4 ms·

> Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation. > Apple platform is popula

> Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation. > Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes. Agreed, if for nothing else than its size alone. It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"

goku12 1y ago
> Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation. That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited. > It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)" Apple has been consistent in their messaging. You have to give up your freedom over your devices to ensure security. Not make it hard or explicit to override safety measures. Not make it safe through careful design. But you have to give up your freedom. And there is no limit to the steps they took in this direction. People had already pointed out that all those measures were for profit squeezing, disguised as security measures. The most important observation though, was that it's a very flawed argument. Security by centralized control is a vulnerability in itself, as evidenced by this incident. Apple and its supporters fought this argument in a consistent manner too. With shallow dismissals of the concerns, accompanied by the contemptuous implication that the detractors are overreacting. As if the critics should be ashamed for even bringing them up. They never really address the concern directly. You can see this in action in interviews where their top management justify such decisions. I don't see that having changed much. But, Apple or any other company doesn't deserve to be let off the hook for incidents like this. There is no reason to consider all their decisions as enlightened, especially when corporate profit seeking is involved.
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  > That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited. Nope, I voted against it.
  - goku12 1y ago
    That's not what I am referring to.

goku12 1y ago

> Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation. That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited. > It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)" Apple has been consistent in their messaging. You have to give up your freedom over your devices to ensure security. Not make it hard or explicit to override safety measures. Not make it safe through careful design. But you have to give up your freedom. And there is no limit to the steps they took in this direction. People had already pointed out that all those measures were for profit squeezing, disguised as security measures. The most important observation though, was that it's a very flawed argument. Security by centralized control is a vulnerability in itself, as evidenced by this incident. Apple and its supporters fought this argument in a consistent manner too. With shallow dismissals of the concerns, accompanied by the contemptuous implication that the detractors are overreacting. As if the critics should be ashamed for even bringing them up. They never really address the concern directly. You can see this in action in interviews where their top management justify such decisions. I don't see that having changed much. But, Apple or any other company doesn't deserve to be let off the hook for incidents like this. There is no reason to consider all their decisions as enlightened, especially when corporate profit seeking is involved.

imoverclocked 1y ago
> That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited. Nope, I voted against it.
- goku12 1y ago
  That's not what I am referring to.