4 ms·
This seems so negligent it's difficult for me to believe this was a mistake. Perhaps it could be argued that Apple doesn't want applications blocking the networ
by kypro 6y ago
This seems so negligent it's difficult for me to believe this was a mistake. Perhaps it could be argued that Apple doesn't want applications blocking the network traffic of trusted applications because there is limited upside to doing so and doing so may restrict core functionality such as system updates, etc. But surely the most reasonable explanation here is that Apple wants a back door to guarantee they can monitor your activity / allow intelligence agencies a way to access to your system?
- Bud 6y agoNo, that is not the most reasonable expectation. Fails both Occam's Razor and the laugh test. To believe this, one has to believe that a $2 trillion company did this on purpose, knowing it would be revealed within hours and that it would take a major hit on the very reputation for user privacy and security that they have spent years building. There are a lot of better explanations available than "Apple decided user security can fuck off and that clumsily collaborating with the bad guys in trivially-detectable ways was a way better plan".
- sneak 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25096990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25096990
- kypro 6y agoMaybe you're right – I am quite a paranoid person. I guess I just don't understand how this wasn't flagged as a concern when the feature was being worked on? How is it possible that Apple's engineering team built a backdoor like this without it raising serious security concerns? And if concerns were raised why was this not adequately pen tested prior to release? I'm not sure what's worse from a reputational perspective... A company that prides itself on privacy but can't get something as basic as a firewall right, or a company that knows how to write secure software but occasionally puts backdoors in them for intelligence agencies?
- saagarjha 6y agoI've always thought that Apple would do well to have someone on staff to give the things they make the "Hacker News" treatment.
- zimpenfish 6y agoI'd posit that if that were true, they'd probably never have made it to even a $2bn company, never mind $2tn. HN is - for Apple's intents and purposes - an insignificantly tiny bunch of people they're 95% not really interested in as customers.
- sneak 6y agoI volunteer as tribute.
- Lammy 6y ago> laugh test. This seems a little rudely dismissive. GP's skepticism sounds totally reasonable and healthy to me.
- keutoi 6y agoGiven the history such paranoia might be reasonable(healthy too), but I can't assert such incompetence with a straight face.
- yyyk 6y agoUltimately, there's little difference between incompetence and malevolence when acting in this level. Incompetence might actually be slightly worse. The malevolent act on their best interest which is often predictable and limited. The incompetent simply give away data to every random badguy under the sun.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- yborg 6y agoIn fact, it was so negligent because Apple is actually secretly rebelling against the Illuminati, who forced them to do this, by making such a deliberate cock-up of it that it was discovered within hours of release. We need to go deeper.
- darthrupert 6y agoDemocrats are probably involved. I also read that the upcoming vaccination from Pfizer actually contains miniature versions of Apple's new M1 chip. We'll all be iCyborgs next year.
- NickNameNick 6y agoThey solved the cooling issue by distributing it in liquid nitrogen!
- heavyset_go 6y ago> This seems so negligent it's difficult for me to believe this was a mistake. I mean, it is the result of deliberate architecture and design changes to security and networking on macOS.