4 ms·
> so your objection is moot to me "...because Apple already fucked it up elsewhere so double fuckup doesn't give extra points." > you can't really blame this
by mrottenkolber 12y ago
> so your objection is moot to me
"...because Apple already fucked it up elsewhere so double fuckup doesn't give extra points."
> you can't really blame this on anybody else but the captive portal developers.
I don't think I did, thats just how I found out about this particular appleism. Also: This behaviour enabled us to track down that device and its owner physically too. So think about the sensibility of this "feature" in this light.
Every other device would have enjoyed relative anonymity amongst the other devices in the building.
- giovannibajo1 12y agoWe're speaking of a device where Apple can silently push kernel-level code over-the-air at any moment. Surely an extra IP connection to an Apple server is not changing anything in the picture, but it is helping millions of people using their device without getting weird error messages or certificate errors every time they connect to a hotspot. If you don't trust Apple with your IP, you shouldn't use a device which runs their kernels, that's a no brainer; if you do trust them, though, you might appreciate the way they go through multiple hoops not to handle too much of your sensitive personal data, see for instance the design of iCloud Keychain: http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.p... So it's not like the impact of an IP connection is not taken into account in design considerations; it's just that it doesn't look so important in the big picture of the security and privacy implications of using such a device. For personal passwords, different avenues are taken.