3 ms·

> If it’s encrypted they (presumably) can’t access that data at all. We just have to trust their implementation, which is conveniently proprietary and unaccoun

> If it’s encrypted they (presumably) can’t access that data at all. We just have to trust their implementation, which is conveniently proprietary and unaccountable. > And that assumes that apple will corruptly open it for someone else which they have zero interest in Are you sure about that? They very publicly gave the Chinese government control over Chinese iCloud data a few years ago. That, and they've been part of PRISM for the better half of a decade now. When a company has a working relationship with multiple sovereign governments, I'm not sure you can strongman the "Apple will save us" argument. This is also a problem with Google, Microsoft, Amazon, 95% of cell carriers, most cable companies and your laptop manufacturer (regardless of company). Apple knows you feel insecure about this, so they market their products/services to you with this in mind. News flash: does anyone really think the largest company in America (let alone the world) isn't in kahoots with the American government? Microsoft was. Google was. IBM was. And Apple is bigger than them all. Encryption is great. Mixing it with snake oil isn't. People are correct to call out Apple's failures to protect their users in this conversation, because their track record isn't very benevolent.

massysett 4y ago
> We just have to trust their implementation, which is conveniently proprietary and unaccountable. I also have to trust Debian, as I can’t audit millions of lines of code. You really have no choice but to trust your OS vendor. If you don’t, find another vendor.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  That's where the transparency part comes in. Nobody reads every line of code, but feasibly anyone could read any part of it. Patches are examined as they roll in. Really the software distribution model is no different than trusting your apps to auto-update properly. Apple doesn't have accountability. It's not that nobody wants to prove them right, it's that their system has been deliberately designed so that no one can.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Does it really matter that you can read any line if you can’t verify whether the binary you download is truly made from said sources? There is always some trust at some level, whether it is some debian server or apple is just another question.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      It only bothers me when the publisher-in-question is a cardholding member of PRISM, without two cents of developer goodwill to their name. I'm normally more generous with small-timers, but try to stick to OSS all the same.

massysett 4y ago

> We just have to trust their implementation, which is conveniently proprietary and unaccountable. I also have to trust Debian, as I can’t audit millions of lines of code. You really have no choice but to trust your OS vendor. If you don’t, find another vendor.

smoldesu 4y ago
That's where the transparency part comes in. Nobody reads every line of code, but feasibly anyone could read any part of it. Patches are examined as they roll in. Really the software distribution model is no different than trusting your apps to auto-update properly. Apple doesn't have accountability. It's not that nobody wants to prove them right, it's that their system has been deliberately designed so that no one can.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Does it really matter that you can read any line if you can’t verify whether the binary you download is truly made from said sources? There is always some trust at some level, whether it is some debian server or apple is just another question.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    It only bothers me when the publisher-in-question is a cardholding member of PRISM, without two cents of developer goodwill to their name. I'm normally more generous with small-timers, but try to stick to OSS all the same.