an adventure in their head than rational people making rational choices. And that's where people can also get into trouble, both for having a false sense of confidence about their ability to avoid risk, and for giving others bad advice based on excessive confidence or rose-colored glasses about the same things. I'm all for better security practices based on ever more openness, but I agree 100% with your example: people are kidding themselves if they think just because they run binaries built by other people from open source, it's almost as good as if they had personally inspected every line of code themselves. And when people are making those sorts of utopian statements, it's generally coming from the LARPing survivalist narrative part of the mind rather than the skeptical rational part of the mind and should be viewed with that much more skepticism. Not rejected, but just considered with an extra dollop of skepticism, because they hopefully at least mean well.