4 ms·
I think it’s likely because nobody understands or believes it. Techie people on HN adopt a “no true Scotsman” attitude, and assert that anything is not enough.
by Spooky23 1y ago
I think it’s likely because nobody understands or believes it.
Techie people on HN adopt a “no true Scotsman” attitude, and assert that anything is not enough. People who know nothing don’t understand enough to understand the nuances, see the obvious abuses of privacy on the web, Facebook, etc and assume it’s bullshit.
- msgodel 1y agoApple's computing model is, in fact, fundamentally incompatible with privacy. They can say they value privacy all they want but as long as the user doesn't control the machine themselves it means almost nothing.
- secstate 1y agoHaving recently dug an old iPad out of the electronics bin at the transfer station this is acutely felt. I actually found an android tablet at the same time. I appreciate the desire to thwart theft, but lord! Wipe the android tablet, log in with Google, good to go. iPad can only be ground up and added to the asphalt to help slow down the aging of road surfaces. Again, I get the anti-theft angle, but this is so far beyond that. You are literally leasing the hardware from the manufacturer until such time as they decree you should be done with it. Never mind the thought exercise of what Apple could do if they wanted to if you were found to have CSAM and the state asked them to remove your access. No thank you.
- Yeul 1y agoAbuses of privacy? Hardly it is all completely legal. That is the genius of it the tech industry writes the laws. How much money did Apple donate to Trump?
- Spooky23 1y agoThank you for illustrating the point so quickly.
- bigyabai 1y agoNobody understands or believes Apple's stance either. All they'll do is give us whitepapers on how things should work, which we know has been fabricated at least once in the case of Push Notification backdoors: 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-... This isn't a no-true-scotsman attitude. This is a rational reaction to security theater when nobody can prove that Apple is doing what they claim to be doing.
- dagmx 1y agoCould you point to the white paper that would apply to notifications privacy? I can’t seem to find anything claiming notifications are encrypted, often the opposite.
- bigyabai 1y agoYou're putting words in my mouth. I never said they were encrypted. I said that Apple deliberately misled developers about the surveillance functionality by pushing whitepapers that do not accurately describe how these systems work. This prevents developers from protecting their users and creates confusion around how Apple services operate. Even if it was E2EE - trusting Apple with proprietary crypto is like trusting Microsoft to not backdoor Bitlocker. It requires a specifically-qualified moron who doesn't respond to technical arguments and only understands marketing language.
- dagmx 1y agoYour literal words are > All they'll do is give us whitepapers on how things should work, which we know has been fabricated at least once in the case of Push Notification backdoors I’m asking for evidence of your own claim. Apple do not claim that everything is encrypted, they specifically call out various aspects as being unencrypted.
- bigyabai 1y ago[flagged]