dpkonofa

20 ms·

241.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Glad I’m not the only one.
242.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
They're not invading the users' privacy. They have to comply with a lawful government order. This is allowing them to do that without violating users' privacy.
243.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
While I agree, in principle, I think that cat's been out of the bag for a while. The government will continue to mandate things away from end-to-end encryption (they're already trying to pass bills to make it illegal) and this see
244.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
That's not what happens. Read the white paper. The only thing sent is the hash and signature (which, at worst, essentially amounts to a thumbnail of CSAM). No part of the encrypted content is ever sent to Apple.
245.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Yes but, effectively, the end result is the same without violating users' privacy. If none of what's on their device matches the hashes, then nothing will have been done and Apple would be able to encrypt those backups also which
246.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
This makes it sound like there aren’t entities out there who are interested in such solutions. If you have one that fulfills that need, I’m sure Apple and others are open to hearing it.
247.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Yes but the criteria for a warrant can be nothing more than reasonable suspicion. So a warrant could be issued for access to someone’s entire device regardless of whether objectionable content exists on it or not. Theoretically, a governmen
248.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I think you’re missing the point. If the only thing stopping the government is a warrant (which the government itself can authorize) then there’s nothing stopping the government from just issuing those warrants. It may take slightly longer
249.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I share that concern and completely understand. My only response to that concern, though, is that what you’re asking for is not possible without submitting the content in question to Apple and I would rather they not have it at all and ther
250.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
This is a great response and covers what I think the crux of the issue is. Technology has exacerbated a problem and, rather than simply bow to that, they tried to come up with a solution. Whether that solution addresses the negatives of the
251.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I never said privacy was the problem, so your argument is irrelevant. What I said is that privacy (true privacy) introduces problems that we may want to solve for. You can simultaneously be an advocate for user privacy while agreeing that C
252.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Why are you assuming the end is compromised? What makes you say it is in the first place?
253.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Take your argument one step further - the government knows this and starts issuing warrants for exactly these situations. Now, Apple is in a position where they have to violate their user’s privacy and share content in order to comply wit
254.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I’m not making excuses. The government can mandate that Apple monitor content uploaded to its services. All the other major hosting providers do this already. The only difference here is that Apple is trying to maintain encryption while als
255.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Why is that wrong? I also applauded (internally) when notifications were added because it was a feature that I wanted and I didn't care that Android had it before because I wasn't using an Android phone. I bought all of the Google
256.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I feel like there's a third option here, though, in that Apple is very likely trying to get ahead of what's likely to be requests from the government that they won't be able to just not abide by. This already happens to every
257.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
That's a little silly. The iPhone is a "cyber security focused smartphone" and Apple has billions in R&D money going into its phone. That's a nice thing to say but it doesn't really mean much unless you have som
258.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>You are using the literal interpretation of the word brick to be ridiculous. No, I'm not. I mean it in the sense you're referring to and, again, you know that. No one in their right mind would infer that I meant an actual bric
259.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>No, what we’re saying is, regardless of what you use to charge your phone — you could use a banana to charge it — just give us access to be able to purchase that charge port so that if the charge port in the phone breaks, we can fix it
260.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Again, you're being disingenuous and it's really off-putting considering that everyone here knows your story. It's great that you have the skills to do the 15-minute repair with a cheap flex cable and it's great that y
261.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You can do that. Apple even offers a certification program for repair shops to get genuine parts so long as they do the repairs up to Apple's standards and via their procedures. They do facilitate this completely.
262.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
While this is definitely true, I think it's less of an issue than we might think at first glance. There's nothing currently that would prevent a repair shop from repairing a device or sourcing parts from other devices. Even if we&
263.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
This is not true. Apple does not say your phone is a brick and they don't destroy old devices. They disassemble them and re-use the working components to build remanufactured devices for warranty use. They literally have multi-million
264.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Apple, nor any other tech company, doesn't have the power to make something illegal and they don't artificially disable parts. They disable portions of the device that rely on those parts for integrity or security reasons. Stop ly
265.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
This is another example that, to me, does a disservice to the R2R movement. A tractor doesn't need the technology that John Deere has put into it to limit its functionality. It's a tractor. Tractors have been around for ages and
266.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I think you're exactly right. He's, unfortunately, an artifact from a time when devices just weren't as complex as they are now.
267.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
A schematic, in and of itself, may not violate a patent but providing a means for someone to create a part that requires software that's patented may open up people and companies to litigation that would kill them. Qualcomm, for exampl
268.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
With respect, I think you're being disingenuous here and I think you know it. No one is telling customers "your phone is now a brick" when their charge port breaks and "right to repair", as a whole" does not ha
269.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I hate to be that guy but this sounds very much like "old man recounts tales of how things were 'back in my day' to youngsters". The Apple II was not anywhere near as complex as the computers and devices we're talki
270.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I know it means nothing but I'm in the 5%. I've never had a case on my iPhone and I've owned every other generation since the original (I always skip generations for my devices since they started doing the incremental S versi

More ›