3 ms·

Wow - this is something Apple would have never done in the past. They're really pushing to make the point that they don't have any backdoors/participate with go

by owenwil 12y ago

Wow - this is something Apple would have never done in the past. They're really pushing to make the point that they don't have any backdoors/participate with government agencies. Interesting turn, where Apple would have just stayed silent previously.

madeofpalk 12y ago
How is this 'un-Apple'? Apple did it, so by definition it is very 'Apple'.
- MBCook 12y ago
  Traditionally Apple has been a very secretive company and wouldn't publish information that wasn't strictly necessary to many people. They've been easing off that recently (which is a serious plus), although I'm not sure this information would have been censored before, maybe just behind the developer paywall where most people couldn't easily see it.
MBCook 12y ago
Apple did something similar in February when they published a pretty extensive document on how security works in iOS to explain how securely iMessage, TouchID, code signing, etc. are setup. Apple takes security quite seriously and they seem to want to ensure everyone knows it. http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.p... Apple also seems to be opening up a bit. The lack of secrecy gag-order on most of the WWDC information was very surprising. The pessimistic view (which I'm sure has factored in) is that they're only publishing such things to poke at Google. Google can try to post some similar information but in most cases they don't control the hardware so they can't verify as much of the chain. On the other hand if Google is providing access to someone they may not be able to publish such detailed information and Apple can play the "Where's your document" game.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  "The pessimistic view (which I'm sure has factored in) is that they're only publishing such things to poke at Google." Why do you consider this pessimistic? I, for one, would love to live in a world where all the smart phone vendors started aggressively competing on how they each protected my privacy and security.
snyp 12y ago
agreed, i think this is more of a tim cook approach, in recent times he has tried to send out a clear message when it comes to things that apple feels very strongly about, some of them may involve their products and some of them may not for ex. 1. the emphasis on caring for the environment 2. support for the LGBT community 3. the focus on user privacy... and so in this case they seem to be pushing forth the message that user privacy is very important to them
forgottenpass 12y ago
The public reaction is necessary for the business model of Apple's (and Google's) mobile platforms. They have to prevent users from thinking too long or hard about the level of trust they're placing in them. Thus quickly minimizing the findings like in this case. The balancing act they've chosen for themselves is to keep the masses of technical users confident enough in the products to use them, but dienganged enough that they avoid really thinking about the security model of the device they've embedded their life into. At some point, it doesn't even matter if the unmodifiable security decisions they make are right or wrong for a user that "owns" a device but not the signing keys to change the software on it. We all see it as something along the lines of "this design could go real bad, but probably isn't." That position relies on masses of consumer confidence, good will and raising the cost of alternatives. They have to nip this in the bud, because even though there is unease at the fringes, it's not large enough to rock the boat. For now.

by owenwil 12y ago

madeofpalk 12y ago

How is this 'un-Apple'? Apple did it, so by definition it is very 'Apple'.

MBCook 12y ago
Traditionally Apple has been a very secretive company and wouldn't publish information that wasn't strictly necessary to many people. They've been easing off that recently (which is a serious plus), although I'm not sure this information would have been censored before, maybe just behind the developer paywall where most people couldn't easily see it.

MBCook 12y ago

Apple did something similar in February when they published a pretty extensive document on how security works in iOS to explain how securely iMessage, TouchID, code signing, etc. are setup. Apple takes security quite seriously and they seem to want to ensure everyone knows it. http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.p... Apple also seems to be opening up a bit. The lack of secrecy gag-order on most of the WWDC information was very surprising. The pessimistic view (which I'm sure has factored in) is that they're only publishing such things to poke at Google. Google can try to post some similar information but in most cases they don't control the hardware so they can't verify as much of the chain. On the other hand if Google is providing access to someone they may not be able to publish such detailed information and Apple can play the "Where's your document" game.

ghshephard 12y ago
"The pessimistic view (which I'm sure has factored in) is that they're only publishing such things to poke at Google." Why do you consider this pessimistic? I, for one, would love to live in a world where all the smart phone vendors started aggressively competing on how they each protected my privacy and security.

snyp 12y ago

agreed, i think this is more of a tim cook approach, in recent times he has tried to send out a clear message when it comes to things that apple feels very strongly about, some of them may involve their products and some of them may not for ex. 1. the emphasis on caring for the environment 2. support for the LGBT community 3. the focus on user privacy... and so in this case they seem to be pushing forth the message that user privacy is very important to them

forgottenpass 12y ago

The public reaction is necessary for the business model of Apple's (and Google's) mobile platforms. They have to prevent users from thinking too long or hard about the level of trust they're placing in them. Thus quickly minimizing the findings like in this case. The balancing act they've chosen for themselves is to keep the masses of technical users confident enough in the products to use them, but dienganged enough that they avoid really thinking about the security model of the device they've embedded their life into. At some point, it doesn't even matter if the unmodifiable security decisions they make are right or wrong for a user that "owns" a device but not the signing keys to change the software on it. We all see it as something along the lines of "this design could go real bad, but probably isn't." That position relies on masses of consumer confidence, good will and raising the cost of alternatives. They have to nip this in the bud, because even though there is unease at the fringes, it's not large enough to rock the boat. For now.