Is Apple About to Accidentally Kill Government as Platform? | Hacker News Reader

Is Apple About to Accidentally Kill Government as Platform?

medium.com

33 pointsrmason10 comments

I appreciate that the author is calling this out and takes the time to understand what Apple is trying to accomplish. I wish there were more discussion of details as to what's going on in specific cases.

I hope that there's more to the story, that these government orgs are reaching out to Apple and that there's some dialog going on to try to remedy the situation. I understand that dealing with the App Store can be frustrating, but it's still a course of action. And it wouldn't be the first time that the App Store policies have changed. The author makes a similar call at the end of the piece. I find it a little surprising that someone who happens to know enough about the situation to write a post would also not know details of at least one case. It seems feasible that Apple could put in place a policy to, say, whitelist specific vetted accounts. I would be disappointed to find out that there isn't some ongoing dialog going on. However, neither this post nor the referenced June 22 Fortune article provide any additional information.

If anyone knows more about this, I'd appreciate it.

Maybe this will inspire cities to create a web page that anyone can use whether or not they have an iPhone instead of making apps that are simply a wrapper for a website.

yes indeed! not everyone uses an iOS or Android device (think SailfishOS, Tizen, etc.), and government sites are essentials services for those folk too.

There are lots of great uses for push notifications with users and government that are not possible without having a standalone app. FWIW, I agree with you, but due to this other annoying and selfish decision by Apple to not support the Web Push API, this isn't really a viable alternative.

How to read this headline:

Apple -> a change in the app store guidelines

kill -> make more difficult

Government as Platform -> development of municipal apps

An effort by Apple to prevent spam may unintentionally undue years of digital government app development

Please undo this transcription error.

The trust problem is among the most basic in society, and it seems that today we're faced with competing and to some extent conflicting approaches:

Government restricts the use of official symbols such as seals so that citizens have some token of authenticity they can rely on

Corporations find it easiest to do business by requiring everyone to adhere to a single standard, and leverage a monopoly or strong market positions

Technologists offer blockchain methods as an objective method of establishing authenticity - but consumers are confused by the proliferation

The digital method of proving identity is a digital signature, not blockchain.

When I write 'authenticity' I do not mean 'identity'.

  token of authenticity they can rely on

Rely on for what? In cryptography, authenticity refers to the source or origin of some data; in other words, the identity of the creator.[1] Likewise for official seals--the seal attests to the identity of one of the parties (either one of the principles, or an attester).

Your usage regarding seals seems correct. It's the analogy with the blockchain that is confusing. It's difficult to tell without more detail. If you broke things down you'd probably end up also using terms like integrity and non-repudiation, which are quite distinct.

[1] For example, an excerpt from the Handbook of Applied Cryptography (http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/chap1.pdf):

  Once the TTP creates a certificate for a party, the
  trust that all other entities have in the authenticity of
  the TTP’s public key can be used transitively
  to gain trust in the authenticity of that party’s public
  key, through acquisition and verification of the
  certificate.

  -- Chapter 1, Section 1.11.3.

I agree 100% with everything in this article... at which point I just can't bring myself to not call them out for using Medium--a centralized hosted platform--when there were numerous available white-labeled options that would have allowed them to both maintain control over their branding and viewer's information as well as allow for future upgrades without lock-in. They didn't even set up a custom domain name, even though Medium supports that option. (And to the extent to which this is "just Jennifer Pahlka" and not "Code for America", the same arguments apply.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com