6 ms·

> Your security and privacy aren’t really protected inside these walls because the main point of these security measures is to enforce control, security against

> Your security and privacy aren’t really protected inside these walls because the main point of these security measures is to enforce control, security against attackers and protecting your privacy is mostly marketing spin. The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. I'm not sure why we should assume it is true when two decades of history of malware on Windows (and to a lesser extent, Android) clearly demonstrate the problems with having no walls at all. The irony of course being that this article itself is a marketing piece for this company's product.

rbecker 6y ago
> The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. Let me fill in the justification then: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-bans-ad-blockers-from-the-play-store-except-all-those-ad-blocking-web-browsers-apparently/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-b... https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-hong-kong-protestors/ https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-... https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ Edit as reply: They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. (Or more accurately, walled gardens, but where the user has the key to the garden gates, and can install alternative repositories/app stores). With all that, it takes a downright reckless degree of trust in corporations that have already betrayed that trust many times, to believe their motives in locking down ever more computing platforms are to benefit the user, and that this continual retreat of user freedoms won't end badly.
- nodamage 6y ago
  I'm not exactly sure how you think these examples justify the author's claim, can you elaborate? Cause it seems like what you're doing is the equivalent of pointing to an example of someone killing another person and then saying "gotcha! see how the existence of police and murder laws don't completely prevent murder?" The underlying question is does the walled garden approach improve the security and privacy of the overall ecosystem compared to the non-walled alternative, not whether it leads to 100% perfect security and privacy (which is an unobtainable ideal).
- nodamage 6y ago
  > They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unrelated to security. But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the main point of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims. > And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)
matheusmoreira 6y ago
It's not entirely wrong. Secure boot is great technology, the issue is who controls the keys to the machine. If the user controls the keys, it is empowering technology. If the manufacturer controls the keys, the technology becomes merely a tool they use to maintain control over ther user's computer.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Fair enough, but the claim is that "security and privacy aren't really protected", which I strongly disagree with and don't believe the author has presented anything justify such a strong claim.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I disagree that privacy is opposed to security. On the contrary. Linux is an open systems and it didn't have widespread malware problems. You could make an argument about number of users here, but then it would also invalidate the argument of providing security on Apple systems I presume. Even more open than Windows was Linux and we hadn't this malware problem. There are repositories that work without the lock-in crap other manufacturers pull.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Linux as a consumer-level operating system has basically zero market share, nothing about it will be widespread. If you add in consumer devices with a Linux kernel (i.e. Android devices) then yes, it has had widespread malware problems.
yongjik 6y ago
Also, the flip side of "your X is your castle" is that "You are the lord, you take full responsibility for whom you invite into your castle, and if you invited someone who claimed she was your grandma and she took all your belongings, shat on the carpet, and flew out the window, it's your fault." We all know how that plays out in real life.
- benologist 6y ago
  In real life on the iPhone we have had apps secretly uploading your address book, copying your clipboard and listening for tones embedded in television ads. And "The Fappening" where many people's private photos were leaked.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    If that's what happens when you've got hundreds of experts working to prevent it then why do you think it'll be a less of a problem when it's random non-experts? edit: The imperfection of the current system does not prove that another option is better.
    - benologist 6y ago
      > hundreds of experts working to prevent it Every major operating system has this regardless of whether they force you to download software through one marketplace. You're not less-secure if you use two marketplaces as long as both those marketplaces are kept secure. iOS is kept secure independently of the App Store as well.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    In real life we also have murders and kidnappings, that just means no system is perfect. It certainly doesn't mean there's no point in having law enforcement.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Sure, but think very carefully about whether or not you actually want me to compare Apple to law enforcement. My feeling is that a different analogy would better suit your argument. Is your intention really to make me think about government 'security' talking points around encryption and terrorism? In real life, if someone told me that murders and kidnappings were a good reason for the government to have absolute control over what computer applications are allowed to be built or what games/media are allowed to be distributed by its citizens, I would call that person an authoritarian. That's because in real life we balance law enforcement with individual rights. We don't just claim that every single intrusion into people's privacy and autonomy is necessary because otherwise the murderers would come. We also view certain freedoms as inalienable -- we believe that protecting those freedoms is just universally more important than preventing murderers. In fact, many people believe believe that some degree of difficulty and inexactness and imperfection in law enforcement is necessary for the furthering of social progress outside of what the government currently believes is acceptable. In other words, we balance between anarchy and authoritarianism. In the same way, we don't only have two choices here. There is a middle ground between "only Apple decides what can run on your devices", and "everyone for themselves, forget trying to make anyone secure." We can get better sandboxing, we can learn more UX techniques around warnings, we can improve public education about computers, we can build out device administration tools, we can build very targeted escape hatches that don't turn the OS into a free-for-all. Even beyond that, we can decide that some user freedoms are worth an increase in malware, the same way that we've decided some security gains are worth a decrease in user freedom. So I'm not really swayed by someone saying that the only way to prevent malware is if Apple/Google ban porn, and decide for users which payment methods they're allowed to use in an app, and decide whether or not online game streaming apps are allowed to enter the market, and decide whether or not serious games like Sweatshop can be considered art, and decide whether or not podcast apps will be allowed to include COVID podcasts in their directories. At the very least, we could get rid of most of those restrictions, or we could move all of the security checks to a separate layer and allow people to bypass the content restrictions on their own, and none of that would impact device security. That we want some security checks does not imply that we should never try to balance security with user freedom.
megous 6y ago
I prefer ability to force boot a known good FOSS OS from SD card, rather then depending on the SoC vendor or OS vendor to have implemented all the crypto at all levels correctly to verify the bootloader, trusted firmware, kernel, kernel modules, userspace programs, and so on. "Known good externally sourced" is better then "maybe verified by in-device mechanisms, but we don't really know", when you have reasons for doubt, about someone potentially modifying the software on your phone. It's not either/or. Making it harder to modify the software via secure boot is good. But having ability to actually run and verify the software from a real point of trust, not just based on some random crappy crypto someone somewhere thrown together for "secure boot", is essential.

rbecker 6y ago

> The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. Let me fill in the justification then: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-bans-ad-blockers-from-the-play-store-except-all-those-ad-blocking-web-browsers-apparently/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-b... https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-hong-kong-protestors/ https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-... https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ Edit as reply: They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. (Or more accurately, walled gardens, but where the user has the key to the garden gates, and can install alternative repositories/app stores). With all that, it takes a downright reckless degree of trust in corporations that have already betrayed that trust many times, to believe their motives in locking down ever more computing platforms are to benefit the user, and that this continual retreat of user freedoms won't end badly.

nodamage 6y ago
I'm not exactly sure how you think these examples justify the author's claim, can you elaborate? Cause it seems like what you're doing is the equivalent of pointing to an example of someone killing another person and then saying "gotcha! see how the existence of police and murder laws don't completely prevent murder?" The underlying question is does the walled garden approach improve the security and privacy of the overall ecosystem compared to the non-walled alternative, not whether it leads to 100% perfect security and privacy (which is an unobtainable ideal).
nodamage 6y ago
> They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unrelated to security. But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the main point of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims. > And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)

matheusmoreira 6y ago

It's not entirely wrong. Secure boot is great technology, the issue is who controls the keys to the machine. If the user controls the keys, it is empowering technology. If the manufacturer controls the keys, the technology becomes merely a tool they use to maintain control over ther user's computer.

nodamage 6y ago
Fair enough, but the claim is that "security and privacy aren't really protected", which I strongly disagree with and don't believe the author has presented anything justify such a strong claim.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I disagree that privacy is opposed to security. On the contrary. Linux is an open systems and it didn't have widespread malware problems. You could make an argument about number of users here, but then it would also invalidate the argument of providing security on Apple systems I presume. Even more open than Windows was Linux and we hadn't this malware problem. There are repositories that work without the lock-in crap other manufacturers pull.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Linux as a consumer-level operating system has basically zero market share, nothing about it will be widespread. If you add in consumer devices with a Linux kernel (i.e. Android devices) then yes, it has had widespread malware problems.

yongjik 6y ago

Also, the flip side of "your X is your castle" is that "You are the lord, you take full responsibility for whom you invite into your castle, and if you invited someone who claimed she was your grandma and she took all your belongings, shat on the carpet, and flew out the window, it's your fault." We all know how that plays out in real life.

benologist 6y ago
In real life on the iPhone we have had apps secretly uploading your address book, copying your clipboard and listening for tones embedded in television ads. And "The Fappening" where many people's private photos were leaked.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  If that's what happens when you've got hundreds of experts working to prevent it then why do you think it'll be a less of a problem when it's random non-experts? edit: The imperfection of the current system does not prove that another option is better.
  - benologist 6y ago
    > hundreds of experts working to prevent it Every major operating system has this regardless of whether they force you to download software through one marketplace. You're not less-secure if you use two marketplaces as long as both those marketplaces are kept secure. iOS is kept secure independently of the App Store as well.
- nodamage 6y ago
  In real life we also have murders and kidnappings, that just means no system is perfect. It certainly doesn't mean there's no point in having law enforcement.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Sure, but think very carefully about whether or not you actually want me to compare Apple to law enforcement. My feeling is that a different analogy would better suit your argument. Is your intention really to make me think about government 'security' talking points around encryption and terrorism? In real life, if someone told me that murders and kidnappings were a good reason for the government to have absolute control over what computer applications are allowed to be built or what games/media are allowed to be distributed by its citizens, I would call that person an authoritarian. That's because in real life we balance law enforcement with individual rights. We don't just claim that every single intrusion into people's privacy and autonomy is necessary because otherwise the murderers would come. We also view certain freedoms as inalienable -- we believe that protecting those freedoms is just universally more important than preventing murderers. In fact, many people believe believe that some degree of difficulty and inexactness and imperfection in law enforcement is necessary for the furthering of social progress outside of what the government currently believes is acceptable. In other words, we balance between anarchy and authoritarianism. In the same way, we don't only have two choices here. There is a middle ground between "only Apple decides what can run on your devices", and "everyone for themselves, forget trying to make anyone secure." We can get better sandboxing, we can learn more UX techniques around warnings, we can improve public education about computers, we can build out device administration tools, we can build very targeted escape hatches that don't turn the OS into a free-for-all. Even beyond that, we can decide that some user freedoms are worth an increase in malware, the same way that we've decided some security gains are worth a decrease in user freedom. So I'm not really swayed by someone saying that the only way to prevent malware is if Apple/Google ban porn, and decide for users which payment methods they're allowed to use in an app, and decide whether or not online game streaming apps are allowed to enter the market, and decide whether or not serious games like Sweatshop can be considered art, and decide whether or not podcast apps will be allowed to include COVID podcasts in their directories. At the very least, we could get rid of most of those restrictions, or we could move all of the security checks to a separate layer and allow people to bypass the content restrictions on their own, and none of that would impact device security. That we want some security checks does not imply that we should never try to balance security with user freedom.

megous 6y ago

I prefer ability to force boot a known good FOSS OS from SD card, rather then depending on the SoC vendor or OS vendor to have implemented all the crypto at all levels correctly to verify the bootloader, trusted firmware, kernel, kernel modules, userspace programs, and so on. "Known good externally sourced" is better then "maybe verified by in-device mechanisms, but we don't really know", when you have reasons for doubt, about someone potentially modifying the software on your phone. It's not either/or. Making it harder to modify the software via secure boot is good. But having ability to actually run and verify the software from a real point of trust, not just based on some random crappy crypto someone somewhere thrown together for "secure boot", is essential.