4 ms·
Does this mean that open source is more important than privacy to people of this mindset? Again from my layman’s perspective I would expect the hardened iPhone,
by gehsty 1y ago
Does this mean that open source is more important than privacy to people of this mindset? Again from my layman’s perspective I would expect the hardened iPhone, using iMessage and key verification, to be more secure.
- SahAssar 1y agoWell, first of all I think if something is open source it will tend to be more privacy-focused since it will disclose what it tracks. People will either find that acceptable or fork and change. > Does this mean that open source is more important than privacy to people of this mindset? Not exactly, but I think the questions should really be something like "who is the guarantor of your privacy?" If you are happy with it being a corporation like apple then you're fine. I'm not, and what we consider more secure would have to be a much deeper conversation in which we actually define our threat models.
- gehsty 1y agoTrue, I’m very interested in understanding how secure the open source alternative is, I struggle to believe it is as secure as there are so many layers, and the surface seems much bigger. I guess if you are worried about being hacked then the open source method is likely less secure, but if you are worried about being monitored then Apple is more of a risk as you don’t know what goes on behind their servers etc.
- SahAssar 1y agoMy general stance is that the fewer things I need to trust the more secure I am. That goes for services, companies, dependencies, programs, etc. Besides that there is also all of the transitive points, like what does apple trust? What does google trust? I'm not sure if I'm more secure, but I am sure that I have less people influencing my security and that I have a reasonable way to validate them.