11 ms·

This is not a veiled insinuation against Apple. It's just a question/thought. With the modem being integrated into the SoC, it's not something that can be eas

This is not a veiled insinuation against Apple. It's just a question/thought. With the modem being integrated into the SoC, it's not something that can be easily removed. Many IoT vendors and automakers have been adding modems and such that keep your device "always connected" and in a way that bypasses your home internet (where people can filter, log, block ads, etc). Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for people?

3-cheese-sundae 3y ago
The cell modem is integrated into the SoC, but the antenna isn't. You might have to give up wifi and bluetooth if you cut that out, though.
tantalor 3y ago
You mean even more than the phones we all carry around with us? If somebody wanted to know what you were doing on your MacBook, they would just attack your phone.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I think probably for a lot of the audience here they may keep sensitive stuff off their phones or not use them for "serious" computing but looking around that's not really where the market is.
wmf 3y ago
Cars are a problem but other IoT devices are not adding cellular because it costs a fortune. It's just a HN conspiracy theory.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Do you have any data on the costs? I can't find it now, but I remember seeing an estimate at around $5 per IoT device, which for some devices might double the cost but for others could easily pay for itself in delicious, nourishing data that can be used or sold for other things. I'd really love that number to be way lower than reality though.
  - wmf 3y ago
    Maybe the modem costs $5 but the service will be much more. These costs are negotiated and the people who get good deals won't talk about them so it's hard to say.
- gothroach 3y ago
  Depends on the type of device you're talking about. The company I work for installs batteries and solar on homes as part of its business and we were surprised to find cell modems starting to come installed inside the battery system we use most often - with no notice to us or apparent change in how the system operates. It's not for customer-accessible statistics/usage information, those still require a hardwired connection. We haven't been able to get a good answer from the company about why they started being installed.
  - vGPU 3y ago
    Telemetry. With how evasive they are, likely quite invasive.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    What company is this?
oneplane 3y ago
Yes and no. So on one hand you'd have to trust the vendor to allow you to control the connectivity (this is likely going to be the same model as iOS and watchOS devices -- unless you add a subscription it doesn't connect). On the other hand, you'd have to trust the vendor anyway, unless you diffuse and package your own silicon and write your own bring-up code and bootloader and OS, there are a rather lage amount of manufacturers you have to at least trust a little bit to get a functional experience. I think the big difference here is that with a Car, you're primarily buying a device for driving yourself from one place to another, and everything else is extra. With a computer, you buy a device to compute, and with that is practically always some internet-connected requirement. Buying a Car without internet, or radio, or infotainment is fine (if you can find one) because the primary reason you want the thing is still intact. A computer without computing and without internet isn't very useful.
callalex 3y ago
I will unveil your insinuation. They currently get a pass on the “trust us, everything is end-to-end encrypted” without providing open access/verifiable toolchains. They are large and high profile enough that the public can trust that there are enough experts and nerds keeping an eye on them to hold them to their promises. Adding a data exfiltration radio has some of the same verifiability, in that you could put an antenna next to the device and verify that it does/does not send signals. However it is only a matter of time before the radio cannot be fully disabled for some reason or another (oh we just turn on the radio to get guaranteed network time as part of our Trusted Cloud Experience that we secure you with!). Once that ship sails the devices will no longer be owned by the users and cannot be trusted.
- jesseendahl 3y ago
  >However it is only a matter of time before the radio cannot be fully disabled for some reason or another (oh we just turn on the radio to get guaranteed network time as part of our Trusted Cloud Experience that we secure you with!). Once that ship sails the devices will no longer be owned by the users and cannot be trusted. Couldn't this same concern apply to Wi-Fi chips? I fail to see how cellular would change much here. If any company (Apple or anyone else) wanted to do something nefarious like this, they could already do it today.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    But (while you're at home) you control the WiFi access point and so can still ultimately control the traffic. That isn't the case for cellular. Though I think that's ultimately a relatively minute difference. Once you're in that adversarial of a position with your hardware, you ought not trust it.
    - WhoAmThing 3y ago
      I think that's the future Apple sees and I agree with it. WiFi is an outdated technology with security flaws. Cellular is encrypted and maintained centrally. For indoor access all you need is an AP repeater and daisy chain that, unlike Wifi which needs to be configured, goes down, etc. Wifi is in the same boat as the 3.5mm headphone jack
TriangleEdge 3y ago
I think it's possible to have an always on connection similar to Amazon and Kindles.
- themadturk 3y ago
  New Kindles (those built in the last 3 or 4 years) don't have cellular connectivity as an option anymore. And owners can turn off the wifi at any time (commonly used to prevent libraries from ending the loans on their books).
dimmke 3y ago
I don't think this is Apple's plan. It's more that Apple has been developing in house modem technology for years (they bought Intel's modem division in 2019) because they are reliant on Qualcomm for them in iPhones. Once they have the capacity to build great modems and add it to their vertical integration/SoC process, it's another no brainer thing to add that makes their laptops best in class. However, if it gets picked up by other tech companies then yes, expect your device to be always connected, even if it's against your will.
- EricE 3y ago
  It's way better to dogfood a new chip in a laptop where there is a much bigger battery and a lot more space than a phone, too.
lxgr 3y ago
If that's a concern for you: Most Apple devices already do this to some extent today, via the "Find my" network and Bluetooth LE advertisements – even if your device is "turned off". There's nothing technical stopping Apple from transmitting all kinds of stuff over that interface, to their or somebody else's OTT network: Amazon's Sidewalk network (originally based on LoRa, but it now also seems to support Bluetooth LE) supposedly covers 90% of the US population [1]; there's also the blockchain-based similar Helium Network, and probably some more I'm not aware of. In other words: In my view, the ship of not having to trust a device vendor (or at least not as much) if it's not connected to the Internet has sailed. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/iot-core/sidewalk/ https://aws.amazon.com/iot-core/sidewalk/
- freedomben 3y ago
  You may be right. Sidewalk is one of the most dystopian things I can think of in the past few years.
  - nxobject 3y ago
    It's par for the course for Amazon, given how they're pushing Ring with law enforcement endorsements.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Why do you find it more dystopian than carrier-operated IoT networks?
    - qazxcvbnmlp 3y ago
      Cellular operated iot networks are power hungry and $ expensive. Both provide insulation from unwanted tracking. A pervasive network that can be accessed with a couple dollar IC with minimal power that’s hidden from user would be much harder to escape.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        > Cellular operated iot networks are power hungry and $ expensive. Power hungry? Not anymore – I believe NB-IoT is already within an order of magnitude of unlicensed IoT (i.e. LoRa, 802.15.4 etc). Expensive? That's relative, but what makes you think that Amazon is giving away Sidewalk for any less? AWS is not exactly known for their low prices.
paulcole 3y ago
> Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for people? For me, personally no. Of all the things I think about, the possibility of future surveillance is not one of them.
duxup 3y ago
My iPhone can presumably do that already… I wouldn’t argue for less privacy but I’ve already trusted Apple with a device that is with me even more than my laptop.
steponlego 3y ago
At this point one wonders if there isn't some secret regulation that classifies computers as some kind of weapon and maybe these surveillance technologies aren't appearing in consumer devices, even being pushed on consumers by the media, as a random happenstance?
emodendroket 3y ago
What's the difference? Your phone has all this stuff and most people have plenty of sensitive information on that and may even use it as their primary computing device.
windexh8er 3y ago
Not only that, but is this supposed to be the same modem that was to land in iPhone 15 that Apple botched? [0] [0] https://archive.is/Y99dS https://archive.is/Y99dS
- krger 3y ago
  Yes, Apple is 100% going to ship the same silicon in 2028 that they decided not to ship in 2023. Great analysis. A+
codetrotter 3y ago
> Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for people? Yes! I keep my personal MBP unconnected from the internet most of the time using a physically separate computer acting as firewall, and allow only traffic from Firefox, Electrum and command line utilities to reach the Internet. Integrated mobile internet in the laptop is convenient in a lot of cases, but for me a dealbreaker.
wkat4242 3y ago
Tbh I don't expect a huge increase in surveillance ability. A computer is pretty useless these days when it's disconnected from the internet even without a 5G modem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

3-cheese-sundae 3y ago

The cell modem is integrated into the SoC, but the antenna isn't. You might have to give up wifi and bluetooth if you cut that out, though.

tantalor 3y ago

You mean even more than the phones we all carry around with us? If somebody wanted to know what you were doing on your MacBook, they would just attack your phone.

emodendroket 3y ago
I think probably for a lot of the audience here they may keep sensitive stuff off their phones or not use them for "serious" computing but looking around that's not really where the market is.

wmf 3y ago

Cars are a problem but other IoT devices are not adding cellular because it costs a fortune. It's just a HN conspiracy theory.

freedomben 3y ago
Do you have any data on the costs? I can't find it now, but I remember seeing an estimate at around $5 per IoT device, which for some devices might double the cost but for others could easily pay for itself in delicious, nourishing data that can be used or sold for other things. I'd really love that number to be way lower than reality though.
- wmf 3y ago
  Maybe the modem costs $5 but the service will be much more. These costs are negotiated and the people who get good deals won't talk about them so it's hard to say.
gothroach 3y ago
Depends on the type of device you're talking about. The company I work for installs batteries and solar on homes as part of its business and we were surprised to find cell modems starting to come installed inside the battery system we use most often - with no notice to us or apparent change in how the system operates. It's not for customer-accessible statistics/usage information, those still require a hardwired connection. We haven't been able to get a good answer from the company about why they started being installed.
- vGPU 3y ago
  Telemetry. With how evasive they are, likely quite invasive.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  What company is this?

oneplane 3y ago

Yes and no. So on one hand you'd have to trust the vendor to allow you to control the connectivity (this is likely going to be the same model as iOS and watchOS devices -- unless you add a subscription it doesn't connect). On the other hand, you'd have to trust the vendor anyway, unless you diffuse and package your own silicon and write your own bring-up code and bootloader and OS, there are a rather lage amount of manufacturers you have to at least trust a little bit to get a functional experience. I think the big difference here is that with a Car, you're primarily buying a device for driving yourself from one place to another, and everything else is extra. With a computer, you buy a device to compute, and with that is practically always some internet-connected requirement. Buying a Car without internet, or radio, or infotainment is fine (if you can find one) because the primary reason you want the thing is still intact. A computer without computing and without internet isn't very useful.

callalex 3y ago

I will unveil your insinuation. They currently get a pass on the “trust us, everything is end-to-end encrypted” without providing open access/verifiable toolchains. They are large and high profile enough that the public can trust that there are enough experts and nerds keeping an eye on them to hold them to their promises. Adding a data exfiltration radio has some of the same verifiability, in that you could put an antenna next to the device and verify that it does/does not send signals. However it is only a matter of time before the radio cannot be fully disabled for some reason or another (oh we just turn on the radio to get guaranteed network time as part of our Trusted Cloud Experience that we secure you with!). Once that ship sails the devices will no longer be owned by the users and cannot be trusted.

jesseendahl 3y ago
>However it is only a matter of time before the radio cannot be fully disabled for some reason or another (oh we just turn on the radio to get guaranteed network time as part of our Trusted Cloud Experience that we secure you with!). Once that ship sails the devices will no longer be owned by the users and cannot be trusted. Couldn't this same concern apply to Wi-Fi chips? I fail to see how cellular would change much here. If any company (Apple or anyone else) wanted to do something nefarious like this, they could already do it today.
- thfuran 3y ago
  But (while you're at home) you control the WiFi access point and so can still ultimately control the traffic. That isn't the case for cellular. Though I think that's ultimately a relatively minute difference. Once you're in that adversarial of a position with your hardware, you ought not trust it.
  - WhoAmThing 3y ago
    I think that's the future Apple sees and I agree with it. WiFi is an outdated technology with security flaws. Cellular is encrypted and maintained centrally. For indoor access all you need is an AP repeater and daisy chain that, unlike Wifi which needs to be configured, goes down, etc. Wifi is in the same boat as the 3.5mm headphone jack

TriangleEdge 3y ago

I think it's possible to have an always on connection similar to Amazon and Kindles.

themadturk 3y ago
New Kindles (those built in the last 3 or 4 years) don't have cellular connectivity as an option anymore. And owners can turn off the wifi at any time (commonly used to prevent libraries from ending the loans on their books).

dimmke 3y ago

I don't think this is Apple's plan. It's more that Apple has been developing in house modem technology for years (they bought Intel's modem division in 2019) because they are reliant on Qualcomm for them in iPhones. Once they have the capacity to build great modems and add it to their vertical integration/SoC process, it's another no brainer thing to add that makes their laptops best in class. However, if it gets picked up by other tech companies then yes, expect your device to be always connected, even if it's against your will.

EricE 3y ago
It's way better to dogfood a new chip in a laptop where there is a much bigger battery and a lot more space than a phone, too.

lxgr 3y ago

If that's a concern for you: Most Apple devices already do this to some extent today, via the "Find my" network and Bluetooth LE advertisements – even if your device is "turned off". There's nothing technical stopping Apple from transmitting all kinds of stuff over that interface, to their or somebody else's OTT network: Amazon's Sidewalk network (originally based on LoRa, but it now also seems to support Bluetooth LE) supposedly covers 90% of the US population [1]; there's also the blockchain-based similar Helium Network, and probably some more I'm not aware of. In other words: In my view, the ship of not having to trust a device vendor (or at least not as much) if it's not connected to the Internet has sailed. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/iot-core/sidewalk/ https://aws.amazon.com/iot-core/sidewalk/

freedomben 3y ago
You may be right. Sidewalk is one of the most dystopian things I can think of in the past few years.
- nxobject 3y ago
  It's par for the course for Amazon, given how they're pushing Ring with law enforcement endorsements.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Why do you find it more dystopian than carrier-operated IoT networks?
  - qazxcvbnmlp 3y ago
    Cellular operated iot networks are power hungry and $ expensive. Both provide insulation from unwanted tracking. A pervasive network that can be accessed with a couple dollar IC with minimal power that’s hidden from user would be much harder to escape.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      > Cellular operated iot networks are power hungry and $ expensive. Power hungry? Not anymore – I believe NB-IoT is already within an order of magnitude of unlicensed IoT (i.e. LoRa, 802.15.4 etc). Expensive? That's relative, but what makes you think that Amazon is giving away Sidewalk for any less? AWS is not exactly known for their low prices.

paulcole 3y ago

> Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for people? For me, personally no. Of all the things I think about, the possibility of future surveillance is not one of them.

duxup 3y ago

My iPhone can presumably do that already… I wouldn’t argue for less privacy but I’ve already trusted Apple with a device that is with me even more than my laptop.

steponlego 3y ago

At this point one wonders if there isn't some secret regulation that classifies computers as some kind of weapon and maybe these surveillance technologies aren't appearing in consumer devices, even being pushed on consumers by the media, as a random happenstance?

emodendroket 3y ago

What's the difference? Your phone has all this stuff and most people have plenty of sensitive information on that and may even use it as their primary computing device.

windexh8er 3y ago

Not only that, but is this supposed to be the same modem that was to land in iPhone 15 that Apple botched? [0] [0] https://archive.is/Y99dS https://archive.is/Y99dS

krger 3y ago
Yes, Apple is 100% going to ship the same silicon in 2028 that they decided not to ship in 2023. Great analysis. A+

codetrotter 3y ago

> Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for people? Yes! I keep my personal MBP unconnected from the internet most of the time using a physically separate computer acting as firewall, and allow only traffic from Firefox, Electrum and command line utilities to reach the Internet. Integrated mobile internet in the laptop is convenient in a lot of cases, but for me a dealbreaker.

wkat4242 3y ago

Tbh I don't expect a huge increase in surveillance ability. A computer is pretty useless these days when it's disconnected from the internet even without a 5G modem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]