3 ms·

Apple Says Sideloading Bill Would Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections

4 points by marban 4y ago

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
I mean, they're not entirely wrong. Apple has long subscribed to the Club Bouncer model of security: "bad stuff can't hurt our users if we control who's allowed in and what they're allowed to do at all times." Sideloading is like sneaking past the bouncer, and the club owner (Apple) is afraid that someone will sneak past the bouncer with a gun. Which is possible, of course. On the other hand, Google and other companies take the TSA approach instead: it doesn't block who can come in, but it stops everyone at the door and takes away anything that might be dangerous. Sometimes, that results in removal of harmless water bottles, but overall it allows more people to be more free, with around the same level of security as the Club. I very much dislike Apple's garden wall model (and the way they occasionally use it to steal ideas from devs), which is why the only Apple product I use is my company-mandated work MacBook. But obviously, their model works for them, considering how many people love their products, so...
Tozen 4y ago
The problem that I have with Apple's defense of their walled garden, is they act as if it's either you are totally secure behind it (not true) or if they allow sideloading then there can be no security or the worse is going to happen. Sideloading would be optional, thus not all users will use it. The more likely to use sideloading, would be the more tech savvy or more willing to take risks. So it's more on those users for taking the risk. It's not like everybody is all of the sudden going to do sideloading, if it becomes available, and especially if they are warned about the risks involved. There is also a lot that Apple can do to increase security, despite the usage of sideloading. Among such measures, they could show all permissions and rights that an application wants, to include allowing users to block various permissions or applications attempting to use such.

4 points by marban 4y ago

I mean, they're not entirely wrong. Apple has long subscribed to the Club Bouncer model of security: "bad stuff can't hurt our users if we control who's allowed in and what they're allowed to do at all times." Sideloading is like sneaking past the bouncer, and the club owner (Apple) is afraid that someone will sneak past the bouncer with a gun. Which is possible, of course. On the other hand, Google and other companies take the TSA approach instead: it doesn't block who can come in, but it stops everyone at the door and takes away anything that might be dangerous. Sometimes, that results in removal of harmless water bottles, but overall it allows more people to be more free, with around the same level of security as the Club. I very much dislike Apple's garden wall model (and the way they occasionally use it to steal ideas from devs), which is why the only Apple product I use is my company-mandated work MacBook. But obviously, their model works for them, considering how many people love their products, so...

Tozen 4y ago

The problem that I have with Apple's defense of their walled garden, is they act as if it's either you are totally secure behind it (not true) or if they allow sideloading then there can be no security or the worse is going to happen. Sideloading would be optional, thus not all users will use it. The more likely to use sideloading, would be the more tech savvy or more willing to take risks. So it's more on those users for taking the risk. It's not like everybody is all of the sudden going to do sideloading, if it becomes available, and especially if they are warned about the risks involved. There is also a lot that Apple can do to increase security, despite the usage of sideloading. Among such measures, they could show all permissions and rights that an application wants, to include allowing users to block various permissions or applications attempting to use such.