4 ms·
While your general point is understandable, it's not really that my position is that I trust that Apple knows what's best for me and, if that's what you took aw
by dpkonofa 5y ago
While your general point is understandable, it's not really that my position is that I trust that Apple knows what's best for me and, if that's what you took away, then you've misunderstood my point. My point is that Apple has engineered their device in a way that guarantees the chain of trust for the hardware components. That is a position that I understand and agree with because there's no way to compromise that position. I also understand that this makes things harder for third-party repair shops but it doesn't invalidate their ability at all so long as they're willing to jump through the hoops necessary to be in that chain of trust. I know what's best for me and what's best for me is a phone that I can trust the components. It doesn't matter to me whether that's Apple or a third-party. I'm not sure how that translates to "Apple knows what's best for me" instead of "Apple has created a device that, in principle, allows for fewer attack vectors". It wouldn't matter to me who did this. It only matters to me that there's no way to bypass this.
It would be the same as me hiring a security company to protect any other assets I have. I can either hire freelancers or I can hire a company that promises to run background checks on all its employees. That doesn't mean they know what's best for me but it does mean that I trust them to not hire someone who's been in jail for burglary.
- icu 5y agoRight, I got your point. However, I'm not so certain Apple has engineered their devices in a way that guarantees the chain of trust for the hardware components. I would wager major governments have the ability to carry out interdiction operations. My threat model isn't the Five Eyes (FVEY), it's everything besides them because no one can protect themselves when the NSA flagrantly subverts the Constitution and get away with it. The FVEY work in concert to get around each other's laws so yeah, good luck stopping that.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago>...in a way that guarantees the chain of trust for the hardware components What is your evidence for, or specific concern about, this? Apple has provided a ton of documentation around their hardware security and operate a bug-bounty program as well as a security research device program. I'm struggling to find any real argument beyond "I just don't trust them" here.
- icu 5y agoSuper Micro (Apple uses their blades) https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-supermicro/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-supermicro/
- Godel_unicode 5y agoAh yes, the big Bloomberg lie that keeps on giving. If you dig a little farther into this, you'll discover that it's mostly just Bloomberg writers circularly citing each other. They're ignoring the mountain of actual security professionals who work at the companies in question and ask for any real evidence. There is no proof, other than people trying to scare you to sell subscriptions or build their brand. Edit: see the previous HN discussion on this travesty https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26149885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26149885
- fsflover 5y agoSnowden documents suggest that Apple is a part of PRISM.