9 ms·

Thank you. Phrased perfectly. It's an invasive restriction, cynically designed, poorly engineered and improperly managed, that impairs your ability to function

by nmg 6y ago

Thank you. Phrased perfectly. It's an invasive restriction, cynically designed, poorly engineered and improperly managed, that impairs your ability to function.. masquerading as security. macOS is my favorite OS, but I don't need to use it. I was so psyched reading about the new Macbooks, and I've had to walk all that excitement back now. I cannot invest in a computer that locks me out of my job if a cable gets cut by a maintenance crew in Cupertino.

bnj 6y ago
I agree that it’s security theater and a suspect implementation, but I was playing a game of “let’s imagine why someone might do this...”— I’m wondering, suppose it was designed this way because part of the goal is to prevent the spread of malware, the fastest means of which is an internet connected computer. In that event, the feature only intrudes when the computer, by virtue of it’s internet connection, is a member of the threat class. So... plausible?
- nmg 6y ago
  Apple built the computer; I exchanged money for the computer; now I own the computer. Apple does not own the computer. If Apple wants to own the computer, they can pay me instead.
  - jachee 6y ago
    They own the software. You didn't pay for that. You licensed it from them.
    - nmg 6y ago
      That's a fair point that I hadn't considered, and I appreciate it. But I still feel like "ability to use your computer as a service" is not something I signed up for.
- boneitis 6y ago
  Plausible a la NSA, yeah? I presume this setup wasn't public knowledge.
snowwrestler 6y ago
If you point the request at localhost, the problem resolves. This means that a cable getting cut in Cupertino won’t matter. It is a revocation protocol; it fails open. The problem today is that not that the connection to the server failed, but that it succeeded very slowly. The result was an accidental denial of service on the client. It is a bug, and an easily fixed one at that.
- tomxor 6y ago
  This particular issue is easy to work around for technical users; the _problem_ is the philosophy that made it possible. This is the reason I can no longer use Apple computers - the continuous battle they are waging against the users freedom on all fronts - the anxiety of what they will do next to _my_ computer is too much.
  - jachee 6y ago
    Good luck finding a suitable replacement. Microsoft does unpredictable things to Windows. Linux maintainers do unpredictable things to all sorts of things. Your only real recourse is to compile everything from source after a thorough review every time... ...or else trust someone. Sure Apple had a problem here, but there are so many other reasons to trust them over any other org that I can't in good conscience switch platforms, because there's so much more anxiety elsewhere.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      > Linux maintainers do unpredictable things to all sorts of things. With Linux you don't have to worry about every program you launch being reported to the mothership, or that failure of the mothership to respond would cause your computer to not function.
      - jachee 6y ago
        If you're not reading all the source of everything you're running, any or all of it it absolutely could be reporting usage/stats/your data to a "mothership". Just because there's no single central org involved doesn't mean there aren't risks.

by nmg 6y ago

bnj 6y ago

I agree that it’s security theater and a suspect implementation, but I was playing a game of “let’s imagine why someone might do this...”— I’m wondering, suppose it was designed this way because part of the goal is to prevent the spread of malware, the fastest means of which is an internet connected computer. In that event, the feature only intrudes when the computer, by virtue of it’s internet connection, is a member of the threat class. So... plausible?

nmg 6y ago
Apple built the computer; I exchanged money for the computer; now I own the computer. Apple does not own the computer. If Apple wants to own the computer, they can pay me instead.
- jachee 6y ago
  They own the software. You didn't pay for that. You licensed it from them.
  - nmg 6y ago
    That's a fair point that I hadn't considered, and I appreciate it. But I still feel like "ability to use your computer as a service" is not something I signed up for.
boneitis 6y ago
Plausible a la NSA, yeah? I presume this setup wasn't public knowledge.

snowwrestler 6y ago

If you point the request at localhost, the problem resolves. This means that a cable getting cut in Cupertino won’t matter. It is a revocation protocol; it fails open. The problem today is that not that the connection to the server failed, but that it succeeded very slowly. The result was an accidental denial of service on the client. It is a bug, and an easily fixed one at that.

tomxor 6y ago
This particular issue is easy to work around for technical users; the _problem_ is the philosophy that made it possible. This is the reason I can no longer use Apple computers - the continuous battle they are waging against the users freedom on all fronts - the anxiety of what they will do next to _my_ computer is too much.
- jachee 6y ago
  Good luck finding a suitable replacement. Microsoft does unpredictable things to Windows. Linux maintainers do unpredictable things to all sorts of things. Your only real recourse is to compile everything from source after a thorough review every time... ...or else trust someone. Sure Apple had a problem here, but there are so many other reasons to trust them over any other org that I can't in good conscience switch platforms, because there's so much more anxiety elsewhere.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Linux maintainers do unpredictable things to all sorts of things. With Linux you don't have to worry about every program you launch being reported to the mothership, or that failure of the mothership to respond would cause your computer to not function.
    - jachee 6y ago
      If you're not reading all the source of everything you're running, any or all of it it absolutely could be reporting usage/stats/your data to a "mothership". Just because there's no single central org involved doesn't mean there aren't risks.