4 ms·

Ultimate Security in the form of preventing extremely sophisticated physical access/evil maid attacks[0] benefits people even if they don't think they need this

by judge2020 4y ago

Ultimate Security in the form of preventing extremely sophisticated physical access/evil maid attacks[0] benefits people even if they don't think they need this security. Maybe purchase a different product that more closely aligns with your needs. 0: ie. someone watches you enter your apple id and passcode and later swipes your phone, only to sideload spyware that hides itself from the UI, then re-plants your phone without you knowing

Aeolun 4y ago
That’s not a treat model 99% of users have to think about.
- shagie 4y ago
  My I introduce you to Mr. Fart and his favorite colors? https://medium.com/@blakeross/mr-fart-s-favorite-colors-3177a406c775#.4b6z856uh https://medium.com/@blakeross/mr-fart-s-favorite-colors-3177... Discussed previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11231631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11231631
  - throw10920 4y ago
    I don't see how this is relevant. Nobody is advocating for the relaxations of the iOS security model itself, which is the actual thing that prevents rootkits and malware on your device. Instead, the proposal is that people be able to install whatever software they want, that runs as a normal iOS app subject to the iOS security restrictions. Being able to install a non-Apple-approved app does not give you the ability to read and write arbitrary kernel memory, or do other actually dangerous things.
throw10920 4y ago
> Ultimate Security in the form of preventing extremely sophisticated physical access/evil maid attacks[0] benefits people even if they don't think they need this security. Yet, it's up to me to decide whether I want that security or whether I want to trade security for freedom/flexibility. Not you, or any other authoritarians seeking to exert control over others. > Maybe purchase a different product that more closely aligns with your needs. This is an incredibly toxic and user-hostile sentiment that also is completely inconsistent with the way that consumer protection laws work in general[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978141
- riatin 4y ago
  I still don't understand how you can't manifest that choice by simply purchasing a device from a different manufacturer. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that Apple is some kind of authoritarian power that you have no choice but to purchase from. To quote your linked comment, I wouldn't expect you nor any other sane consumer to purchase goods that are "made with toxic substances, not honor their warranties, lie on their marketing, and steal and sell your personal medical information". Apple does not do any of that, and I think that you're intentionally derailing the discussion by comparing their guidelines + practices to any of the above.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    To add, this is the difference from 'not honoring a warranty' and a product that explicitly comes without a warranty: you (can/should) learn about the product before you purchase it to see if it's actually for you.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > I still don't understand how you can't manifest that choice by simply purchasing a device from a different manufacturer. I absolutely can manifest that choice - but it doesn't matter, because I have the right to be able to make that choice for any particular manufacturer. > To quote your linked comment, I wouldn't expect you nor any other sane consumer to purchase goods that are "made with toxic substances, not honor their warranties, lie on their marketing, and steal and sell your personal medical information". It doesn't matter that you wouldn't expect one to - it's wrong for a seller to sell one of those things at all, and that's why we've enshrined into our legal system that "some bad things are illegal to sell, regardless of whether the consumer has the ability to avoid them or not". > Apple does not do any of that It's pretty blindingly obvious that I'm not claiming that Apple is doing any of those things, and just using that as an example of the point that "some things are illegal to sell". > and I think that you're intentionally derailing the discussion by comparing their guidelines + practices to any of the above. The one who is doing that is you, by intentionally misinterpreting my words and reading things that I didn't write. The comparison is entirely apt - "we have laws against selling/doing some bad things x, Apple is selling/doing bad things y, even though x != y it's reasonable to have laws against also selling/doing bad things y".
throw10920 4y ago
> Ultimate Security in the form of preventing extremely sophisticated physical access/evil maid attacks[0] benefits people even if they don't think they need this security. This is a strange red herring. Attacks of this form are protected from by the OS, not the App Store. You can't do attacks like this by sideloading apps onto your own phone in developer mode because iOS itself protects against this - and we're discussing specifically allowing users to choose what App Store they use, not relaxing any of the security restrictions of the OS. Someone familiar with the basics of OS design would be aware of this distinction.

Aeolun 4y ago

That’s not a treat model 99% of users have to think about.

shagie 4y ago
My I introduce you to Mr. Fart and his favorite colors? https://medium.com/@blakeross/mr-fart-s-favorite-colors-3177a406c775#.4b6z856uh https://medium.com/@blakeross/mr-fart-s-favorite-colors-3177... Discussed previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11231631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11231631
- throw10920 4y ago
  I don't see how this is relevant. Nobody is advocating for the relaxations of the iOS security model itself, which is the actual thing that prevents rootkits and malware on your device. Instead, the proposal is that people be able to install whatever software they want, that runs as a normal iOS app subject to the iOS security restrictions. Being able to install a non-Apple-approved app does not give you the ability to read and write arbitrary kernel memory, or do other actually dangerous things.

throw10920 4y ago

> Ultimate Security in the form of preventing extremely sophisticated physical access/evil maid attacks[0] benefits people even if they don't think they need this security. Yet, it's up to me to decide whether I want that security or whether I want to trade security for freedom/flexibility. Not you, or any other authoritarians seeking to exert control over others. > Maybe purchase a different product that more closely aligns with your needs. This is an incredibly toxic and user-hostile sentiment that also is completely inconsistent with the way that consumer protection laws work in general[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978141

riatin 4y ago
I still don't understand how you can't manifest that choice by simply purchasing a device from a different manufacturer. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that Apple is some kind of authoritarian power that you have no choice but to purchase from. To quote your linked comment, I wouldn't expect you nor any other sane consumer to purchase goods that are "made with toxic substances, not honor their warranties, lie on their marketing, and steal and sell your personal medical information". Apple does not do any of that, and I think that you're intentionally derailing the discussion by comparing their guidelines + practices to any of the above.
- judge2020 4y ago
  To add, this is the difference from 'not honoring a warranty' and a product that explicitly comes without a warranty: you (can/should) learn about the product before you purchase it to see if it's actually for you.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > I still don't understand how you can't manifest that choice by simply purchasing a device from a different manufacturer. I absolutely can manifest that choice - but it doesn't matter, because I have the right to be able to make that choice for any particular manufacturer. > To quote your linked comment, I wouldn't expect you nor any other sane consumer to purchase goods that are "made with toxic substances, not honor their warranties, lie on their marketing, and steal and sell your personal medical information". It doesn't matter that you wouldn't expect one to - it's wrong for a seller to sell one of those things at all, and that's why we've enshrined into our legal system that "some bad things are illegal to sell, regardless of whether the consumer has the ability to avoid them or not". > Apple does not do any of that It's pretty blindingly obvious that I'm not claiming that Apple is doing any of those things, and just using that as an example of the point that "some things are illegal to sell". > and I think that you're intentionally derailing the discussion by comparing their guidelines + practices to any of the above. The one who is doing that is you, by intentionally misinterpreting my words and reading things that I didn't write. The comparison is entirely apt - "we have laws against selling/doing some bad things x, Apple is selling/doing bad things y, even though x != y it's reasonable to have laws against also selling/doing bad things y".

throw10920 4y ago

> Ultimate Security in the form of preventing extremely sophisticated physical access/evil maid attacks[0] benefits people even if they don't think they need this security. This is a strange red herring. Attacks of this form are protected from by the OS, not the App Store. You can't do attacks like this by sideloading apps onto your own phone in developer mode because iOS itself protects against this - and we're discussing specifically allowing users to choose what App Store they use, not relaxing any of the security restrictions of the OS. Someone familiar with the basics of OS design would be aware of this distinction.