2 ms·

>Your claim is ridiculous and doesn’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Unless you know of reason for believing that Apple is secretly spy on their custom

>Your claim is ridiculous and doesn’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Unless you know of reason for believing that Apple is secretly spy on their customers, but only doing in the most convoluted way possible? Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? It is an easely exploitable system, and that's worth discussing and be conserned about. But still, you bring up a good point. This is relatively convoluted to other ways Apple could harvest data if they wanted to. In fact, they already are harvesting much more data than unencrypted HTTP content by pushing iCloud onto its users. Even if this was an attampt by Apple to gain good will, it has serious flaws, and Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company, and the jurestiction it operates under is not trustworthy either. This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation.

avianlyric 2y ago
> Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company Could you provide some evidence for this claim, beyond the fact that all companies are profit motivated, and thus can only be trusted to protect their bottom line. > This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation. Not really, all security and privacy is relative. You can discuss any security or privacy tool in isolation and find fault. But that’s not actually useful, because the only conclusion you could possibly derive from such an approach is that only truly secure and private way to exist is inside a small box disconnected from the rest of the world. > Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? That’s a rather silly question. It only makes sense to worry about this hypothetical if you already have strong argument for why Apple et.al. wouldn’t just compromise the browser or OS instead. The more parties needed to assemble a complete data flow, the more people that are needed, and more likely some will leak the fact this activity occurring. That the whole point of making a big song and dance about both Apple and 3rd parties being involved in Private Relay. Both parties have to be compromised to get valuable data, that’s much harder than compromising a single organisation. Talking about all this silly hypotheticals deliberately ignores the simple fact that people will always choose the simplest, easier route to solving a problem. Putting forward the argument that a nation state or a private organisation is gonna bother attacking Private Relay, but not your ISP and unencrypted HTTP connections (which we know are already tapped at major internet exchanges) is ridiculous, bordering on paranoid.

avianlyric 2y ago

> Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company Could you provide some evidence for this claim, beyond the fact that all companies are profit motivated, and thus can only be trusted to protect their bottom line. > This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation. Not really, all security and privacy is relative. You can discuss any security or privacy tool in isolation and find fault. But that’s not actually useful, because the only conclusion you could possibly derive from such an approach is that only truly secure and private way to exist is inside a small box disconnected from the rest of the world. > Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? That’s a rather silly question. It only makes sense to worry about this hypothetical if you already have strong argument for why Apple et.al. wouldn’t just compromise the browser or OS instead. The more parties needed to assemble a complete data flow, the more people that are needed, and more likely some will leak the fact this activity occurring. That the whole point of making a big song and dance about both Apple and 3rd parties being involved in Private Relay. Both parties have to be compromised to get valuable data, that’s much harder than compromising a single organisation. Talking about all this silly hypotheticals deliberately ignores the simple fact that people will always choose the simplest, easier route to solving a problem. Putting forward the argument that a nation state or a private organisation is gonna bother attacking Private Relay, but not your ISP and unencrypted HTTP connections (which we know are already tapped at major internet exchanges) is ridiculous, bordering on paranoid.