5 ms·

> What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care. Alternatively, they know what's going on and approve of it. Consider tha

> What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care. Alternatively, they know what's going on and approve of it. Consider that this blog post frames the issue as one of surveillance, instead of an anti-malware effort. If you are inclined to be anti-Apple-at-any-cost, then you will agree with the blog post. If you are a happy Apple user, you are inclined to go for the latter explanation. > It's the strongest example of consumer cultism. Absolute in their exceptionalism and ignorance. Now you're being ridiculous, snobby, and insinuating that you are of course immune to such motivations. Sucks to see this on HN.

saghm 6y ago
> Consider that this blog post frames the issue as one of surveillance, instead of an anti-malware effort. It does address the idea of this system being intended to combat malware in the fourth and fifth paragraphs. The point it makes is that there's nothing stopping it from being used against legitimate software too, other than the benevolence of the "warlord" who controls it, so you're still just trusting them to protect you and hoping they don't take advantage of it.
- zepto 6y ago
  “you're still just trusting them to protect you and hoping they don't take advantage of it” That is exactly what Apple’s customers are doing. It actually a pretty normal feature of modern society to trust institutions or businesses not to take advantage of particular powers they have. It’s really bizarre to call a business a ‘warlord’. The converse, where we can’t trust any institution or business and we must all be fully equipped to individually defend our own interests on our own is a lot more like a warlord situation. That said, I agree that the centralized model is bad and we need to develop technology that is both secure and decentralized. But currently no such technology exists. Everyone has to trust someone.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Cory Doctorow is a sci-fi author and has written cyberpunk fiction, calling corporate empires "warlords" seems par for the genre. Scott Galloway has called GAFA "the four horseman" and Bruce Sterling calls them "the Stacks."
    - zepto 6y ago
      I mean at some point, they could cross the line into warlord territory if other institutions decline too much. It’s a dark world fantasy extrapolation parallel to ‘the handmaids tale’ or even ‘qanon’. There are hints at the realities being described, but we really aren’t anywhere near them being accurate.
      - amelius 6y ago
        > There are hints at the realities being described, but we really aren’t anywhere near them being accurate. The problem is that they can become a reality at the flick of a switch.
        zepto 6y ago
        Not really. It would take a lot more than a flick of a switch. They are already under a lot of scrutiny from governments without having flicked such a switch (whatever you imagine that switch to do).
  - type0 6y ago
    > It’s really bizarre to call a business a ‘warlord’. It's not more bizarre than calling someone else's servers "the cloud". I'd call GAFAM warlords because they are monopolistic, force their unwanted preferences upon users and buy up competition so there is none to migrate to.
    - zepto 6y ago
      The big difference between warlords and these companies is that a warlord uses force and often violence to gain power. These companies have gained power by selling things people are choosing to buy.
      - type0 6y ago
        > warlord uses force and often violence to gain power. not necessary if they gain it after the power vacuum The behaviors these companies engage in are anti competitive. MS even saved Apple at one point so that in antitrust suit they could point out that other operating systems existed. GAFAM are not on the side of the people. For decades I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice, most of the computers weren't available without giving MS a cut, that's a mob methods, take it leave it.
        zepto 6y ago
        “I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice.” I have owned countless computers since the mid 80’s, and I have never been forced to purchase a windows license or used windows on a computer I bought for myself. There have always been options.
        f430 6y ago
        Consider the kid who wants to play Doom or Quake like all the other kids are doing in his class. Can't do it on a linux or mac, I guess I'll ask mum to buy me Windows 95
        6y ago
  - cageface 6y ago
    It actually a pretty normal feature of modern society to trust institutions or businesses not to take advantage of particular powers they have. The problem here is that Apple disallows user override, as the article explains. It's like asking that you trust your government but also allow yourself to be physically constrained from rising up and rebelling against it. And you're not only trusting Apple you're trusting whatever goverment Apple is accountable to where you live. I'm ok with trusting Apple or Google for vetting most of the apps I have on my phone but I'm absolutely not ok with them restraining me from overriding their decisions when necessary.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Google allows overrides, so nobody is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do.
      - cageface 6y ago
        This is exactly why I use an Android phone.
        zepto 6y ago
        Why do you care what Apple does then?
        fwn 6y ago
        Surveillance is rarely about the individual avoiding one specific mechanism and instead mostly about its subtile influence on society (like chilling effects, the reshaping of power structures, the shift of dependencies, etc.) We should therefore care about increased surveillance even though we personally can avoid some specific measures. We wouldn't question someones concern about climate change just because they live in some Russian perma frost region either. Both are global issues.

saghm 6y ago

> Consider that this blog post frames the issue as one of surveillance, instead of an anti-malware effort. It does address the idea of this system being intended to combat malware in the fourth and fifth paragraphs. The point it makes is that there's nothing stopping it from being used against legitimate software too, other than the benevolence of the "warlord" who controls it, so you're still just trusting them to protect you and hoping they don't take advantage of it.

zepto 6y ago
“you're still just trusting them to protect you and hoping they don't take advantage of it” That is exactly what Apple’s customers are doing. It actually a pretty normal feature of modern society to trust institutions or businesses not to take advantage of particular powers they have. It’s really bizarre to call a business a ‘warlord’. The converse, where we can’t trust any institution or business and we must all be fully equipped to individually defend our own interests on our own is a lot more like a warlord situation. That said, I agree that the centralized model is bad and we need to develop technology that is both secure and decentralized. But currently no such technology exists. Everyone has to trust someone.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Cory Doctorow is a sci-fi author and has written cyberpunk fiction, calling corporate empires "warlords" seems par for the genre. Scott Galloway has called GAFA "the four horseman" and Bruce Sterling calls them "the Stacks."
  - zepto 6y ago
    I mean at some point, they could cross the line into warlord territory if other institutions decline too much. It’s a dark world fantasy extrapolation parallel to ‘the handmaids tale’ or even ‘qanon’. There are hints at the realities being described, but we really aren’t anywhere near them being accurate.
    - amelius 6y ago
      > There are hints at the realities being described, but we really aren’t anywhere near them being accurate. The problem is that they can become a reality at the flick of a switch.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Not really. It would take a lot more than a flick of a switch. They are already under a lot of scrutiny from governments without having flicked such a switch (whatever you imagine that switch to do).
- type0 6y ago
  > It’s really bizarre to call a business a ‘warlord’. It's not more bizarre than calling someone else's servers "the cloud". I'd call GAFAM warlords because they are monopolistic, force their unwanted preferences upon users and buy up competition so there is none to migrate to.
  - zepto 6y ago
    The big difference between warlords and these companies is that a warlord uses force and often violence to gain power. These companies have gained power by selling things people are choosing to buy.
    - type0 6y ago
      > warlord uses force and often violence to gain power. not necessary if they gain it after the power vacuum The behaviors these companies engage in are anti competitive. MS even saved Apple at one point so that in antitrust suit they could point out that other operating systems existed. GAFAM are not on the side of the people. For decades I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice, most of the computers weren't available without giving MS a cut, that's a mob methods, take it leave it.
      - zepto 6y ago
        “I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice.” I have owned countless computers since the mid 80’s, and I have never been forced to purchase a windows license or used windows on a computer I bought for myself. There have always been options.
        f430 6y ago
        Consider the kid who wants to play Doom or Quake like all the other kids are doing in his class. Can't do it on a linux or mac, I guess I'll ask mum to buy me Windows 95
        6y ago
- cageface 6y ago
  It actually a pretty normal feature of modern society to trust institutions or businesses not to take advantage of particular powers they have. The problem here is that Apple disallows user override, as the article explains. It's like asking that you trust your government but also allow yourself to be physically constrained from rising up and rebelling against it. And you're not only trusting Apple you're trusting whatever goverment Apple is accountable to where you live. I'm ok with trusting Apple or Google for vetting most of the apps I have on my phone but I'm absolutely not ok with them restraining me from overriding their decisions when necessary.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Google allows overrides, so nobody is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do.
    - cageface 6y ago
      This is exactly why I use an Android phone.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Why do you care what Apple does then?
        fwn 6y ago
        Surveillance is rarely about the individual avoiding one specific mechanism and instead mostly about its subtile influence on society (like chilling effects, the reshaping of power structures, the shift of dependencies, etc.) We should therefore care about increased surveillance even though we personally can avoid some specific measures. We wouldn't question someones concern about climate change just because they live in some Russian perma frost region either. Both are global issues.