3 ms·

The way I see it is either you trust Apple or you don’t. To be clear, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to arrive at either conclusion, as it relates to your ow

The way I see it is either you trust Apple or you don’t. To be clear, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to arrive at either conclusion, as it relates to your own needs and security posture. Personally I choose to trust them. My trust is not blind, and they could lose my trust very quickly. But as it stands right now, they have my trust. If you say that you don’t trust Apple, I don’t see how you could tolerate running any of their software. Relying on an operating system made by a company I don’t trust seems wildly irresponsible to me.

lapcat 1y ago
> The way I see it is either you trust Apple or you don’t. That's so obviously a false dichotomy.
- simondotau 1y ago
  That’s what you disagree with? If anything, I was expecting someone to insist that it’s not unreasonable to run software from a company you don’t trust. That’s an easy argument to steel-man, because there are many ways to run untrusted software safely. But if you think that trust itself is a false dichotomy, I’d love to hear what that sounds like. I’m struggling to think of a good faith steel-man of this assertion.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > But if you think that trust itself is a false dichotomy, I’d love to hear what that sounds like. I’m struggling to think of a good faith steel-man of this assertion. There are obviously levels of trust. I'm truly baffled that you're struggling with this. Your trust in a person, or a company, can increase or decrease over time. You can trust someone with some tasks but not with other tasks. Again, this is so incredibly obvious, I'm not sure why I have to point it out.
    - simondotau 1y ago
      What you’re describing is an assessment of risk associated with using untrusted software. There are absolutely levels of risk. I don’t trust Nintendo, but I don’t need to trust them in order to play Mario.
npteljes 1y ago
I am of the same mind. In simpler cases, it would make sense to "resist", like buying a smart TV for its screen, and just never connecting it to the internet, because the software is shit. But in a case of an auto updating operating system? Forget the idea of controlling it. It will be whatever the vendor wants. Or rather, it's either drastic measures, like installing it from a local source and keeping it offline, or whatever the vendor wants. We can have achievements like blocking the IP for the news and weather, and then those widgets won't load, great. But we gained nothing. I arrived on the same conclusion as you, that you cannot really selectively accept a service provider. Because of the nature of the ongoing relationship, posture evaluation would need to happen on every interaction, which is improbable. I don't think we can evaluate every update. So really, it's either trust, or no trust. No sense to lull ourselves into anything else. I personally solve this for myself with compartmentalization. For example, I loathe Windows, but I use an LTSC edition of it for gaming, and only gaming. I don't trust them with my "life", so it doesn't get access to my data, just games.
bell-cot 1y ago
> The way I see it is ... That's one way to view it. One might also view the large number of Apple-owned domains here as evidence that Apple's infrastructure is a sprawling mess, and reduce trust accordingly.
- simondotau 1y ago
  Really? I would’ve thought that lots of small self-contained systems feels very UNIX-like, and not a trust modifier.

lapcat 1y ago

> The way I see it is either you trust Apple or you don’t. That's so obviously a false dichotomy.

simondotau 1y ago
That’s what you disagree with? If anything, I was expecting someone to insist that it’s not unreasonable to run software from a company you don’t trust. That’s an easy argument to steel-man, because there are many ways to run untrusted software safely. But if you think that trust itself is a false dichotomy, I’d love to hear what that sounds like. I’m struggling to think of a good faith steel-man of this assertion.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > But if you think that trust itself is a false dichotomy, I’d love to hear what that sounds like. I’m struggling to think of a good faith steel-man of this assertion. There are obviously levels of trust. I'm truly baffled that you're struggling with this. Your trust in a person, or a company, can increase or decrease over time. You can trust someone with some tasks but not with other tasks. Again, this is so incredibly obvious, I'm not sure why I have to point it out.
  - simondotau 1y ago
    What you’re describing is an assessment of risk associated with using untrusted software. There are absolutely levels of risk. I don’t trust Nintendo, but I don’t need to trust them in order to play Mario.

npteljes 1y ago

I am of the same mind. In simpler cases, it would make sense to "resist", like buying a smart TV for its screen, and just never connecting it to the internet, because the software is shit. But in a case of an auto updating operating system? Forget the idea of controlling it. It will be whatever the vendor wants. Or rather, it's either drastic measures, like installing it from a local source and keeping it offline, or whatever the vendor wants. We can have achievements like blocking the IP for the news and weather, and then those widgets won't load, great. But we gained nothing. I arrived on the same conclusion as you, that you cannot really selectively accept a service provider. Because of the nature of the ongoing relationship, posture evaluation would need to happen on every interaction, which is improbable. I don't think we can evaluate every update. So really, it's either trust, or no trust. No sense to lull ourselves into anything else. I personally solve this for myself with compartmentalization. For example, I loathe Windows, but I use an LTSC edition of it for gaming, and only gaming. I don't trust them with my "life", so it doesn't get access to my data, just games.

bell-cot 1y ago

> The way I see it is ... That's one way to view it. One might also view the large number of Apple-owned domains here as evidence that Apple's infrastructure is a sprawling mess, and reduce trust accordingly.

simondotau 1y ago
Really? I would’ve thought that lots of small self-contained systems feels very UNIX-like, and not a trust modifier.