4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

1over137 2y ago
> 1) They can't push software to my computer, because I've blocked the software update mechanism with Little Snitch They can because they (Apple) run in kernel space and Little Snitch no longer does/can. So LS, god love it, only works because Apple lets it. If Apple wanted to they could push updates to your OS without LS knowing about it.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > They can because they (Apple) run in kernel space and Little Snitch no longer does/can. So LS, god love it, only works because Apple lets it. I already addressed this later in my comment: "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." > If Apple wanted to they could push updates to your OS without LS knowing about it. They could release an update that allows later updates to bypass Little Snitch, but they can't magically make that ability retroactive and get it on a Mac that doesn't currently have that update installed.
  - sroussey 2y ago
    If you worry about Apple, then they thought you were a true adversary, they could install some code only for you. You really have no idea.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      I really have no idea what you're saying.
  - 1over137 2y ago
    >They could release an update that allows later updates to bypass Little Snitch Or the ability could be there already without us knowing. But fortunately we can still run our own routers/switches and see outgoing traffic. If you configure LS to block everything then you could confirm it with your network gear.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > Or the ability could be there already without us knowing. An empirically baseless conspiracy theory. > But fortunately we can still run our own routers/switches and see outgoing traffic. If you configure LS to block everything then you could confirm it with your network gear. That was my point. Apple isn't actually capable of completely avoiding detection. Anyway, just as I don't trust Apple absolutely, I don't distrust Apple absolutely either. They do some user-hostile things, which are richly deserving of criticism, but I prefer to engage with facts and evidence rather than idle speculation and paranoia.
fragmede 2y ago
and critically, the suspicion is that they handed off the keys for iMessage encryption used inside China. And if they did it for love of money for China, would they really not do it for the right US government inquiry? Google's better in that they chose not to do business in China the same way. For now.
spiderice 2y ago
> by removing apps from the App Store at the Chinese government's request So they follow the law in the market they’re operating in? Holy shit, how dare they.
- lapcat 2y ago
  I'm not sure why you're replying to me with a sarcastic response when I was merely disputing the notion that "The whole point of their privacy stance is to protect you from companies like Google and rogue governments". On the other hand, the issue is not as simple as Apple following the law, because Apple chose to lock down iPhone and set themselves up as the sole gatekeeper for app installations. On the Mac, which allows distribution from outside the App Store, it's not possible to completely ban apps in this way.
- realusername 2y ago
  It depends, they cried much harder for the DMA in the EU and still aren't really fully compliant. In China, they were quite okay to throw citizens under the bus without much complaints though.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. That doesn't really fit, because the course of action would be the same in both cases. If the CCP says they have to ban apps then enable side loading or third party stores so customers in China can install the banned apps from another source but the company can still feign compliance. This is the same thing the EU says they have to do anyway, except that it actually defeats the onerous regulation in China whereas in the EU the regulation is intended to benefit rather than oppress the user and Apple objects to it because they're the one wearing the boot. The explanation that fits is that they care about their own control (and so fight the EU) but don't care as much about China oppressing their customers (and so bend the knee there). > US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China. In general company leaders should try to have morals and use their influence to push back against rules from governments trying to harm their people. Obviously publicly-traded companies have a perverse tendency to do the opposite of this once they're controlled by Wall St rather than the original founders.

by lapcat 2y ago

1over137 2y ago

> 1) They can't push software to my computer, because I've blocked the software update mechanism with Little Snitch They can because they (Apple) run in kernel space and Little Snitch no longer does/can. So LS, god love it, only works because Apple lets it. If Apple wanted to they could push updates to your OS without LS knowing about it.

lapcat 2y ago
> They can because they (Apple) run in kernel space and Little Snitch no longer does/can. So LS, god love it, only works because Apple lets it. I already addressed this later in my comment: "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." > If Apple wanted to they could push updates to your OS without LS knowing about it. They could release an update that allows later updates to bypass Little Snitch, but they can't magically make that ability retroactive and get it on a Mac that doesn't currently have that update installed.
- sroussey 2y ago
  If you worry about Apple, then they thought you were a true adversary, they could install some code only for you. You really have no idea.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    I really have no idea what you're saying.
- 1over137 2y ago
  >They could release an update that allows later updates to bypass Little Snitch Or the ability could be there already without us knowing. But fortunately we can still run our own routers/switches and see outgoing traffic. If you configure LS to block everything then you could confirm it with your network gear.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Or the ability could be there already without us knowing. An empirically baseless conspiracy theory. > But fortunately we can still run our own routers/switches and see outgoing traffic. If you configure LS to block everything then you could confirm it with your network gear. That was my point. Apple isn't actually capable of completely avoiding detection. Anyway, just as I don't trust Apple absolutely, I don't distrust Apple absolutely either. They do some user-hostile things, which are richly deserving of criticism, but I prefer to engage with facts and evidence rather than idle speculation and paranoia.

fragmede 2y ago

and critically, the suspicion is that they handed off the keys for iMessage encryption used inside China. And if they did it for love of money for China, would they really not do it for the right US government inquiry? Google's better in that they chose not to do business in China the same way. For now.

spiderice 2y ago

> by removing apps from the App Store at the Chinese government's request So they follow the law in the market they’re operating in? Holy shit, how dare they.

lapcat 2y ago
I'm not sure why you're replying to me with a sarcastic response when I was merely disputing the notion that "The whole point of their privacy stance is to protect you from companies like Google and rogue governments". On the other hand, the issue is not as simple as Apple following the law, because Apple chose to lock down iPhone and set themselves up as the sole gatekeeper for app installations. On the Mac, which allows distribution from outside the App Store, it's not possible to completely ban apps in this way.
realusername 2y ago
It depends, they cried much harder for the DMA in the EU and still aren't really fully compliant. In China, they were quite okay to throw citizens under the bus without much complaints though.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Because they assume the EU would be weaker and more malleable to US influence than China and the CCP. That doesn't really fit, because the course of action would be the same in both cases. If the CCP says they have to ban apps then enable side loading or third party stores so customers in China can install the banned apps from another source but the company can still feign compliance. This is the same thing the EU says they have to do anyway, except that it actually defeats the onerous regulation in China whereas in the EU the regulation is intended to benefit rather than oppress the user and Apple objects to it because they're the one wearing the boot. The explanation that fits is that they care about their own control (and so fight the EU) but don't care as much about China oppressing their customers (and so bend the knee there). > US companies keep trying to impose local US rules, policies and way of thinking of their HQ whenever they operate abroad, especially in Europe, but totally do an 180 when they operate in China. In general company leaders should try to have morals and use their influence to push back against rules from governments trying to harm their people. Obviously publicly-traded companies have a perverse tendency to do the opposite of this once they're controlled by Wall St rather than the original founders.