undefined | Better HN

0 pointsleakycap5mo ago0 comments

> I don't know where people got the impression that Apple seriously resisted government coercion

I think it was either the way they added the two-button passcode lock that can be done without pulling the phone out of your pocket, the San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone (2016), Apple's resistance to the UK's backdoor requirement in ADP, or maybe when they wouldn't unlock the Pensacola Shooter's iPhone (2019), Apple's methods to resisting China's demand for iCloud Master Key multiple times, or the constant updates like disabling biometric unlock after being disconnected from cell networks for a certain number of hours.

> Senator Wyden called them out (alongside Google) on backdooring Push Notifications years ago.

Apple's notification framework is wildly different than Google's Android method. Apple's notifications can be anonymous (hence the article we're commending on!) but Google's cannot.

> Didn't people want Apple's thoughtful, executive curation?

The app store doesn't promise curation in the sense of a museum store... it's more running the apps through a pre-check before offering to customers. It's safety, not sales appeal, at least mostly.

> If you're still not switching phones, what gives?

The alternatives are many times worse. Have you ever actually looked at what iOS collects vs Android?!

> I'm shocked that we only now see people lift pitchforks and complain.

We're upset about ICE apps being removed and Apple giving gold chunks to wannabe dictators. That didn't happen until recently.

> You fought for your ability to resist sideloading and this is your just deserts.

Google is also fighting sideloading. What phone maker are you imagining exists today and makes phones that don't have this issue?

0 comments

somenameforme5mo ago

You're conflating public vs private. PRISM is private data collection and probably unconstitutional/illegal owing to the 4th amendment. So any information provided by PRISM is not directly used. Instead there is parallel construction [1] - the NSA (or whatever other agency they provide intel to) creates a pretext for how they obtained the information/evidence that sidesteps the real source. For instance if they pick up information on a car carrying drugs, that car might be pulled over for 'driving recklessly' and it's then searched because of 'suspicious behavior.' The real source of the reason makes no appearance in court.

The reason for this charade is because everytime somebody tries to sue the NSA over illegal data collection, the case gets tossed for lack of standing. You need to prove both that you were illegally spied on and negatively affected by such. If you can't prove that, then you have no standing to sue. And anytime people try to gather evidence of said collection in e.g. discovery, the government simply claims national security - and the case ends up tossed.

The public cases are efforts to try to streamline the process where the government could legally directly utilize such things. So you have this sort of charade where Apple is giving the government everything it wants in private, but then genuinely fighting them publicly. Both sides get more or less what they want out of the deal. Apple gets to pretend to be a protector of privacy, and the government gets unfettered access to whatever they want.

The Intercept has run a bunch of articles on this topic, alongside direct evidence of such. Here's one. [2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/11/30/nsa-surveillance-fisa-se...

leakycapOP5mo ago

There is no evidence of Parallel construction in iOS. NSA/other baddies wants to surveil, Apple is fighting this more than any other large company I know of.

Today's announcement from Apple further flies in the face of your arguments: https://security.apple.com/blog/apple-security-bounty-evolve...

bigyabai5mo ago

> There is no evidence of Parallel construction in iOS.

Parallel construction isn't a technical "feature" on any phone. It is a way the NSA can use their de-facto coercion powers, ones that Apple has already admitted to fielding. If Apple is fighting this "more than any other large company" you know of, you better trust them a whole lot more than any of us do. There is no evidence that Cook has resisted this admin, at the going rate it seems like a Tweet is all it takes for him to redesign the ecosystem.

> Today's announcement from Apple further flies in the face of your arguments

Apple has always had a pitiful security bounty. It's why NSO Group burns their zero-days instead of disclosing them responsibly. Nobody cares what Apple will pay you if the exploit is worth more.

Mind you, Apple tried to sue NSO Group but then dropped the case after their federal handlers warned them of fighting with Israeli intel: https://www.securityweek.com/apple-suddenly-drops-nso-group-...

1 more reply

Krasnol5mo ago

You know you're lost if the main argument is a whataboutism.

leakycapOP5mo ago

Listing examples in response to a question for examples is whataboutism in your estimation?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsleakycap5mo ago0 comments

> I don't know where people got the impression that Apple seriously resisted government coercion

> Senator Wyden called them out (alongside Google) on backdooring Push Notifications years ago.

Apple's notification framework is wildly different than Google's Android method. Apple's notifications can be anonymous (hence the article we're commending on!) but Google's cannot.

> Didn't people want Apple's thoughtful, executive curation?

The app store doesn't promise curation in the sense of a museum store... it's more running the apps through a pre-check before offering to customers. It's safety, not sales appeal, at least mostly.

> If you're still not switching phones, what gives?

The alternatives are many times worse. Have you ever actually looked at what iOS collects vs Android?!

> I'm shocked that we only now see people lift pitchforks and complain.

We're upset about ICE apps being removed and Apple giving gold chunks to wannabe dictators. That didn't happen until recently.

> You fought for your ability to resist sideloading and this is your just deserts.

Google is also fighting sideloading. What phone maker are you imagining exists today and makes phones that don't have this issue?

0 comments

somenameforme5mo ago

The Intercept has run a bunch of articles on this topic, alongside direct evidence of such. Here's one. [2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/11/30/nsa-surveillance-fisa-se...

leakycapOP5mo ago

There is no evidence of Parallel construction in iOS. NSA/other baddies wants to surveil, Apple is fighting this more than any other large company I know of.

Today's announcement from Apple further flies in the face of your arguments: https://security.apple.com/blog/apple-security-bounty-evolve...

bigyabai5mo ago

> There is no evidence of Parallel construction in iOS.

> Today's announcement from Apple further flies in the face of your arguments

Apple has always had a pitiful security bounty. It's why NSO Group burns their zero-days instead of disclosing them responsibly. Nobody cares what Apple will pay you if the exploit is worth more.

1 more reply

Krasnol5mo ago

You know you're lost if the main argument is a whataboutism.

leakycapOP5mo ago

Listing examples in response to a question for examples is whataboutism in your estimation?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse