3 ms·

> when this hole which has already been used You have evidence that Apple has been pushing silent updates to individual users ?

biggoodwolf 4y ago
- etchalon 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- cantaloupe 4y ago
  That’s along the lines of asking “Do you have evidence that UFOs have NEVER landed on earth?” in response to someone asking if you have evidence that UFOs have landed…
  - biggoodwolf 4y ago
    I guess the same point could be made about religion. Call me an agnostic then when it comes to device security
- DonaldPShimoda 4y ago
  You're asking for proof of a negative that cannot be fulfilled without having access to all copies of all versions of the source code deployed for every Apple device in the world for their entire history. This seems an unreasonable burden. Either we accept some amount of vulnerability at the minimum and deal in likelihoods rather than certainties, or we simply do not use modern communication devices whatsoever. Given we're here on HN, we all have clearly chosen the former, so the question becomes: "is it likely that Apple have violated individual users' privacy in this manner?", to which I think the answer is "no" because (a) it's never been necessary before given the availability of alternate methods, (b) we have absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, and (c) we do have evidence of a history of Apple being at least somewhat reluctant to cooperate with the federal government of the US when it comes to individuals' privacy, to the extent that they are able (e.g., the San Bernardino case). So although it is true that we cannot be certain of our privacy, it seems very likely that Apple's efforts to improve user privacy are not disingenuous.
  - 8ytecoder 4y ago
    Even then the OP will ask us to prove that you do have all the versions of code and that there was no self destruct mechanism that wiped itself clean. You can’t prove a negative. That’s the point of those assertions. It’s not without reason that most conspiracies use this tactic.
- wellthisisgreat 4y ago
  Yeah, no that's not how accusations work. Well that's how some would want them to work, but around here to be heard you must back with evidence.

biggoodwolf 4y ago

etchalon 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
cantaloupe 4y ago
That’s along the lines of asking “Do you have evidence that UFOs have NEVER landed on earth?” in response to someone asking if you have evidence that UFOs have landed…
- biggoodwolf 4y ago
  I guess the same point could be made about religion. Call me an agnostic then when it comes to device security
DonaldPShimoda 4y ago
You're asking for proof of a negative that cannot be fulfilled without having access to all copies of all versions of the source code deployed for every Apple device in the world for their entire history. This seems an unreasonable burden. Either we accept some amount of vulnerability at the minimum and deal in likelihoods rather than certainties, or we simply do not use modern communication devices whatsoever. Given we're here on HN, we all have clearly chosen the former, so the question becomes: "is it likely that Apple have violated individual users' privacy in this manner?", to which I think the answer is "no" because (a) it's never been necessary before given the availability of alternate methods, (b) we have absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, and (c) we do have evidence of a history of Apple being at least somewhat reluctant to cooperate with the federal government of the US when it comes to individuals' privacy, to the extent that they are able (e.g., the San Bernardino case). So although it is true that we cannot be certain of our privacy, it seems very likely that Apple's efforts to improve user privacy are not disingenuous.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  Even then the OP will ask us to prove that you do have all the versions of code and that there was no self destruct mechanism that wiped itself clean. You can’t prove a negative. That’s the point of those assertions. It’s not without reason that most conspiracies use this tactic.
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
Yeah, no that's not how accusations work. Well that's how some would want them to work, but around here to be heard you must back with evidence.