5 ms·

Interesting thought. Perhaps the cat-and-mouse game of megacorps defending/expanding their turf through software/hardware boundaries isn't the best mechanism to

Interesting thought. Perhaps the cat-and-mouse game of megacorps defending/expanding their turf through software/hardware boundaries isn't the best mechanism to achieve consumer protection. If only there was something like consumer protection law. But you know, did consumer protection instead of waging proxy wars for megacorps to defend/expand their turf.

odyssey7 3y ago
Sure, regulations and legal systems are important. However, they can fail to protect people in situations where technology would offer greater protection and vice-versa. For example, Benjamin Franklin applied his technical skill as a publisher to engineer dollars that were more difficult to counterfeit. The illegality of counterfeiting on its own could not prevent counterfeiting, so technology was also availed. It’s critical for us to recognize that technology is a critical component to our security, not merely an alternative to regulation.
- talldayo 3y ago
  Why can't/shouldn't we encourage Apple to invest in on-device runtime security instead of a fallible App Store review process that might not even be relevant anyways? If any software has uninhibited access to hardware APIs, that seems like a software security issue that needs to be solved, not an ironclad justification for the App Store.
  - odyssey7 3y ago
    The DOJ case is requesting the opposite of your proposal. Although the alternate app store angle is what has been featured in the headlines, the case also requests for Apple to make various private iOS APIs available to 3rd-party apps, so if the DOJ prevails then the judge’s ruling could make various forms of API access limits illegal for all impacted APIs.
    - talldayo 3y ago
      That part I agree with - If Apple is willing to create an API, they shouldn't be allowed to use it anticompetitively. Apple is just going to have to learn how to cope with third-parties having access to their APIs. Nothing is stopping Apple from creating a more secure runtime for iOS apps. They are doing it right now with MacOS; I haven't heard a single legitimate excuse as to why iOS is different. Apple could be (and frankly SHOULD be) building a comprehensive user-controlled security menu that even lets them protect against Apple themselves.
      - odyssey7 3y ago
        The root user of an operating system has access to resources that should not be available to every application. That's not anticompetitive per se, but it is required for a secure computing system that preserves user privacy. It's a moot point to prevent software bugs that leak user data if the software is legally required to hand over user data.
        talldayo 3y ago
        It's not a moot point at all actually, it's the only way you protect yourself from threat actors with more control than you have: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-secretly-giving-governments-push-notification-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
        odyssey7 3y ago
        If it’s illegal then it’s moot.

odyssey7 3y ago

Sure, regulations and legal systems are important. However, they can fail to protect people in situations where technology would offer greater protection and vice-versa. For example, Benjamin Franklin applied his technical skill as a publisher to engineer dollars that were more difficult to counterfeit. The illegality of counterfeiting on its own could not prevent counterfeiting, so technology was also availed. It’s critical for us to recognize that technology is a critical component to our security, not merely an alternative to regulation.

talldayo 3y ago
Why can't/shouldn't we encourage Apple to invest in on-device runtime security instead of a fallible App Store review process that might not even be relevant anyways? If any software has uninhibited access to hardware APIs, that seems like a software security issue that needs to be solved, not an ironclad justification for the App Store.
- odyssey7 3y ago
  The DOJ case is requesting the opposite of your proposal. Although the alternate app store angle is what has been featured in the headlines, the case also requests for Apple to make various private iOS APIs available to 3rd-party apps, so if the DOJ prevails then the judge’s ruling could make various forms of API access limits illegal for all impacted APIs.
  - talldayo 3y ago
    That part I agree with - If Apple is willing to create an API, they shouldn't be allowed to use it anticompetitively. Apple is just going to have to learn how to cope with third-parties having access to their APIs. Nothing is stopping Apple from creating a more secure runtime for iOS apps. They are doing it right now with MacOS; I haven't heard a single legitimate excuse as to why iOS is different. Apple could be (and frankly SHOULD be) building a comprehensive user-controlled security menu that even lets them protect against Apple themselves.
    - odyssey7 3y ago
      The root user of an operating system has access to resources that should not be available to every application. That's not anticompetitive per se, but it is required for a secure computing system that preserves user privacy. It's a moot point to prevent software bugs that leak user data if the software is legally required to hand over user data.
      - talldayo 3y ago
        It's not a moot point at all actually, it's the only way you protect yourself from threat actors with more control than you have: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-secretly-giving-governments-push-notification-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
        odyssey7 3y ago
        If it’s illegal then it’s moot.