Hacker News Reader

Comment by icu | Hacker News Reader

I couldn't really understand comments like yours until I read a comment by saagarjha above which summed it up nicely by saying, "The conflict occurs for the parts where people do feel like they can make better decisions than Apple, but they can't because Apple won't let them."

I understand now the difference is that you're willing to trust that Apple knows best for you, whereas I trust myself to know what's best for me. I accept that you see this as pro-consumer from your point of view, but from my point of view surely you can see it's not? We just want different things.

What helped me get it was your point about security and that you'll have a different attack surface and will have made different security trade offs to me. Thanks for sharing your point of view, I appreciate it.

View on HN

While your general point is understandable, it's not really that my position is that I trust that Apple knows what's best for me and, if that's what you took away, then you've misunderstood my point. My point is that Apple has engineered their device in a way that guarantees the chain of trust for the hardware components. That is a position that I understand and agree with because there's no way to compromise that position. I also understand that this makes things harder for third-party repair shops but it doesn't invalidate their ability at all so long as they're willing to jump through the hoops necessary to be in that chain of trust. I know what's best for me and what's best for me is a phone that I can trust the components. It doesn't matter to me whether that's Apple or a third-party. I'm not sure how that translates to "Apple knows what's best for me" instead of "Apple has created a device that, in principle, allows for fewer attack vectors". It wouldn't matter to me who did this. It only matters to me that there's no way to bypass this.

It would be the same as me hiring a security company to protect any other assets I have. I can either hire freelancers or I can hire a company that promises to run background checks on all its employees. That doesn't mean they know what's best for me but it does mean that I trust them to not hire someone who's been in jail for burglary.

Right, I got your point.

However, I'm not so certain Apple has engineered their devices in a way that guarantees the chain of trust for the hardware components.

I would wager major governments have the ability to carry out interdiction operations.

My threat model isn't the Five Eyes (FVEY), it's everything besides them because no one can protect themselves when the NSA flagrantly subverts the Constitution and get away with it. The FVEY work in concert to get around each other's laws so yeah, good luck stopping that.

>...in a way that guarantees the chain of trust for the hardware components

What is your evidence for, or specific concern about, this? Apple has provided a ton of documentation around their hardware security and operate a bug-bounty program as well as a security research device program. I'm struggling to find any real argument beyond "I just don't trust them" here.

Snowden documents suggest that Apple is a part of PRISM.

Super Micro (Apple uses their blades) https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-supermicro/

Ah yes, the big Bloomberg lie that keeps on giving. If you dig a little farther into this, you'll discover that it's mostly just Bloomberg writers circularly citing each other. They're ignoring the mountain of actual security professionals who work at the companies in question and ask for any real evidence. There is no proof, other than people trying to scare you to sell subscriptions or build their brand.

Edit: see the previous HN discussion on this travesty https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26149885

Yeah the problem is the “anti-consumer” hyperbole. For some people it’s just not for them, doesn’t line up with what they want from a device. I’m not sure why that needs to be anything more than preference.

I agree it's a preference... but I wouldn't go so far as to describe anti-consumer as hyperbole.

Hyperbole is making something sound more impressive than it is, and anti-consumer is not being favorable to consumers.

Some people, like myself, will find Apple approaches not being favorable... the scales of control being tipped too far to Apple than to them. That's not making it sound more impressive than it is. Apple is a behemoth of a corporation and I am orders of magnitude less powerful.

Anyhow, you do you, and I'll do me, it's a free country and if Apple products are perfect for you, c'est la vie!

But with that measure every company on this earth is anti consumer because there will always be some people who won't find their practices acceptable. Maybe you should say "anti my interests"

It's very favorable for lots of consumers who have made a different decision than you. I would go so far as to say that you are in the significant minority, and that doing what you want would be damaging and anti-consumer in the main.

To use my new favorite analogy, one should not be required to fully disassemble and evaluate their cars running gear in order to drive safely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com