11 ms·

Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statement

Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statements. Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors when we know that Cook will dance around sensitive truths? And why should the US government be satisfied with a fully encrypted iMessage given that Apple will cave to demands given enough pressure?

opn7d7 7y ago
Because Apple has already gotten away with giving the US government the finger over cracking iPhones at the request of the FBI and they backed down. American politicians are in their pocket. Chinese not so much. Users buying what you’re asking on the other hand :man-shrugging:
mistersquid 7y ago
I agree that Apple's stated rationale for removing the HKmap.live app is embarrassing and the removal is a capitulation to China's government. The reasons China's government has decried the app are bogus, but those false reports and allegations do not originate with Apple. However, Apple appears to be accepting those reasons at face value and probably because Apple is kowtowing. Regarding whether iMessage is free from backdoors, Apple has given no reason for anyone to believe they are outright lying about the technical features of their software and hardware or their position regarding privacy. In other words, Apple appears to be caving into pressure from the Chinese government and Apple are openly admitting this surrender. However, Apple has not to date lied about what they are doing and we do not yet have a reason to doubt their representations about the security of their encryption.
- capableweb 7y ago
  > Regarding whether iMessage is free from backdoors, Apple has given no reason for anyone to believe they are outright lying about the technical features of their software and hardware or their position regarding privacy. Except if you live in China and have backups/storage on iCloud used by the various things you do with your iPhone.
- cromwellian 7y ago
  You can lie by omission. iMessage depends on IDS Directory Servers for two phones to exchange public keys. If China can spoof or run their own IDS Directory Server, they can potentially execute a man-in-the-middle attack.
- evrydayhustling 7y ago
  So you are saying that an organization that supports false accusations by others, but is not known to originate them, should be given the benefit of the doubt about assertions they originate. Here is another model: an organization that supports falsehoods to placate someone powerful in a small matter, like hosting an app, can be trusted to placate the powerful in a more important matter.
- karmakaze 7y ago
  OT: Appropriately TIL kowtow is a word that came from China early 19th century: from Chinese kētóu, from kē ‘knock’ + tóu ‘head’.
- dilippkumar 7y ago
  > However, Apple has not to date lied about what they are doing and we do not yet have a reason to doubt their representations about the security of their encryption. Today, they showed that they are willing to lie under sufficient influence. This sole data point is sufficient to tarnish what was assumed to be a perfect record. There is no such thing as 99.999% integrity. Apple either has 100% integrity or is inviting you to play russian roulette with it’s products and services. We might have already rolled the dice enough times - 1.4e9 active devices trusting apple about 10 times a day for 282 days this year = 3.948 trillion rolls of the dice. A 0.001% chance of betrayal by Apple is 39.4 million betrayals this year (approximately the population of Canada)
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > However, Apple has not to date lied about what they are doing and we do not yet have a reason to doubt their representations about the security of their encryption. Did you read the original link, or the memo it linked to? "the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence and to victimize individuals and property where no police are present." This was written by Tim Cook, speaking for Apple. That is Apple lying about what they are doing.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >That is Apple lying about what they are doing. That is a ludicrous interpretation of that statement, in my opinion. Apple is being told by the government of a nation they're operating under that the law has been broken and that those things happened. What is Apple supposed to do in this case? Tell China "we don't believe you" and then what? You think China is going to change its tune? Or do you think Apple can get away with saying "Ok, fine! We're not going to do business here!" with zero repercussions? This is not Apple lying. This is Apple making public what they were told by the Chinese government. Apple is not the bad guy here. China is.
    - computerex 7y ago
      Read this: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/10/10/cook-hkmap-live-email https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/10/10/cook-hkmap-live... Once again, Apple is in complete control of their App Store. They are the ones who decided to remove the app because of financials. This is the price of doing business in China.
Aloha 7y ago
The US isn't a closed market and can't effectively eject Apple from the market. While I disagree with the choice Apple made, it's a very rational one. Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, and massively worse for Apple in the short term. No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet interest and the best interest of their customers.
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  > Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    Because they would be replaced by local Chinese companies. Are you saying that would have no effect on freedom for the users?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - untog 7y ago
      If Apple capitulates to every demand the Chinese government makes then perhaps there isn’t much of a difference.
      - millstone 7y ago
        Right. But of course the Chinese government has asked Apple for a backdoor, and (to our knowledge) Apple has not provided that. So long as that's true, an iPhone really is one of the most secure option for Chinese residents.
        fooker 7y ago
        > (to our knowledge) This is really the key phrase here. What we know for sure is: Google and Facebook services do not work in China while Apple and Microsoft's do.
president 7y ago
> Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors when we know that Cook will dance around sensitive truths? At least in China, you can probably assume iMessage is back-doored given that iCloud content in mainland China is operated by a Chinese internet company. Apple quietly posted this last week on their support page: "iCloud services in China mainland are now operated by Chinese internet services company Guizhou on the Cloud Big Data Industrial Development Co., Ltd., (GCBD). This allows us to continue to improve iCloud services in China mainland and comply with Chinese regulations." It goes on to say: "iCloud services and all the data you store with iCloud, including photos, videos, documents, and backups, will be subject to the new terms and conditions of iCloud operated by GCBD." Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 EDIT: After some research, it looks like the iCloud handover actually happened last year (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/11/icloud_china_goes_to_china/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/11/icloud_china_goes_t...).
- Despegar 7y ago
  Actually we can't assume that at all. It seems I'm going to have to repost this comment a thousand times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904857 >Apple has already publicly said in court filings, and under threat of perjury, that they don't make any exceptions for China. From Apple's filing [1]: >Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5. and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [2]: >Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world. >Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device. >It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services. >I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. When China wants something from iCloud they do it the same way that law enforcement does it everywhere in the world, which is through Apple. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1... [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-Decl-Executed.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De...
mistermann 7y ago
> Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statements. I was thinking about the complexity of the world the other day, and how so many people hold diametrically opposed beliefs, but often based on solid reasoning and genuine facts. How could this be? If you think about it, the modern world is so complex, with so many facts (some of which are actual facts, some of which are popular opinions now considered to be fact), with all of the inter-connected, Nth order cause and effect going on, how is a person who wants to be as objective as possible supposed to actually come up with a reasonable model of what's going on, even if they're willing to put in the work? People skilled in communications and the psychology of persuasion can pick and choose a subset of "facts" and put together plausible and completely contradictory descriptions of the very same story, and done correctly it's very difficult even for the vigilant to know you're being duped. So what's a person to do? What I came up with is the idea that yes, one should indeed take "facts" into consideration, including some sort of notion of trustworthiness for each fact, but what's missing is the value of lies in coming up with one's model of reality. So, when trying to figure out what the real deal is on any given situation, don't first look for the facts, but rather the obvious lies - if you can find obvious lies or misrepresentations of reality coming from powerful (politicians or corporate leaders) or influential people (the media), this is probably a good trail to follow to lead you toward the most important parts of the truth. Of course, there's lots of complexity involved here as well, you have to consider the nature of the bias from the messenger, compare versions of the lie across different outlets, etc etc etc, but in many cases I suspect this is a highly productive approach for maximizing the correctness of one's models. So in this case, as the article points out, "However, over the past several days we received credible information....that the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence". Obviously a lie, although in this case, considering Tim Cook's no dummy I expect he knew everyone would know he's lying, so I wouldn't form any specific conclusions on this, other than money >>> honesty and principles for him, but why should we expect more from him than any other important person in Western society....this is just how we are. Despite the wonderful sounding platitudes we tell ourselves, this is our culture. And the Achilles heel that I believe China will be able to continue to exploit indefinitely, because I simply can't see it ever changing, it has become so normalized that hardly anyone can even recognize it anymore. EDIT: Thinking more, with this being so obvious once you're aware of it, I can't imagine this is a unique theory I've come up with. Does anyone know a name for this style of thinking?
lonelappde 7y ago
> And why should the US government be satisfied with a fully encrypted iMessage given that Apple will cave to demands given enough pressure? Unlike China, the US is still governed by mostly democratic laws and a Constitution, and law enforcement and politicians can't just wish new laws into effect. As Penn Jillette says, "The Chinese Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it isn't written on."
- scarface74 7y ago
  Law enforcement, district attorneys, and judges have a lot of latitude about how the law is applied. Not to mention the latitude that regulatory agencies have.
dilippkumar 7y ago
Your comment has made a really really deep impression on me. For the past several years, I’ve been a hardcore Apple loyalist only for their stance on privacy and security. It’s time to stop being deluded. I’m going to stop paying premium for apple and assume all my devices are hostile by default. What the actual fuck Apple.
- __m 7y ago
  You are Chinese and assumed your data would be encrypted with Apple?
  - benburleson 7y ago
    I don't think that was said or implied.
- sushicat 7y ago
  Before you made such judgement you need to think why you have freedom of speech and privacy here, because they all protected by US laws. The companies here can do things against government for protecting users privacy and security is because laws protected them. Also, the privacy people talked about these days is more focusing on how these data got stored and used by companies and advertisement agencies. They shouldn’t use your data for profit without appropriate consent. All the companies here in US will follow court orders and hand over personal data when they required. In this case, no company can again the court and refuse to provide data. Back to this case. You can assume your dats is safe here in the US, because it’s protected by the laws.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > You can assume your dats is safe here in the US, because it’s protected by the laws. I honestly don't think that you can assume your data is safe in the US. The laws are lax and not well-enforced (and are mostly civil in nature anyway). The US may be better than China on this score, but it's worse than a lot of other modern nations.
- baq 7y ago
coldtea 7y ago
>Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statements. What veracity? He is a businessman in a trillion dollar company. He says what pleases the market -- the domestic and the foreign one, not his personal beliefs... The first priority is always profits or growth. If one sincerely cared for the environment for example, would stop tons things that Apple is doing, not just one. The CEO of a multinational churning consumer gadgets by the shit-loads only cares for the environment to the degree that said caring doesn't impact the bottom line. >Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors when we know that Cook will dance around sensitive truths? Well, that's an easier thing to answer, because there would be leaks from Apple employees (NSA had leaks, for Apple it would be many times easier) if that was the case. Tons of engineers would know. >And why should the US government be satisfied with a fully encrypted iMessage given that Apple will cave to demands given enough pressure? Because Apple will also cave to their demands. Besides it's another thing to please some foreign customer by caving in to remove an app (especially if said foreign customer is a sovereign state and the app is anti-policy -- companies are not in some obligation from the US or otherwise to side with protesters), and another thing to e.g. cave in to China and give them a backdoor to iMessage as you seem to imply as a potentiality. In fact the latter would be treason (or close) for a US-based company and have much more serious repercussions...
- dannyr 7y ago
  Part of Apple's image that earned it loyal customers is that they care more about their customers than most other companies. Apple doesn't sell your data, it protects your privacy, will fight government agencies asking for user's data, etc.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    A lot of that was for PR, especially against rivals like Google and Microsoft. Apple definitely made some improvements but there were better approaches for just about everything they did that would've helped users and industry alike.
  - 7y ago
manigandham 7y ago
Tim Cook previously said "not on our platform" before and people warned about censorship and centralized control that would eventually harm to the most dependent users. This is the direct outcome of such a policy where a few have ultimate power over the masses. It's a sad development for Apple.
est31 7y ago
> Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors That's an easy one: the encryption happens client side and thus any backdoor has to sit on the clients and, if it exists, would be available to security researchers. There is no guarantee of it happening, but I believe some of those researchers reverse engineer whatever binary apple published and then check it for backdoors. Of course there are still tricks that apple could pull, like adding backdoors only to targeted phones, changing the filesystem to present one version of the binary to the OS command that executes it and another to anyone else (like security researchers), extracting the unencrypted message contents using chips that sit on the memory bus (e.g. baseband), etc. But these tricks are harder to pull off and are still detectable as they happen on end-user devices. They definitely won't say "yeah there is a backdoor". Ultimately, you need to trust them.
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  Doctored binaries (that leak private keys) can be sent to only select devices of a people under surveillance. So reverse-engineering generally available app will show nothing. Apple REALLY must be coerced into allowing app sideloading (and accept push notifications not only through APNS)
  - est31 7y ago
    The OS comes from apple, too. How does sideloading help when the OS is backdoored? How does installing your own OS help when there is a backdoor in the hardware?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
      Sideloading helps to install the apps you want (or need), not the apps Apple allows you to use. Thing is, you buy a very expensive piece of hardware, and you don't even truly own it. Of course, Apple frames it as 'care to protect you from malware', but in reality, it's just a digital handcuff.
      - 7y ago

opn7d7 7y ago

Because Apple has already gotten away with giving the US government the finger over cracking iPhones at the request of the FBI and they backed down. American politicians are in their pocket. Chinese not so much. Users buying what you’re asking on the other hand :man-shrugging:

mistersquid 7y ago

I agree that Apple's stated rationale for removing the HKmap.live app is embarrassing and the removal is a capitulation to China's government. The reasons China's government has decried the app are bogus, but those false reports and allegations do not originate with Apple. However, Apple appears to be accepting those reasons at face value and probably because Apple is kowtowing. Regarding whether iMessage is free from backdoors, Apple has given no reason for anyone to believe they are outright lying about the technical features of their software and hardware or their position regarding privacy. In other words, Apple appears to be caving into pressure from the Chinese government and Apple are openly admitting this surrender. However, Apple has not to date lied about what they are doing and we do not yet have a reason to doubt their representations about the security of their encryption.

capableweb 7y ago
> Regarding whether iMessage is free from backdoors, Apple has given no reason for anyone to believe they are outright lying about the technical features of their software and hardware or their position regarding privacy. Except if you live in China and have backups/storage on iCloud used by the various things you do with your iPhone.
cromwellian 7y ago
You can lie by omission. iMessage depends on IDS Directory Servers for two phones to exchange public keys. If China can spoof or run their own IDS Directory Server, they can potentially execute a man-in-the-middle attack.
evrydayhustling 7y ago
So you are saying that an organization that supports false accusations by others, but is not known to originate them, should be given the benefit of the doubt about assertions they originate. Here is another model: an organization that supports falsehoods to placate someone powerful in a small matter, like hosting an app, can be trusted to placate the powerful in a more important matter.
karmakaze 7y ago
OT: Appropriately TIL kowtow is a word that came from China early 19th century: from Chinese kētóu, from kē ‘knock’ + tóu ‘head’.
dilippkumar 7y ago
> However, Apple has not to date lied about what they are doing and we do not yet have a reason to doubt their representations about the security of their encryption. Today, they showed that they are willing to lie under sufficient influence. This sole data point is sufficient to tarnish what was assumed to be a perfect record. There is no such thing as 99.999% integrity. Apple either has 100% integrity or is inviting you to play russian roulette with it’s products and services. We might have already rolled the dice enough times - 1.4e9 active devices trusting apple about 10 times a day for 282 days this year = 3.948 trillion rolls of the dice. A 0.001% chance of betrayal by Apple is 39.4 million betrayals this year (approximately the population of Canada)
kerkeslager 7y ago
> However, Apple has not to date lied about what they are doing and we do not yet have a reason to doubt their representations about the security of their encryption. Did you read the original link, or the memo it linked to? "the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence and to victimize individuals and property where no police are present." This was written by Tim Cook, speaking for Apple. That is Apple lying about what they are doing.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  >That is Apple lying about what they are doing. That is a ludicrous interpretation of that statement, in my opinion. Apple is being told by the government of a nation they're operating under that the law has been broken and that those things happened. What is Apple supposed to do in this case? Tell China "we don't believe you" and then what? You think China is going to change its tune? Or do you think Apple can get away with saying "Ok, fine! We're not going to do business here!" with zero repercussions? This is not Apple lying. This is Apple making public what they were told by the Chinese government. Apple is not the bad guy here. China is.
  - computerex 7y ago
    Read this: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/10/10/cook-hkmap-live-email https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/10/10/cook-hkmap-live... Once again, Apple is in complete control of their App Store. They are the ones who decided to remove the app because of financials. This is the price of doing business in China.

Aloha 7y ago

The US isn't a closed market and can't effectively eject Apple from the market. While I disagree with the choice Apple made, it's a very rational one. Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, and massively worse for Apple in the short term. No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet interest and the best interest of their customers.

bcrosby95 7y ago
> Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  Because they would be replaced by local Chinese companies. Are you saying that would have no effect on freedom for the users?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - untog 7y ago
    If Apple capitulates to every demand the Chinese government makes then perhaps there isn’t much of a difference.
    - millstone 7y ago
      Right. But of course the Chinese government has asked Apple for a backdoor, and (to our knowledge) Apple has not provided that. So long as that's true, an iPhone really is one of the most secure option for Chinese residents.
      - fooker 7y ago
        > (to our knowledge) This is really the key phrase here. What we know for sure is: Google and Facebook services do not work in China while Apple and Microsoft's do.

president 7y ago

> Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors when we know that Cook will dance around sensitive truths? At least in China, you can probably assume iMessage is back-doored given that iCloud content in mainland China is operated by a Chinese internet company. Apple quietly posted this last week on their support page: "iCloud services in China mainland are now operated by Chinese internet services company Guizhou on the Cloud Big Data Industrial Development Co., Ltd., (GCBD). This allows us to continue to improve iCloud services in China mainland and comply with Chinese regulations." It goes on to say: "iCloud services and all the data you store with iCloud, including photos, videos, documents, and backups, will be subject to the new terms and conditions of iCloud operated by GCBD." Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 EDIT: After some research, it looks like the iCloud handover actually happened last year (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/11/icloud_china_goes_to_china/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/11/icloud_china_goes_t...).

Despegar 7y ago
Actually we can't assume that at all. It seems I'm going to have to repost this comment a thousand times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904857 >Apple has already publicly said in court filings, and under threat of perjury, that they don't make any exceptions for China. From Apple's filing [1]: >Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5. and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [2]: >Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world. >Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device. >It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services. >I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. When China wants something from iCloud they do it the same way that law enforcement does it everywhere in the world, which is through Apple. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1... [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-Decl-Executed.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De...

mistermann 7y ago

> Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statements. I was thinking about the complexity of the world the other day, and how so many people hold diametrically opposed beliefs, but often based on solid reasoning and genuine facts. How could this be? If you think about it, the modern world is so complex, with so many facts (some of which are actual facts, some of which are popular opinions now considered to be fact), with all of the inter-connected, Nth order cause and effect going on, how is a person who wants to be as objective as possible supposed to actually come up with a reasonable model of what's going on, even if they're willing to put in the work? People skilled in communications and the psychology of persuasion can pick and choose a subset of "facts" and put together plausible and completely contradictory descriptions of the very same story, and done correctly it's very difficult even for the vigilant to know you're being duped. So what's a person to do? What I came up with is the idea that yes, one should indeed take "facts" into consideration, including some sort of notion of trustworthiness for each fact, but what's missing is the value of lies in coming up with one's model of reality. So, when trying to figure out what the real deal is on any given situation, don't first look for the facts, but rather the obvious lies - if you can find obvious lies or misrepresentations of reality coming from powerful (politicians or corporate leaders) or influential people (the media), this is probably a good trail to follow to lead you toward the most important parts of the truth. Of course, there's lots of complexity involved here as well, you have to consider the nature of the bias from the messenger, compare versions of the lie across different outlets, etc etc etc, but in many cases I suspect this is a highly productive approach for maximizing the correctness of one's models. So in this case, as the article points out, "However, over the past several days we received credible information....that the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence". Obviously a lie, although in this case, considering Tim Cook's no dummy I expect he knew everyone would know he's lying, so I wouldn't form any specific conclusions on this, other than money >>> honesty and principles for him, but why should we expect more from him than any other important person in Western society....this is just how we are. Despite the wonderful sounding platitudes we tell ourselves, this is our culture. And the Achilles heel that I believe China will be able to continue to exploit indefinitely, because I simply can't see it ever changing, it has become so normalized that hardly anyone can even recognize it anymore. EDIT: Thinking more, with this being so obvious once you're aware of it, I can't imagine this is a unique theory I've come up with. Does anyone know a name for this style of thinking?

lonelappde 7y ago

> And why should the US government be satisfied with a fully encrypted iMessage given that Apple will cave to demands given enough pressure? Unlike China, the US is still governed by mostly democratic laws and a Constitution, and law enforcement and politicians can't just wish new laws into effect. As Penn Jillette says, "The Chinese Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it isn't written on."

scarface74 7y ago
Law enforcement, district attorneys, and judges have a lot of latitude about how the law is applied. Not to mention the latitude that regulatory agencies have.

dilippkumar 7y ago

Your comment has made a really really deep impression on me. For the past several years, I’ve been a hardcore Apple loyalist only for their stance on privacy and security. It’s time to stop being deluded. I’m going to stop paying premium for apple and assume all my devices are hostile by default. What the actual fuck Apple.

__m 7y ago
You are Chinese and assumed your data would be encrypted with Apple?
- benburleson 7y ago
  I don't think that was said or implied.
sushicat 7y ago
Before you made such judgement you need to think why you have freedom of speech and privacy here, because they all protected by US laws. The companies here can do things against government for protecting users privacy and security is because laws protected them. Also, the privacy people talked about these days is more focusing on how these data got stored and used by companies and advertisement agencies. They shouldn’t use your data for profit without appropriate consent. All the companies here in US will follow court orders and hand over personal data when they required. In this case, no company can again the court and refuse to provide data. Back to this case. You can assume your dats is safe here in the US, because it’s protected by the laws.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > You can assume your dats is safe here in the US, because it’s protected by the laws. I honestly don't think that you can assume your data is safe in the US. The laws are lax and not well-enforced (and are mostly civil in nature anyway). The US may be better than China on this score, but it's worse than a lot of other modern nations.
baq 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statements. What veracity? He is a businessman in a trillion dollar company. He says what pleases the market -- the domestic and the foreign one, not his personal beliefs... The first priority is always profits or growth. If one sincerely cared for the environment for example, would stop tons things that Apple is doing, not just one. The CEO of a multinational churning consumer gadgets by the shit-loads only cares for the environment to the degree that said caring doesn't impact the bottom line. >Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors when we know that Cook will dance around sensitive truths? Well, that's an easier thing to answer, because there would be leaks from Apple employees (NSA had leaks, for Apple it would be many times easier) if that was the case. Tons of engineers would know. >And why should the US government be satisfied with a fully encrypted iMessage given that Apple will cave to demands given enough pressure? Because Apple will also cave to their demands. Besides it's another thing to please some foreign customer by caving in to remove an app (especially if said foreign customer is a sovereign state and the app is anti-policy -- companies are not in some obligation from the US or otherwise to side with protesters), and another thing to e.g. cave in to China and give them a backdoor to iMessage as you seem to imply as a potentiality. In fact the latter would be treason (or close) for a US-based company and have much more serious repercussions...

dannyr 7y ago
Part of Apple's image that earned it loyal customers is that they care more about their customers than most other companies. Apple doesn't sell your data, it protects your privacy, will fight government agencies asking for user's data, etc.
- manigandham 7y ago
  A lot of that was for PR, especially against rivals like Google and Microsoft. Apple definitely made some improvements but there were better approaches for just about everything they did that would've helped users and industry alike.
- 7y ago

manigandham 7y ago

Tim Cook previously said "not on our platform" before and people warned about censorship and centralized control that would eventually harm to the most dependent users. This is the direct outcome of such a policy where a few have ultimate power over the masses. It's a sad development for Apple.

est31 7y ago

> Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors That's an easy one: the encryption happens client side and thus any backdoor has to sit on the clients and, if it exists, would be available to security researchers. There is no guarantee of it happening, but I believe some of those researchers reverse engineer whatever binary apple published and then check it for backdoors. Of course there are still tricks that apple could pull, like adding backdoors only to targeted phones, changing the filesystem to present one version of the binary to the OS command that executes it and another to anyone else (like security researchers), extracting the unencrypted message contents using chips that sit on the memory bus (e.g. baseband), etc. But these tricks are harder to pull off and are still detectable as they happen on end-user devices. They definitely won't say "yeah there is a backdoor". Ultimately, you need to trust them.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Doctored binaries (that leak private keys) can be sent to only select devices of a people under surveillance. So reverse-engineering generally available app will show nothing. Apple REALLY must be coerced into allowing app sideloading (and accept push notifications not only through APNS)
- est31 7y ago
  The OS comes from apple, too. How does sideloading help when the OS is backdoored? How does installing your own OS help when there is a backdoor in the hardware?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
    Sideloading helps to install the apps you want (or need), not the apps Apple allows you to use. Thing is, you buy a very expensive piece of hardware, and you don't even truly own it. Of course, Apple frames it as 'care to protect you from malware', but in reality, it's just a digital handcuff.
    - 7y ago