3 ms·

Their point is general because the discourse has been run through analogies instead of facts. They don’t have specific arguments to respond to. Any time you get

Their point is general because the discourse has been run through analogies instead of facts. They don’t have specific arguments to respond to. Any time you get to the facts, they’re weak. iOS may be closed source, but there are avenues for introspection: jailbreak, security researcher device program, disassemblers, proxies, etc. You’d be hard pressed to design a scanning system which implements behaviors such as “scan your whole phone” without detection, versus alternative server side implementations where the purpose and processing is totally opaque.

willis936 5y ago
>You’d be hard pressed to design a scanning system which implements behaviors such as “scan your whole phone” without detection On this point I greatly disagree. Apple has control of the entire stack and shares nothing about it. If you jailbreak an iPhone you still don't know what happens when you send bits of data into any block of an SoC or modem. There are computers inside Apple devices that have no avenue for being audited. Apple having total control of their devices is deeply ingrained in their technical identity. It only works if you trust Apple. Apple has shown that trusting them is a bad idea. That's why this is news.
- shuckles 5y ago
  The point you have to show is why trusting them has been demonstrated as a bad idea, but instead you take that as given. The rest of your argument is very ambiguous. Shares nothing about their stack? The entire controversy began with an extremely transparent announcement about future, planned behavior. Jailbreaking gives you visibility into the application processor, and the secure element must be trusted on any modern smartphone. If you compare to devices without one, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are plenty of closed source or hard to audit components of every system. Do you trust your baseband? Like I said, the argument has been run through analogies and the facts are quite contingent.

willis936 5y ago

>You’d be hard pressed to design a scanning system which implements behaviors such as “scan your whole phone” without detection On this point I greatly disagree. Apple has control of the entire stack and shares nothing about it. If you jailbreak an iPhone you still don't know what happens when you send bits of data into any block of an SoC or modem. There are computers inside Apple devices that have no avenue for being audited. Apple having total control of their devices is deeply ingrained in their technical identity. It only works if you trust Apple. Apple has shown that trusting them is a bad idea. That's why this is news.

shuckles 5y ago
The point you have to show is why trusting them has been demonstrated as a bad idea, but instead you take that as given. The rest of your argument is very ambiguous. Shares nothing about their stack? The entire controversy began with an extremely transparent announcement about future, planned behavior. Jailbreaking gives you visibility into the application processor, and the secure element must be trusted on any modern smartphone. If you compare to devices without one, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are plenty of closed source or hard to audit components of every system. Do you trust your baseband? Like I said, the argument has been run through analogies and the facts are quite contingent.