6 ms·

It's really quite unfortunate how much of Apple software is designed around "privacy is when you trust Apple" :/

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
flarex 2y ago
Not really they are moving into homomorphic encryption where the entire query and processing is encrypted and Apple has no knowledge of the what you actually requested.
- walterbell 2y ago
  Following through on a public privacy promise does not require R&D.
- TimSchumann 2y ago
  I was unaware there exists a fully homomorphic encryption scheme that has the right trade offs between security and computational effort to make this economically viable for even moderate to small workloads. I’ve always thought it was either far too time or far too space intensive to be practical. Do you have sources on this, either from Apple or academic papers of the scheme they’re planning on using?
  - timenova 2y ago
    They posted about this recently [0][1]. They are using Homomorphic Encryption in iOS 18 for Live Caller ID Lookups. [0] https://www.swift.org/blog/announcing-swift-homomorphic-encryption/ https://www.swift.org/blog/announcing-swift-homomorphic-encr... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111129
    - rpdillon 2y ago
      I've posted about this above a little after you did. Reading the article, I'm unable to determine whether or not this has any practical utility outside of niche applications or if it has the potential to be broadly useful. Has anyone reviewed the SDK that can render an opinion?
      - flarex 2y ago
        Homomorphic encryption is broadly useful and in fact should be ubiquitous for remote computation that leaks private data (not to comment specifically on Apple's implementation). They did open source it though, which gives you an idea that they want others to follow.
        saagarjha 2y ago
        Can you point to other ways this is used or is intended to be used?
  - j2kun 2y ago
    It's useful for situations that would otherwise be illegal, so that tradeoffs are less relevant.
- rpdillon 2y ago
  Completely unclear how much they're moving into homomorphic encryption. The only resource I'm available to find about it is an announcement from 30 July saying that they can now do caller ID lookup using homomorphic encryption and they've announced an SDK that developers can use to leverage it. But the announcement is so vague that it's entirely unclear how much this can actually be used for practical workloads. And, the idea that they're going to go all in on homomorphic encryption is speculative based on what Apple has revealed so far. That's notable, as we're discussing a case where Apple said they would do something, and then not only didn't do it, but went out of their way to pretend that they never said they would.
  - flarex 2y ago
    I'm not aware of any other company of Apple's size (or anywhere approaching) that have been as committed to privacy tech. Of course they are not perfect and sometimes get it wrong but they constantly release new technologies that are furthering our privacy. Who else does it better?
    - 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
      These companies shouldn't be graded on a curve. Everyone knows Microsoft is crap for privacy. But Apple has their reality distortion field, and it's important to show people that their privacy promises are BS.
      - flarex 2y ago
        Okay but from an evolutionary sense which company should we be supporting. The one company that is somewhat moving towards privacy or the 10 others that don't give a shit. Which one should survive. Would you like to see companies that copy Apple's privacy approach or Facebook's dumb fucks approach.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      It comes down to what you identify as privacy. Apple is commited to not give your data to any other company and keep it protected in their ecosystem. They'll sell access to you for ads, but only exposing your cohort to the advertiser. From that lens, Google is also commited to never give your personal data (think Gmail content, Maps behaviour, pins etc) to other companies and keep it all in their ecosystem, for themselves only. Your data is their key advantage, the base of the ad empire, and they won't let another company run away with it. If we call Apple privacy focused, Google also fits the bill, the question just falls down on whether we see Apple or Google as part of our intimate circle, within our private life. I assume you do for Apple but not for Google.
monkeyflutes 2y ago
[dead]
api 2y ago
Some of it is self-serving and some is explainable by the deep and pervasive tension between (security / privacy / autonomy), and usability.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  I generally do not impute malice to it, but it is in many cases the lazy option out.
threeseed 2y ago
[flagged]
- talldayo 2y ago
  > and rogue governments As opposed to the orderly and just governments, that are so clearly-defined and well trusted? Or are you more highlighting the unlawful conduct from businesses like NGO Group that are so shamefully allowed to persist without government scrutiny? It's hard for me to tell, since both of them have hacked iPhones to attain privileged access and will likely do it again. From where I'm standing it looks like their "promise" has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > You have to trust Apple and if you don't then buy another computer. No, I don't have to trust Apple or anyone absolutely, and I can and do use a Mac, as the least bad option for my purposes, without fully trusting Apple. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Trust is a matter of degree, not all or nothing. In general I trust my mother (except her advice, which I often ignore), but if she insisted that she had to install cameras in my home for my "safety", I would start to have serious doubts about her. > Because they have the ability at any point to push software to your computer that compromises your privacy and security in almost undetectable ways. And short of them having an entirely open-source OS that will always be the case. 1) They can't push software to my computer, because I've blocked the software update mechanism with Little Snitch and only install when I'm ready. 2) Open source is not a panacea, as demonstrated by the XZ Utils backdoor. Moreover, closed source does not render users helpless. Closed source software can be reverse engineered; indeed, I've done that myself with macOS many times. The behavior of closed source software can also be observed in various ways with various tools, for example, the aforementioned Little Snitch. And even when macOS bypassed Little Snitch one time a few years ago, that was detected by developers. The whole world is watching Apple closely, so the company can't simply get away with whatever they want undetected. > The whole point of their privacy stance is to protect you from companies like Google and rogue governments who we already know can't be fully trusted We already know that Apple can't be fully trusted. We also know that Apple actually caters to "rogue" governments such as China, by removing apps from the App Store at the Chinese government's request, as well as handing over control of iCloud servers to China, and reportedly Apple source code too, for inspection.
gilgoomesh 2y ago
Ultimately, whoever controls operating system updates always has control over your privacy. Even if Apple did offer perfect privacy, there's no reason an update couldn't completely change that. Bluntly: if you don't trust your OS vendor, then you can't use OS updates. There are people in this category but it's a lot of work. Much easier to trust your OS vendor (at least to this extent).
- fsflover 2y ago
  > Ultimately, whoever controls operating system updates always has control over your privacy This is not true. FLOSS (and reproducible builds) allows the community to verify the code and significantly (though not fully) decrease the trust to the OS.
cageface 2y ago
Exactly. What does privacy even mean when your entire digital existence is owned by and visible to a single entity?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Not really they are moving into homomorphic encryption where the entire query and processing is encrypted and Apple has no knowledge of the what you actually requested.

walterbell 2y ago
Following through on a public privacy promise does not require R&D.
TimSchumann 2y ago
I was unaware there exists a fully homomorphic encryption scheme that has the right trade offs between security and computational effort to make this economically viable for even moderate to small workloads. I’ve always thought it was either far too time or far too space intensive to be practical. Do you have sources on this, either from Apple or academic papers of the scheme they’re planning on using?
- timenova 2y ago
  They posted about this recently [0][1]. They are using Homomorphic Encryption in iOS 18 for Live Caller ID Lookups. [0] https://www.swift.org/blog/announcing-swift-homomorphic-encryption/ https://www.swift.org/blog/announcing-swift-homomorphic-encr... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41111129
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    I've posted about this above a little after you did. Reading the article, I'm unable to determine whether or not this has any practical utility outside of niche applications or if it has the potential to be broadly useful. Has anyone reviewed the SDK that can render an opinion?
    - flarex 2y ago
      Homomorphic encryption is broadly useful and in fact should be ubiquitous for remote computation that leaks private data (not to comment specifically on Apple's implementation). They did open source it though, which gives you an idea that they want others to follow.
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        Can you point to other ways this is used or is intended to be used?
- j2kun 2y ago
  It's useful for situations that would otherwise be illegal, so that tradeoffs are less relevant.
rpdillon 2y ago
Completely unclear how much they're moving into homomorphic encryption. The only resource I'm available to find about it is an announcement from 30 July saying that they can now do caller ID lookup using homomorphic encryption and they've announced an SDK that developers can use to leverage it. But the announcement is so vague that it's entirely unclear how much this can actually be used for practical workloads. And, the idea that they're going to go all in on homomorphic encryption is speculative based on what Apple has revealed so far. That's notable, as we're discussing a case where Apple said they would do something, and then not only didn't do it, but went out of their way to pretend that they never said they would.
- flarex 2y ago
  I'm not aware of any other company of Apple's size (or anywhere approaching) that have been as committed to privacy tech. Of course they are not perfect and sometimes get it wrong but they constantly release new technologies that are furthering our privacy. Who else does it better?
  - 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
    These companies shouldn't be graded on a curve. Everyone knows Microsoft is crap for privacy. But Apple has their reality distortion field, and it's important to show people that their privacy promises are BS.
    - flarex 2y ago
      Okay but from an evolutionary sense which company should we be supporting. The one company that is somewhat moving towards privacy or the 10 others that don't give a shit. Which one should survive. Would you like to see companies that copy Apple's privacy approach or Facebook's dumb fucks approach.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    It comes down to what you identify as privacy. Apple is commited to not give your data to any other company and keep it protected in their ecosystem. They'll sell access to you for ads, but only exposing your cohort to the advertiser. From that lens, Google is also commited to never give your personal data (think Gmail content, Maps behaviour, pins etc) to other companies and keep it all in their ecosystem, for themselves only. Your data is their key advantage, the base of the ad empire, and they won't let another company run away with it. If we call Apple privacy focused, Google also fits the bill, the question just falls down on whether we see Apple or Google as part of our intimate circle, within our private life. I assume you do for Apple but not for Google.

monkeyflutes 2y ago

[dead]

api 2y ago

Some of it is self-serving and some is explainable by the deep and pervasive tension between (security / privacy / autonomy), and usability.

saagarjha 2y ago
I generally do not impute malice to it, but it is in many cases the lazy option out.

threeseed 2y ago

[flagged]

talldayo 2y ago
> and rogue governments As opposed to the orderly and just governments, that are so clearly-defined and well trusted? Or are you more highlighting the unlawful conduct from businesses like NGO Group that are so shamefully allowed to persist without government scrutiny? It's hard for me to tell, since both of them have hacked iPhones to attain privileged access and will likely do it again. From where I'm standing it looks like their "promise" has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
lapcat 2y ago
> You have to trust Apple and if you don't then buy another computer. No, I don't have to trust Apple or anyone absolutely, and I can and do use a Mac, as the least bad option for my purposes, without fully trusting Apple. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Trust is a matter of degree, not all or nothing. In general I trust my mother (except her advice, which I often ignore), but if she insisted that she had to install cameras in my home for my "safety", I would start to have serious doubts about her. > Because they have the ability at any point to push software to your computer that compromises your privacy and security in almost undetectable ways. And short of them having an entirely open-source OS that will always be the case. 1) They can't push software to my computer, because I've blocked the software update mechanism with Little Snitch and only install when I'm ready. 2) Open source is not a panacea, as demonstrated by the XZ Utils backdoor. Moreover, closed source does not render users helpless. Closed source software can be reverse engineered; indeed, I've done that myself with macOS many times. The behavior of closed source software can also be observed in various ways with various tools, for example, the aforementioned Little Snitch. And even when macOS bypassed Little Snitch one time a few years ago, that was detected by developers. The whole world is watching Apple closely, so the company can't simply get away with whatever they want undetected. > The whole point of their privacy stance is to protect you from companies like Google and rogue governments who we already know can't be fully trusted We already know that Apple can't be fully trusted. We also know that Apple actually caters to "rogue" governments such as China, by removing apps from the App Store at the Chinese government's request, as well as handing over control of iCloud servers to China, and reportedly Apple source code too, for inspection.

gilgoomesh 2y ago

Ultimately, whoever controls operating system updates always has control over your privacy. Even if Apple did offer perfect privacy, there's no reason an update couldn't completely change that. Bluntly: if you don't trust your OS vendor, then you can't use OS updates. There are people in this category but it's a lot of work. Much easier to trust your OS vendor (at least to this extent).

fsflover 2y ago
> Ultimately, whoever controls operating system updates always has control over your privacy This is not true. FLOSS (and reproducible builds) allows the community to verify the code and significantly (though not fully) decrease the trust to the OS.

cageface 2y ago

Exactly. What does privacy even mean when your entire digital existence is owned by and visible to a single entity?