5 ms·

I sometimes wonder if the mods won't end up banning "political" talk on HN. Because these days everything becomes political, even if it really is a technical is

by nickpp 6y ago

I sometimes wonder if the mods won't end up banning "political" talk on HN. Because these days everything becomes political, even if it really is a technical issue. Case to the point: online signature check was a technical decision, to fight malware. It was implemented similarly by other OS vendors (Microsoft) and it's been this way for years. Now we discover that it has the unfortunate side-effect that it lessens privacy. Apple (and probably other OS vendors) are working to improve that in the future. Also, a technical issue. It was never about privacy. It was never a political issue. Can we please just discuss it from a technological standpoint?

solinent 6y ago
It's possible that the technical discussion about online signature checking was subsumed by the political discussion--the two are interrelated and if we don't get into these discussions here I don't really see another place for them to happen. It's easy to shrug it off as simply a technical issue, and it's very convenient for the PR department as well.
shawnz 6y ago
The technical issue is "can we provide these features without weakening privacy?" The political issue is "if we can't provide these features without weakening privacy, should we still provide them?" Aren't they both important points to discuss?
- nickpp 6y ago
  They are, but the difference is that we can fix technical issues, or at least improve them. We can (mostly) agree about what's right and wrong and what's better or worse. Political issues on the other hand, just end up antagonizing us ever more. We argue endlessly, go on countless tangents and nobody agrees on anything because we see the very issues under different lights, experiences, values and cultures. I am tired of politics. I just want to get stuff done. Hopefully good stuff, but I’d settle for slightly better.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    I think this is a terrible attitude. We can improve political issues and we do it by defending our opinions in the public sphere, which has the power to change others' opinions. If you don't work to present your ideas to the world in the best possible light then you will just allow other, weaker ideas to become more convincing in comparison, thus doing a disservice to anyone who could have been convinced otherwise. I am sorry that politics is tiring but I think that is just a reality of politics being a manifestation of natural forces. The natural world is competitive, it's competitive on the cellular level, the food chain is competitive, and human societies are competitive too. Looking the other way doesn't change the reality, it just guarantees that the opinions of others will become more significant to the world than your own. Just like how our cells compete to form the best possible body, I think we are obligated to compete with our ideas to form the best possible society.
    - mattalbie 6y ago
      People tire of politics when (they feel) the conversation becomes unconvincing, pedantic, or monotonus. That doesn't mean those people have the wrong attitude, it means the argument is not compelling.
  - lwouis 6y ago
    Politics is about where we go. Tech is about how we arrive there. If you disagree on the direction we are headed, discussing different ways to arrive there seems pointless. You may agree with the status-quo politics, but other people don't. For them it's not about the tech, it's about the overall direction. For those people the important discussion to have is political. For instance, I personally am against the current direction macOS and Windows are headed. I have no problem with these kind of security measures as long as there is a button to opt out. Currently, Apple decides for everyone, and doesn't provide ways to opt out for power users. I dislike this, and I feel like discussing better cryptography, security protocols, etc, doesn't address my priorities.
  - noobermin 6y ago
    People are "tired of politics" until it affects something they care about.
driverdan 6y ago
> It was never about privacy. It was never a political issue. Can we please just discuss it from a technological standpoint? No. Unintended consequences are important. There are privacy issues, therefore we need to discuss privacy.
sneak 6y ago
> Case to the point: online signature check was a technical decision, to fight malware. This is an oversimplification. It also helps protect Apple's business model: you must pay Apple a fee for services (and show ID) to be able to sign your apps for distribution on this platform. Imagine if you had to show ID to get a TLS certificate for your website. Don't conflate the issue - this is also a move to protect certain streams of Apple services revenue, in addition to protecting users from malware, and it always has been.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Without facts, your thoughts are merely conspiracy theories. There is no difference between them and claims the US presidential election was stolen.
  - sneak 6y ago
    I've not posted any theories, only widely-accepted and recognized facts.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      “ this is also a move to protect certain streams of Apple services revenue” Citation needed please, Mr. Giuliani.
    - crazygringo 6y ago
      > this is also a move to protect certain streams of Apple services revenue That's a theory, not a fact, nor is it widely recognized. By any reasonable accounting of costs, the $99 Apple Developer Program fee isn't meant to be a profit center that Apple is trying to "protect". It mainly helps prevent spam accounts and helps offset the cost of reviewing and distributing free apps in the Mac and iOS app stores.
- shadowfiend 6y ago
  I see you asserting this over and over. What I don't see is you providing any real evidence that this is a core part of the decision-making process. Apple isn't particularly incentivized to find a different way that avoids the tools they already have that already make it harder and costlier for parties to get around their security mechanisms. That is not the same as making decisions because they protect the business model. Which is to say, it appears that you're the one oversimplifying and conflating (btw, I do not think that word means what you think it means) some very different motivations.
Y-bar 6y ago
> everything becomes political, even if it really is a technical issue I'm being reminded of an old song by Tom Lehrer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro]
raxxorrax 6y ago
I think informing the vendor of an OS about every program you run has necessarily a political component and is of relevance for discussion about security. It is the first step to define the threat model and there certainly are additional threats you are exposed to. This data is highly valuable to anyone that might want to infiltrate computer systems. The technical discussion of signatures is well documented.
submeta 6y ago
When a giant like Apple makes a decision to disallow installing apps that were not downloaded from the macOS-app store (and by preventing me to open the app, what Apple does is basically disallowing the app; my retired father does not know how to circumvent this), then this is a political descision that effects the lives of thousands of mac users. Computers have become a gateway to the digital world, which makes up a large part of our lives. And Apple is a huge player that has the power to shape the future of computing. Apple's vision of computing is on a trajectory where the end game is clear: Users have no control over their devices and will only be doing what Apple allows them to do. This is the case on iOS already, and macOS will be there in a few years. Some say: Decide with your purse. If you don't like Apple's vision, then don't buy their products. But this argument is like saying "This is how we handle things in country X, if you don't like it, move somewhere else." Some of us have invested lots in tools and software in Apple land, so changing platforms will take some time. But even if we can change, Apple is shaping the future of this industry, in a way that it restricts freedom and limits options. And this is not a future we should accept. Instead we should be opposing and fighting it.
- mewse 6y ago
  I've recently downloaded quite a number of Mac programs directly from the web, as well as from Steam. They work just fine, as long as they've been signed. What makes you say that Apple has made a "decision to disallow installing apps that were not downloaded from the macOS-app store"? That seems kind of obviously untrue. I mean, I myself sell Mac software outside the Mac App Store and have never had a complaint. Maybe you were thinking of the iOS app store?

by nickpp 6y ago

solinent 6y ago

It's possible that the technical discussion about online signature checking was subsumed by the political discussion--the two are interrelated and if we don't get into these discussions here I don't really see another place for them to happen. It's easy to shrug it off as simply a technical issue, and it's very convenient for the PR department as well.

shawnz 6y ago

The technical issue is "can we provide these features without weakening privacy?" The political issue is "if we can't provide these features without weakening privacy, should we still provide them?" Aren't they both important points to discuss?

nickpp 6y ago
They are, but the difference is that we can fix technical issues, or at least improve them. We can (mostly) agree about what's right and wrong and what's better or worse. Political issues on the other hand, just end up antagonizing us ever more. We argue endlessly, go on countless tangents and nobody agrees on anything because we see the very issues under different lights, experiences, values and cultures. I am tired of politics. I just want to get stuff done. Hopefully good stuff, but I’d settle for slightly better.
- shawnz 6y ago
  I think this is a terrible attitude. We can improve political issues and we do it by defending our opinions in the public sphere, which has the power to change others' opinions. If you don't work to present your ideas to the world in the best possible light then you will just allow other, weaker ideas to become more convincing in comparison, thus doing a disservice to anyone who could have been convinced otherwise. I am sorry that politics is tiring but I think that is just a reality of politics being a manifestation of natural forces. The natural world is competitive, it's competitive on the cellular level, the food chain is competitive, and human societies are competitive too. Looking the other way doesn't change the reality, it just guarantees that the opinions of others will become more significant to the world than your own. Just like how our cells compete to form the best possible body, I think we are obligated to compete with our ideas to form the best possible society.
  - mattalbie 6y ago
    People tire of politics when (they feel) the conversation becomes unconvincing, pedantic, or monotonus. That doesn't mean those people have the wrong attitude, it means the argument is not compelling.
- lwouis 6y ago
  Politics is about where we go. Tech is about how we arrive there. If you disagree on the direction we are headed, discussing different ways to arrive there seems pointless. You may agree with the status-quo politics, but other people don't. For them it's not about the tech, it's about the overall direction. For those people the important discussion to have is political. For instance, I personally am against the current direction macOS and Windows are headed. I have no problem with these kind of security measures as long as there is a button to opt out. Currently, Apple decides for everyone, and doesn't provide ways to opt out for power users. I dislike this, and I feel like discussing better cryptography, security protocols, etc, doesn't address my priorities.
- noobermin 6y ago
  People are "tired of politics" until it affects something they care about.

driverdan 6y ago

> It was never about privacy. It was never a political issue. Can we please just discuss it from a technological standpoint? No. Unintended consequences are important. There are privacy issues, therefore we need to discuss privacy.

sneak 6y ago

> Case to the point: online signature check was a technical decision, to fight malware. This is an oversimplification. It also helps protect Apple's business model: you must pay Apple a fee for services (and show ID) to be able to sign your apps for distribution on this platform. Imagine if you had to show ID to get a TLS certificate for your website. Don't conflate the issue - this is also a move to protect certain streams of Apple services revenue, in addition to protecting users from malware, and it always has been.

valuearb 6y ago
Without facts, your thoughts are merely conspiracy theories. There is no difference between them and claims the US presidential election was stolen.
- sneak 6y ago
  I've not posted any theories, only widely-accepted and recognized facts.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    “ this is also a move to protect certain streams of Apple services revenue” Citation needed please, Mr. Giuliani.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    > this is also a move to protect certain streams of Apple services revenue That's a theory, not a fact, nor is it widely recognized. By any reasonable accounting of costs, the $99 Apple Developer Program fee isn't meant to be a profit center that Apple is trying to "protect". It mainly helps prevent spam accounts and helps offset the cost of reviewing and distributing free apps in the Mac and iOS app stores.
shadowfiend 6y ago
I see you asserting this over and over. What I don't see is you providing any real evidence that this is a core part of the decision-making process. Apple isn't particularly incentivized to find a different way that avoids the tools they already have that already make it harder and costlier for parties to get around their security mechanisms. That is not the same as making decisions because they protect the business model. Which is to say, it appears that you're the one oversimplifying and conflating (btw, I do not think that word means what you think it means) some very different motivations.

Y-bar 6y ago

> everything becomes political, even if it really is a technical issue I'm being reminded of an old song by Tom Lehrer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro]

raxxorrax 6y ago

I think informing the vendor of an OS about every program you run has necessarily a political component and is of relevance for discussion about security. It is the first step to define the threat model and there certainly are additional threats you are exposed to. This data is highly valuable to anyone that might want to infiltrate computer systems. The technical discussion of signatures is well documented.

submeta 6y ago

When a giant like Apple makes a decision to disallow installing apps that were not downloaded from the macOS-app store (and by preventing me to open the app, what Apple does is basically disallowing the app; my retired father does not know how to circumvent this), then this is a political descision that effects the lives of thousands of mac users. Computers have become a gateway to the digital world, which makes up a large part of our lives. And Apple is a huge player that has the power to shape the future of computing. Apple's vision of computing is on a trajectory where the end game is clear: Users have no control over their devices and will only be doing what Apple allows them to do. This is the case on iOS already, and macOS will be there in a few years. Some say: Decide with your purse. If you don't like Apple's vision, then don't buy their products. But this argument is like saying "This is how we handle things in country X, if you don't like it, move somewhere else." Some of us have invested lots in tools and software in Apple land, so changing platforms will take some time. But even if we can change, Apple is shaping the future of this industry, in a way that it restricts freedom and limits options. And this is not a future we should accept. Instead we should be opposing and fighting it.

mewse 6y ago
I've recently downloaded quite a number of Mac programs directly from the web, as well as from Steam. They work just fine, as long as they've been signed. What makes you say that Apple has made a "decision to disallow installing apps that were not downloaded from the macOS-app store"? That seems kind of obviously untrue. I mean, I myself sell Mac software outside the Mac App Store and have never had a complaint. Maybe you were thinking of the iOS app store?