24 ms·

The worst thing is, people have this belief that Apple is somehow protecting them, so they offload the critical thinking to Apple and lower their own guards. Fo

The worst thing is, people have this belief that Apple is somehow protecting them, so they offload the critical thinking to Apple and lower their own guards. For example, a person thought he was getting a legitimate Bitcoin wallet app, but turns out it was a fake and he lost his life savings [1]. edit: to be clear, I'm not blaming Apple for not stopping these scams, at their scale, it's just practically impossible to stop every scam, but by making their unrealistic promise that everything on the app store is safe, they are misleading people into this false sense of security. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-scam-bitcoin-1-million/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-...

amaBasics 5y ago
And as the article points out, Apple’s marketing coupled with fake ratings and reviews that plague the App Store can “create the perception for the public that they are safe downloading an app or buying a product and engaging in content that other people have found valuable” (emphasis mine)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
I have sympathy for the person in this story, but I think shifting the blame to Apple in this case is ludicrous. I'm still somewhat shaking my head that someone went through all of the trouble of using a hardware wallet, and then entered his key words into the first app he downloaded. If anything I think this story is just a prime example of why irreversible crypto transactions are an absolute nightmare for the general public. With the banking system this person would likely have recourse, with crypto it's "Whoops, your wallet key words got stolen, sorry, there go your life savings."
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  They might have think twice if Apple didn't promise to make sure the app store was completely secure. A promise which they realistically can't keep at their scale no matter how hard they try. Also, this is just one example, the article itself has other ones.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    When has Apple made that promise? Where do they make that promise? No system is perfect, and when you get the realm of people submitting privileged information to third parties, all bets are always off. There is absolutely no way Apple could make guarantees about that. And they don't. Anywhere. And no, saying that they review apps isn't a promise that it is "completely secure". That is absurd. Trying for some security and confidence is a world removed from absolute security. The latter is effectively impossible. This thread is farce. Anything if it gives people an opportunity to ply their rhetoric. It is a reminder that while HN has some good discussions, it has a lot of people who just want to make stupid arguments based on lies. "But I thought you said TLS was completely secure? How could someripoffsite.com steal my cash?"
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      > When has Apple made that promise? Where do they make that promise? From apple.com/privacy: "Every one of the more than 1.8 million apps on the App Store is required to follow strict privacy guidelines and report how it uses your data. And every app is rigorously reviewed by a team of experts at Apple."
      - defaultname 5y ago
        Which doesn't say or claim that it's "completely secure". The notion is preposterous if third parties are involved. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Then again, so do people making disingenuous arguments online.
        delfinom 5y ago
        Idk, when I see " rigorously reviewed", I think being able to see the app is attempting to masquerade as an existing one...
- disabled 5y ago
  The issue here is that Apple is facilitating wire fraud, which is extremely illegal in the United States. The bad actors who created that app are committing wire fraud on an Apple platform, which is of course colloquially known as the App Store. The problem is that if you are associated with a crime committed in the United States in any way (besides being a very distant third-person witness with no associations whatsoever to the individual), and you are not a crime victim or an individual reporting the crime, you are almost always considered to be an _accessory to the crime_ which is a misdemeanor (go to jail for up to 365 days) or felony (go to prison for over 365 days) state level (has parole for prisoners) or federal level (effectively has no parole for prisoners) criminal offense, which the police will arrest you for and charge you with, while the person committing the misdemeanor/felony gets charged with whatever crime they perpetrated. For example, if your "acquaintance" shoplifts at a store and gets caught, and you don't stop or report them: you will get charged as being an accessory to a crime and you're going to jail. Also, if you are involved in an altercation in any way, the cop can put everyone involved in handcuffs and charge them, even if you never got physically or verbally violent. There are also catch-all laws in the US that one can go to prison for, basically for acting in "bad faith" but never actually doing anything else criminally wrong. This is why you never talk to the police, ever. They will twist your statements in the wildest ways imaginable. If you get pulled over by the police, you should practice, every single time, saying as little as possible to the officer. This has never happened to me personally, but, everyone needs to know this: If the police in America start questioning you and it gets into a detailed discussion, you stop right there and say: "No comment: I need to talk to my lawyer first."
  - Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
    > There are also catch-all laws in the US that one can go to prison for, basically for acting in "bad faith" but never actually doing anything else criminally wrong. As someone who used to be a criminal prosecutor in the US, I would be very interested in seeing citations to whatever statute you are referencing. As far as being charged as an accessory, you generally need to have known that a crime was or would be occurring, and to have provided some form of assistance. That doesn't need to be direct actions in the act, it could be financial or emotional assistance. And no one is going to prison over shoplifting unless we're talking about repeat offenders or large amounts of cash. Let alone just happening to know someone who shoplifted and failing to report them. Having said that, definitely don't talk to the police without a lawyer present.
- topkai22 5y ago
  There is a well established principle that retailers bear some responsibility for what they sell. I doubt Home Depot would get away without liability if they sold a dryer that caught on fire and burned down a house if it was found they had acquired the dryer from a dodgy criminal syndicate.
  - jetpackjoe 5y ago
    Especially considering there is a review process, and Apple takes a 30% cut. If it was an open market (no review process), and they just took enough to cover operations and processing fees, I can see them being blameless, but if you are going to review apps, you need to actually review them.
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    That’s an interesting parallel, while Home Depot buys their product, in a market place it works differently. As of now Amazon for instance bears no responsibility of what happens with the vendor’s product as long as they have plausible deniability (“paperwork looked good”). That’s exacerbated when products are counterfeits and legit brands get pissed off, but it would got the same for unsafe products as well I’d guess. Amazon getting their provisions corrected could make a positive precedent for digital goods as well.
    - saurik 5y ago
      I feel like the difference should be that if you are merely providing a market, then the customer must "belong to" to vendor: at bare minimum, the vendor must know who they are; Apple, however, insists that the customer belongs to them, that the vendor will learn nothing about the customer, and that the vendor is merely providing software to Apple under a license that allows Apple to sell copies of it to their customers... they absolutely should have full responsibility for the things they choose to sell in this scenario. Apple also certainly isn't just checking "does the paperwork look good": they are carefully examining the product, vetting it, and then claiming on their website and in all their marketing materials that customers can feel safe using all of the apps they sell because of this curation, for which they take a handsome cut of the profits. It is all simply ridiculous, really.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Shifting the blame to the world's largest, highest-value company is "ludicrous"? I must not keep up with the news.
- cmiles74 5y ago
  As ludicrous as it may be to blame Apple, they have said many times that the cut they take on apps and in-app sales is part of how they keep the platform secure and ensure the privacy of their customers.[0] While it's clear to me that they can't really do that, I don't think we can expect the average purchaser of the iPhone to understand just how far-fetched these claims really are. In my opinion, Apple is giving them a false sense of security that can be very dangerous. Perhaps if Apple was held responsible for these kinds of expensive mishaps they would be more honest in their marketing. Maybe. And that's kind of the point of this article. :-P [0]: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/554790-cook-says-apple-app-store-rules-protect-user-security-during-antitrust https://thehill.com/policy/technology/554790-cook-says-apple...
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  The problem isn't that Apple should be responsible and isn't, the problem is Apple is extremely paternalistic but in a way where it gets all the powers but skirts all the responsibilities. If the responsibility is too impossible (and I'm fine saying that it is), then their paternalism shouldn't be called out and their reputation knocked down a rung or two. Instead, they get to keep a reputation which is far better than the other megacorps'.
  - akiselev 5y ago
    > their paternalism shouldn't be called out Totally off topic: that phrasing made my brain skip a beat. I've always seen "called out" used to convey confrontation, especially in a public manner like "He called out Apple on Twitter for their paternalism." Turns out a similarly common use is the more general "to bring attention to" in a positive way.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      No I just meant "should" and wrote the exact opposite! :(
  - actuator 5y ago
    > Instead, they get to keep a reputation which is far better than the other megacorps'. I think this is what having strong marketing gets you. You can see from the defence on HN/Twitter where most people would be fine with Apple having a control over all their devices and aren't afraid of the growing dominance of a single company.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-the-digital-manor/ https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-... is a sad example where Cory only points out Apple nefariously undermining the guarantees, as opposed to shear technical failure not intended to appease anyone.
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  I think it's reasonable for people to expect Apple to have a higher standard of review for financial apps (including bitcoin) vs utility apps.
osrec 5y ago
Unfortunately, the Apple army will be ready to downvote you. In my experience, they will not hear anything negative about Apple, even if it's true. Disclaimer: I think Apple's products are beautiful, simple and well engineered, but they are able to feed some total BS to their fans, who just accept it at face value and regurgitate it everywhere, and that's annoying.
tedunangst 5y ago
Why not blame Trezor for allowing a fake app to steal money from his hardware wallet? Did he buy the wallet thinking it would make scams impossible?
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  Because Trezor doesn't control the iOS app store?
  - tedunangst 5y ago
    What purpose does a hardware wallet serve? What security does it offer?
    - oarsinsync 5y ago
      It provides an electronic and secure mechanism to store your private keys and sign transactions, while retaining confidence that your private keys will not be compromised while using the device. Think of it like a YubiKey. It’s not all that different. It also enables you to export those private keys so that you can keep a backup in the event of a hardware failure, because all hardware eventually fails. It doesn’t lock you into their platform / ecosystem exclusively. It doesn’t prevent you from using that backup elsewhere.
- coding123 5y ago
  This is called blaming the victim. It takes a lot for someone that got scammed to come forward publicly with their story. And it helps others not get scammed too.
  - tedunangst 5y ago
    Trezor advertises itself as the most secure way to store bitcoins, yet he lost all his bitcoins. Not sure how you concluded I'm blaming the victim here.
SigmundA 5y ago
What unrealistic promise did Apple make? I am curious when they said the app store is "completely secure" because obviously nothing can be completely secure. I know they claim it is "the most secure" app store, which I am not sure what they use to back that up, it does seem to be one of the most secure platforms, it has my highest trust but I don't completely trust it. As others have said I do believe a curated app is is more secure than an un curated one or no app store, but nothing is perfect and there is a trade off for that curation and tight control.
______- 5y ago
> A person thought he was getting a legitimate Bitcoin wallet app, but turns out it was a fake and he lost his life savings I guess I'm victim-shaming here, but using mobile apps for large financial arrangements, no matter how trustworthy the app claims to be is a bad move. For this type of stuff you would use a clean computer with no known malware present, and use a privacy-aware browser like Firefox or Brave preferably with `HTTPS Everywhere` addon installed with the EASE feature turned on to avoid plaintext leaks / traffic going over HTTP.
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  People use their bank's apps, their investment institutions apps (Robinhood, Fidelity, etc) and a lot of other financial apps all the time.
  - dumbfounder 5y ago
    I can’t send a lot of money around with any of my bank apps. It has relatively low limits.
    - ______- 5y ago
      Yes if you are dealing in small amounts that you wouldn't mind losing to fraudulent apps, then do it, but read my previous comment about locked down machines if dealing with very large transactions.
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      I'm not sure that trend holds. Most banking apps let you send tens of thousands in one go. They're very aggressive with the "are you sure?" question in my experience though.
      - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
        Yes mine let's me put in a limit. I have set it to a low €500 since I rarely do large purchases in webshops. At the end of the day people are responsible for not doing business with shady stores or people. But the idea that a single QR code can empty my entire account is sobering...
SavantIdiot 5y ago
> For example, a person thought he was getting a legitimate Bitcoin wallet app, but turns out it was a fake and he lost his life savings [1]. There's a lot more wrong in this scenario than just the app store. If someone is going to be so amazingly careless with half a million dollars...
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  If someone technical enough to have a hardware wallet and "smart" enough to have amassed half a million dollars falls for this scam, I think it tells you more about how much (misplaced) trust they put in Apple rather than how careless they were, but that's just my opinion.
  - richardwhiuk 5y ago
    The real issue is Bitcoin here.
    - bradleykingz 5y ago
      I'm surprised too... He had his life savings in Bitcoin?
      - rawtxapp 5y ago
        A good friend of mine has ~98% of his savings in BTC since 2015 and know quite a bit of other people with high % of their savings in it. For those that can ignore the short term volatility, who have good incomes as safety nets (say FAANG jobs) to weather any storms, those who don't trust their governments and who are relatively young to recover any large losses, it can be an acceptable tradeoff (needless to say, a very profitable one as well).
    - paulpauper 5y ago
      Bitcoin makes scamming so much more lucrative . So many pple have been scammed such as fake apps and giveaway scams.
amelius 5y ago
The problem is that Apple loves to claim that they need full control over their platform to keep their platform safe.
- slver 5y ago
  They do need full control to keep their platform safe. Are they managing to keep it safe is independent of that claim and we can ask why are those getting through.
- plerpin 5y ago
  Their PR lets them have it both ways.
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    Their users too, as shown in every other comment here.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      So, enlighten me, how does another app store increase safety if Apple is writing the APIs used by the other app stores? clearly it doesn’t, it just provides options for more of the same. so then I wonder what the point to all of this is, and the only idea that comes to mind is a bunch of tech savvy android users really want to use iphone but can’t/won’t until there’s additional gatekeepers, err i mean app stores.
      - 411111111111111 5y ago
        We're just rolling our eyes that people actually believe that the full control apple wants over their products has anything to do with security. It's the most profitable course of action, that's all there is to it. But to address your question: if apple allowed other stores, they could be significantly more picky about what's allowed on their store. This would consequently increase the security for people only using the official store. This is obviously a no-go however, as that would be less profitable then the current situation.
Black101 5y ago
The problem is that Apple is lying about what they are doing... and therefor, they should probably be targeted by dozens of class action lawsuits.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> I'm not blaming Apple for not stopping these scams Why not? You should blame them. They have positioned themselves as the gatekeepers. Why? To extract profit from application developers. However, such a powerful position also comes with expectations and responsibilities. They should absolutely not be allowed to get away with gross negligence. We absolutely must blame them every single time they fail to keep malicious software out. They are responsible for that man's losses and should fully indemnify him. Had they not approved that software, it would not have happened. Nobody cares about their "scale" or how "difficult" it is for them to determine what is and isn't malicious. They have assumed that responsibility by gatekeeping their devices and therefore any failures are directly attributable to them.
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  I agree, I think they should help him, but I also think it would open a whole can of worms. The fact is, no matter how much time/energy/effort they spend, they will never eliminate all scams, scams would just become more and more sophisticated. This doesn't mean, they should just give up, but having been through the review process, they are already doing quite a bit. So that would mean, they will make it much harder for apps to get approved in the store (and it's already a very painful process), so you'd only end up with apps from large developers which is not ideal. We are seeing a similar dynamic with Youtube which has become rather "ban-happy" as in they don't want to take risks, so would rather ban content than try to reduce false positives, because at a certain scale, you just can't identify content with good precision/recall.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > I also think it would open a whole can of worms Absolutely. Apple should be afraid of holding the gatekeeper position. Anyone should. When people can install and use whatever they want, safety becomes their responsibility. They should open up their platform and let people do their own due dilligence. If they assume that responsibility and then neglect it, they absolutely can and should be blamed for any problems.
    - 5y ago
yawaworht1978 5y ago
This makes me wonder, can such thieves easily convert the stolen Bitcoin or are these blacklisted everywhere?
- webmobdev 5y ago
  The whole idea behind crypto currencies is that there is no central authority behind it. And so there is no blacklist / whitelist because you need such an authority, trusted by everyone, to create such a list. All cryptocurrency transfers (between digital wallets) are recorded in a public ledger (the blockchain). Anybody can read it. But only those with the correct encryption keys to a wallet can write to it (add a record). Once someone steals the encryption key of your wallet A, it can be used to access your wallet and add a record to the public ledger that all the cryptocurrency of wallet A has been transferred to wallet B. This record cannot be changed by anyone. But since every transaction on the ledger is a public record that anyone can read, one can theoretically track where the cryptocurrency goes from one wallet to another. This can be used to catch a thief by the police. Anyone can create a digital wallet anonymously, but to convert it into real currency you need to provide your real life identity and bank account to a crypto-exchange. This is the point where someone becomes exposed and loses their anonymity, and hence can be identified by the law.
tobr 5y ago
”At their scale” excuses are the worst. It’s one thing that scale will cause a tiny percentage to create a large number of cases. But if it makes the percentage go up, it’s a sign you need to scale back down until you figure out how not to get people hurt. No one forced you to be humongous scale.
gentleman11 5y ago
2% is pretty low compared to random websites (it’s your birthday! Enter your info in this link so we can send you a gift!)
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Most people don't browse random websites
  - gentleman11 5y ago
    Only because those sites never appear in google search. So google search is the App Store of the internet?

amaBasics 5y ago

And as the article points out, Apple’s marketing coupled with fake ratings and reviews that plague the App Store can “create the perception for the public that they are safe downloading an app or buying a product and engaging in content that other people have found valuable” (emphasis mine)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

I have sympathy for the person in this story, but I think shifting the blame to Apple in this case is ludicrous. I'm still somewhat shaking my head that someone went through all of the trouble of using a hardware wallet, and then entered his key words into the first app he downloaded. If anything I think this story is just a prime example of why irreversible crypto transactions are an absolute nightmare for the general public. With the banking system this person would likely have recourse, with crypto it's "Whoops, your wallet key words got stolen, sorry, there go your life savings."

rawtxapp 5y ago
They might have think twice if Apple didn't promise to make sure the app store was completely secure. A promise which they realistically can't keep at their scale no matter how hard they try. Also, this is just one example, the article itself has other ones.
- defaultname 5y ago
  When has Apple made that promise? Where do they make that promise? No system is perfect, and when you get the realm of people submitting privileged information to third parties, all bets are always off. There is absolutely no way Apple could make guarantees about that. And they don't. Anywhere. And no, saying that they review apps isn't a promise that it is "completely secure". That is absurd. Trying for some security and confidence is a world removed from absolute security. The latter is effectively impossible. This thread is farce. Anything if it gives people an opportunity to ply their rhetoric. It is a reminder that while HN has some good discussions, it has a lot of people who just want to make stupid arguments based on lies. "But I thought you said TLS was completely secure? How could someripoffsite.com steal my cash?"
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    > When has Apple made that promise? Where do they make that promise? From apple.com/privacy: "Every one of the more than 1.8 million apps on the App Store is required to follow strict privacy guidelines and report how it uses your data. And every app is rigorously reviewed by a team of experts at Apple."
    - defaultname 5y ago
      Which doesn't say or claim that it's "completely secure". The notion is preposterous if third parties are involved. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Then again, so do people making disingenuous arguments online.
      - delfinom 5y ago
        Idk, when I see " rigorously reviewed", I think being able to see the app is attempting to masquerade as an existing one...
disabled 5y ago
The issue here is that Apple is facilitating wire fraud, which is extremely illegal in the United States. The bad actors who created that app are committing wire fraud on an Apple platform, which is of course colloquially known as the App Store. The problem is that if you are associated with a crime committed in the United States in any way (besides being a very distant third-person witness with no associations whatsoever to the individual), and you are not a crime victim or an individual reporting the crime, you are almost always considered to be an _accessory to the crime_ which is a misdemeanor (go to jail for up to 365 days) or felony (go to prison for over 365 days) state level (has parole for prisoners) or federal level (effectively has no parole for prisoners) criminal offense, which the police will arrest you for and charge you with, while the person committing the misdemeanor/felony gets charged with whatever crime they perpetrated. For example, if your "acquaintance" shoplifts at a store and gets caught, and you don't stop or report them: you will get charged as being an accessory to a crime and you're going to jail. Also, if you are involved in an altercation in any way, the cop can put everyone involved in handcuffs and charge them, even if you never got physically or verbally violent. There are also catch-all laws in the US that one can go to prison for, basically for acting in "bad faith" but never actually doing anything else criminally wrong. This is why you never talk to the police, ever. They will twist your statements in the wildest ways imaginable. If you get pulled over by the police, you should practice, every single time, saying as little as possible to the officer. This has never happened to me personally, but, everyone needs to know this: If the police in America start questioning you and it gets into a detailed discussion, you stop right there and say: "No comment: I need to talk to my lawyer first."
- Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
  > There are also catch-all laws in the US that one can go to prison for, basically for acting in "bad faith" but never actually doing anything else criminally wrong. As someone who used to be a criminal prosecutor in the US, I would be very interested in seeing citations to whatever statute you are referencing. As far as being charged as an accessory, you generally need to have known that a crime was or would be occurring, and to have provided some form of assistance. That doesn't need to be direct actions in the act, it could be financial or emotional assistance. And no one is going to prison over shoplifting unless we're talking about repeat offenders or large amounts of cash. Let alone just happening to know someone who shoplifted and failing to report them. Having said that, definitely don't talk to the police without a lawyer present.
topkai22 5y ago
There is a well established principle that retailers bear some responsibility for what they sell. I doubt Home Depot would get away without liability if they sold a dryer that caught on fire and burned down a house if it was found they had acquired the dryer from a dodgy criminal syndicate.
- jetpackjoe 5y ago
  Especially considering there is a review process, and Apple takes a 30% cut. If it was an open market (no review process), and they just took enough to cover operations and processing fees, I can see them being blameless, but if you are going to review apps, you need to actually review them.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  That’s an interesting parallel, while Home Depot buys their product, in a market place it works differently. As of now Amazon for instance bears no responsibility of what happens with the vendor’s product as long as they have plausible deniability (“paperwork looked good”). That’s exacerbated when products are counterfeits and legit brands get pissed off, but it would got the same for unsafe products as well I’d guess. Amazon getting their provisions corrected could make a positive precedent for digital goods as well.
  - saurik 5y ago
    I feel like the difference should be that if you are merely providing a market, then the customer must "belong to" to vendor: at bare minimum, the vendor must know who they are; Apple, however, insists that the customer belongs to them, that the vendor will learn nothing about the customer, and that the vendor is merely providing software to Apple under a license that allows Apple to sell copies of it to their customers... they absolutely should have full responsibility for the things they choose to sell in this scenario. Apple also certainly isn't just checking "does the paperwork look good": they are carefully examining the product, vetting it, and then claiming on their website and in all their marketing materials that customers can feel safe using all of the apps they sell because of this curation, for which they take a handsome cut of the profits. It is all simply ridiculous, really.
smoldesu 5y ago
Shifting the blame to the world's largest, highest-value company is "ludicrous"? I must not keep up with the news.
cmiles74 5y ago
As ludicrous as it may be to blame Apple, they have said many times that the cut they take on apps and in-app sales is part of how they keep the platform secure and ensure the privacy of their customers.[0] While it's clear to me that they can't really do that, I don't think we can expect the average purchaser of the iPhone to understand just how far-fetched these claims really are. In my opinion, Apple is giving them a false sense of security that can be very dangerous. Perhaps if Apple was held responsible for these kinds of expensive mishaps they would be more honest in their marketing. Maybe. And that's kind of the point of this article. :-P [0]: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/554790-cook-says-apple-app-store-rules-protect-user-security-during-antitrust https://thehill.com/policy/technology/554790-cook-says-apple...
Ericson2314 5y ago
The problem isn't that Apple should be responsible and isn't, the problem is Apple is extremely paternalistic but in a way where it gets all the powers but skirts all the responsibilities. If the responsibility is too impossible (and I'm fine saying that it is), then their paternalism shouldn't be called out and their reputation knocked down a rung or two. Instead, they get to keep a reputation which is far better than the other megacorps'.
- akiselev 5y ago
  > their paternalism shouldn't be called out Totally off topic: that phrasing made my brain skip a beat. I've always seen "called out" used to convey confrontation, especially in a public manner like "He called out Apple on Twitter for their paternalism." Turns out a similarly common use is the more general "to bring attention to" in a positive way.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    No I just meant "should" and wrote the exact opposite! :(
- actuator 5y ago
  > Instead, they get to keep a reputation which is far better than the other megacorps'. I think this is what having strong marketing gets you. You can see from the defence on HN/Twitter where most people would be fine with Apple having a control over all their devices and aren't afraid of the growing dominance of a single company.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-the-digital-manor/ https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-... is a sad example where Cory only points out Apple nefariously undermining the guarantees, as opposed to shear technical failure not intended to appease anyone.
diebeforei485 5y ago
I think it's reasonable for people to expect Apple to have a higher standard of review for financial apps (including bitcoin) vs utility apps.

osrec 5y ago

Unfortunately, the Apple army will be ready to downvote you. In my experience, they will not hear anything negative about Apple, even if it's true. Disclaimer: I think Apple's products are beautiful, simple and well engineered, but they are able to feed some total BS to their fans, who just accept it at face value and regurgitate it everywhere, and that's annoying.

tedunangst 5y ago

Why not blame Trezor for allowing a fake app to steal money from his hardware wallet? Did he buy the wallet thinking it would make scams impossible?

rawtxapp 5y ago
Because Trezor doesn't control the iOS app store?
- tedunangst 5y ago
  What purpose does a hardware wallet serve? What security does it offer?
  - oarsinsync 5y ago
    It provides an electronic and secure mechanism to store your private keys and sign transactions, while retaining confidence that your private keys will not be compromised while using the device. Think of it like a YubiKey. It’s not all that different. It also enables you to export those private keys so that you can keep a backup in the event of a hardware failure, because all hardware eventually fails. It doesn’t lock you into their platform / ecosystem exclusively. It doesn’t prevent you from using that backup elsewhere.
coding123 5y ago
This is called blaming the victim. It takes a lot for someone that got scammed to come forward publicly with their story. And it helps others not get scammed too.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  Trezor advertises itself as the most secure way to store bitcoins, yet he lost all his bitcoins. Not sure how you concluded I'm blaming the victim here.

SigmundA 5y ago

What unrealistic promise did Apple make? I am curious when they said the app store is "completely secure" because obviously nothing can be completely secure. I know they claim it is "the most secure" app store, which I am not sure what they use to back that up, it does seem to be one of the most secure platforms, it has my highest trust but I don't completely trust it. As others have said I do believe a curated app is is more secure than an un curated one or no app store, but nothing is perfect and there is a trade off for that curation and tight control.

______- 5y ago

> A person thought he was getting a legitimate Bitcoin wallet app, but turns out it was a fake and he lost his life savings I guess I'm victim-shaming here, but using mobile apps for large financial arrangements, no matter how trustworthy the app claims to be is a bad move. For this type of stuff you would use a clean computer with no known malware present, and use a privacy-aware browser like Firefox or Brave preferably with `HTTPS Everywhere` addon installed with the EASE feature turned on to avoid plaintext leaks / traffic going over HTTP.

rawtxapp 5y ago
People use their bank's apps, their investment institutions apps (Robinhood, Fidelity, etc) and a lot of other financial apps all the time.
- dumbfounder 5y ago
  I can’t send a lot of money around with any of my bank apps. It has relatively low limits.
  - ______- 5y ago
    Yes if you are dealing in small amounts that you wouldn't mind losing to fraudulent apps, then do it, but read my previous comment about locked down machines if dealing with very large transactions.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    I'm not sure that trend holds. Most banking apps let you send tens of thousands in one go. They're very aggressive with the "are you sure?" question in my experience though.
    - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
      Yes mine let's me put in a limit. I have set it to a low €500 since I rarely do large purchases in webshops. At the end of the day people are responsible for not doing business with shady stores or people. But the idea that a single QR code can empty my entire account is sobering...

SavantIdiot 5y ago

> For example, a person thought he was getting a legitimate Bitcoin wallet app, but turns out it was a fake and he lost his life savings [1]. There's a lot more wrong in this scenario than just the app store. If someone is going to be so amazingly careless with half a million dollars...

rawtxapp 5y ago
If someone technical enough to have a hardware wallet and "smart" enough to have amassed half a million dollars falls for this scam, I think it tells you more about how much (misplaced) trust they put in Apple rather than how careless they were, but that's just my opinion.
- richardwhiuk 5y ago
  The real issue is Bitcoin here.
  - bradleykingz 5y ago
    I'm surprised too... He had his life savings in Bitcoin?
    - rawtxapp 5y ago
      A good friend of mine has ~98% of his savings in BTC since 2015 and know quite a bit of other people with high % of their savings in it. For those that can ignore the short term volatility, who have good incomes as safety nets (say FAANG jobs) to weather any storms, those who don't trust their governments and who are relatively young to recover any large losses, it can be an acceptable tradeoff (needless to say, a very profitable one as well).
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    Bitcoin makes scamming so much more lucrative . So many pple have been scammed such as fake apps and giveaway scams.

amelius 5y ago

The problem is that Apple loves to claim that they need full control over their platform to keep their platform safe.

slver 5y ago
They do need full control to keep their platform safe. Are they managing to keep it safe is independent of that claim and we can ask why are those getting through.
plerpin 5y ago
Their PR lets them have it both ways.
- 411111111111111 5y ago
  Their users too, as shown in every other comment here.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    So, enlighten me, how does another app store increase safety if Apple is writing the APIs used by the other app stores? clearly it doesn’t, it just provides options for more of the same. so then I wonder what the point to all of this is, and the only idea that comes to mind is a bunch of tech savvy android users really want to use iphone but can’t/won’t until there’s additional gatekeepers, err i mean app stores.
    - 411111111111111 5y ago
      We're just rolling our eyes that people actually believe that the full control apple wants over their products has anything to do with security. It's the most profitable course of action, that's all there is to it. But to address your question: if apple allowed other stores, they could be significantly more picky about what's allowed on their store. This would consequently increase the security for people only using the official store. This is obviously a no-go however, as that would be less profitable then the current situation.

Black101 5y ago

The problem is that Apple is lying about what they are doing... and therefor, they should probably be targeted by dozens of class action lawsuits.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> I'm not blaming Apple for not stopping these scams Why not? You should blame them. They have positioned themselves as the gatekeepers. Why? To extract profit from application developers. However, such a powerful position also comes with expectations and responsibilities. They should absolutely not be allowed to get away with gross negligence. We absolutely must blame them every single time they fail to keep malicious software out. They are responsible for that man's losses and should fully indemnify him. Had they not approved that software, it would not have happened. Nobody cares about their "scale" or how "difficult" it is for them to determine what is and isn't malicious. They have assumed that responsibility by gatekeeping their devices and therefore any failures are directly attributable to them.

rawtxapp 5y ago
I agree, I think they should help him, but I also think it would open a whole can of worms. The fact is, no matter how much time/energy/effort they spend, they will never eliminate all scams, scams would just become more and more sophisticated. This doesn't mean, they should just give up, but having been through the review process, they are already doing quite a bit. So that would mean, they will make it much harder for apps to get approved in the store (and it's already a very painful process), so you'd only end up with apps from large developers which is not ideal. We are seeing a similar dynamic with Youtube which has become rather "ban-happy" as in they don't want to take risks, so would rather ban content than try to reduce false positives, because at a certain scale, you just can't identify content with good precision/recall.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > I also think it would open a whole can of worms Absolutely. Apple should be afraid of holding the gatekeeper position. Anyone should. When people can install and use whatever they want, safety becomes their responsibility. They should open up their platform and let people do their own due dilligence. If they assume that responsibility and then neglect it, they absolutely can and should be blamed for any problems.
  - 5y ago

yawaworht1978 5y ago

This makes me wonder, can such thieves easily convert the stolen Bitcoin or are these blacklisted everywhere?

webmobdev 5y ago
The whole idea behind crypto currencies is that there is no central authority behind it. And so there is no blacklist / whitelist because you need such an authority, trusted by everyone, to create such a list. All cryptocurrency transfers (between digital wallets) are recorded in a public ledger (the blockchain). Anybody can read it. But only those with the correct encryption keys to a wallet can write to it (add a record). Once someone steals the encryption key of your wallet A, it can be used to access your wallet and add a record to the public ledger that all the cryptocurrency of wallet A has been transferred to wallet B. This record cannot be changed by anyone. But since every transaction on the ledger is a public record that anyone can read, one can theoretically track where the cryptocurrency goes from one wallet to another. This can be used to catch a thief by the police. Anyone can create a digital wallet anonymously, but to convert it into real currency you need to provide your real life identity and bank account to a crypto-exchange. This is the point where someone becomes exposed and loses their anonymity, and hence can be identified by the law.

tobr 5y ago

”At their scale” excuses are the worst. It’s one thing that scale will cause a tiny percentage to create a large number of cases. But if it makes the percentage go up, it’s a sign you need to scale back down until you figure out how not to get people hurt. No one forced you to be humongous scale.

gentleman11 5y ago

2% is pretty low compared to random websites (it’s your birthday! Enter your info in this link so we can send you a gift!)

mhh__ 5y ago
Most people don't browse random websites
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Only because those sites never appear in google search. So google search is the App Store of the internet?