3 ms·
> This is really stretching the point, because it's implying that not only is a single breach proof of complete insecurity, but also that even a temporary breac
by brymaster 13y ago
> This is really stretching the point, because it's implying that not only is a single breach proof of complete insecurity, but also that even a temporary breach is proof of complete insecurity.
Not stretching the point at all, because this isn't the only case of a security or trust breach, and once that is broken, you have no reason to trust them again.
OP's post made the ridiculous claim that somehow Apple's 'controlled' approach protects users. I provided evidence which proved that false.
- halostatue 13y agoTotally stretching the point. Apple had to make stands as to where to trust developers and where not to trust them. Certain developers broke that trust with Apple, and Apple had to regain the trust with users. Blame Path &c., not Apple, for abusing a feature that was originally provided for the convenience of developers and users together.
- brymaster 13y agoNot stretching any point. I presented actual cases and proved Apple's 'controlled' environment hasn't protected user privacy. > Blame Path &c., not Apple Oh sure, I won't blame Apple for leaving the door wide open and turning a blind eye for years! Wow.
- revscat 13y ago> Not stretching the point at all, because this isn't the only case of a security or trust breach, and once that is broken, you have no reason to trust them again. This is foolish. Every non-trivial piece of software will eventually succumb to a security flaw. This does not mean the software is untrustworthy in toto. You fix the bug and move on.