3 ms·

> On a device I own, there should be no parties that are trusted more than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this. This is only true if you contain

by burnte 6y ago

> On a device I own, there should be no parties that are trusted more than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this. This is only true if you contain at least the minimum amount of knowledge to built said device yourself. If you cannot design the type of CPU required, you must trust the vendor. If you cannot design the RAM, you must trust the vendor. If you cannot design the motherboard, you must trust the vendor. You must also have the ability to supervise every step of construction. If you don't have that ability, then your knowledge is worthless. You can only be the most trusted party in your system if you can be personally 100% certain nothing was inserted into the system without your knowledge. This is not restricted to the software, which theoretically you could inspect the source code to. Maybe there SHOULD be systems where you are the most trusted party, but realistically, there are almost none. You have to trust the engineer who designed the road, the worker who delivered the package, the maker of the chips that go on the board, the company who makes the air filter in your home HVAC, etc. Society is built on trust.

grishka 6y ago
Of course. But from my point of view, Apple designed a capable device and deliberately limited its capabilities for its own advantage. They have the private key to sign apps that iOS will run, but you do not. They empowered themselves, while depriving the user of that power at the same time. It's as if you bought a house but couldn't repaint the walls and rearrange the furniture to your liking. You'd have to call a special person from the company that built the house.
caf 6y ago
The misunderstanding here is because the word "trust" has been misappropriated in this context to mean something slightly different from its everyday meaning. You do indeed have to trust the designers, manufacturers and suppliers of your equipment, in the sense that they are in a position to cause you harm without a realistic way to prevent that beforehand. However, when "trust" is used in the sense of "what is allowed", what we're actually talking about is sovereignty or authority, not "trust". I believe the word is used in this context because giving a third party authority over your device necessarily puts them in a position of trust, but it is actually the authority that is important here, and the fact that you have some measure of trust in a party does not imply that the party should also be granted authority. If you recast the GP's comment in these terms, I believe it captures the essence without muddying the waters with "trust": > On a device I own, there should be no parties with more authority than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.
neop1x 6y ago
That's why in different industries there are third-party independent, trusted entities. Apple controls it all completely itself.

by burnte 6y ago

grishka 6y ago

Of course. But from my point of view, Apple designed a capable device and deliberately limited its capabilities for its own advantage. They have the private key to sign apps that iOS will run, but you do not. They empowered themselves, while depriving the user of that power at the same time. It's as if you bought a house but couldn't repaint the walls and rearrange the furniture to your liking. You'd have to call a special person from the company that built the house.

caf 6y ago

The misunderstanding here is because the word "trust" has been misappropriated in this context to mean something slightly different from its everyday meaning. You do indeed have to trust the designers, manufacturers and suppliers of your equipment, in the sense that they are in a position to cause you harm without a realistic way to prevent that beforehand. However, when "trust" is used in the sense of "what is allowed", what we're actually talking about is sovereignty or authority, not "trust". I believe the word is used in this context because giving a third party authority over your device necessarily puts them in a position of trust, but it is actually the authority that is important here, and the fact that you have some measure of trust in a party does not imply that the party should also be granted authority. If you recast the GP's comment in these terms, I believe it captures the essence without muddying the waters with "trust": > On a device I own, there should be no parties with more authority than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.

neop1x 6y ago

That's why in different industries there are third-party independent, trusted entities. Apple controls it all completely itself.