Without control of the client, it gets much harder to fight abuse.
So, obviously 3rd party clients are thus able to perform malicious acts, but existing laws already forbid this.
My suggestion to ensure 3rd party clients are always legally permitted isn't mutually exclusive with existing laws protecting the creators of services and software. :)
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/valida...
Brilliant, in a scary way. In a way it makes data portability regulations all the more important.
It generates a public-private key pair that is stored in the secure enclave, then it sends that public key (or the hash maybe) to Apple for them to sign. The rest of the stuff is as you expect.
One could simply figure out how the request to apple is made to get them to sign a key, and that's that. Get them to sign a key and pretend to be the app from now on.
I guess this prevents spam from someone signing thousands of keys using a specific phone's serial number, though. Assuming there's an unique public-private key for each phone apple makes, one can't simply get them to sign keys with random serial numbers.
So, there's no way to beat it except by extracting a private key, or by using some software exploit to confuse it into signing the wrong thing.
Unfortunately for some types of games (first person shooters), a modified client can be game ruining for other players. For me, as long as it's only running while the client is running, and doesn't send private data remotely, I'm okay with it.
At least on Windows there's not much difference in terms of privacy of something running in the kernel vs userland in the same user as your important documents. It can read your entire filesystem and attach to running apps anyway without needing kernel access. So the "in your OS kernel" part is only concerning if their anti-cheat is coded poorly enough to cause a BSoD.
As I’ve already mentioned, meta isn’t a utility that people can’t live without like a phone. If they don’t like it, they should use something else. There are many alternatives
This is not true for large parts of society.
There are many institutions which force you to communicate via facebook, so not having access to it means you're locked out of parts of your real life.
This is horribly wrong by those institutions, of course, but here we are. It should be illegal, but isn't yet.
Good luck if it's a business or public org. Why change their process for what amounts to a minority of customers? It's not worth the cost. Whether these people can't do business with them despite these services being essential to everyday life... well tough luck for them I guess?
Own example: in $COUNTRY almost all banks use either their app or Viber to send 2FA. I refuse to use Viber out of principle, and also their app refuses to work on phones that don't use Google services. Should I be locked out of my banking because of me refusing to support the practices of other, unrelated services that happen to be 'popular'? Note that there is no other way to get the codes - other banks may use SMS but that is expected to be sunset next year and they will switch to the same methods.
IMHO it's disingenuous to say that there are options, when most of the time there aren't any.
Banking and social media are also two very different industries. One is essential while the other is mainly bread and circus with a myriad of alternatives
There's no [significant] public outcry because most people use facebook or whichever latest popular thing.
It's a matter of time. Even if it's not endemic in the US (which I severely doubt) it's endemic elsewhere. Don't underestimate the public's ability to put up with things, especially if they are mostly kept in the dark about the most sinister effects.
> Banking and social media are also two very different industries. One is essential while the other is mainly bread and circus with a myriad of alternatives
Both are essential. Social media is what you make of it. It can be bread and circus, yes, but it is also an invaluable tool for communication. Losing access to them can stifle your communication efforts by a lot. Why, you may ask? Because network effect is in full swing: "Phone call? Who still does that? Just use messenger like a normal person". No one's gonna bother to call you or SMS you cause 1) you're not on messenger or whatever app they use and 2) can't be bothered to contact you at your preferred non-app way, when the whole friend group has a group chat from which every single interaction and update is broadcasted to everyone. In the end, keeping you in the loop is too much work, and then you start missing out on outings etc. And even if you somehow persuaded all of your friends to use alternative methods of communication, 99.999% of the planet just can't be bothered, especially when they have friends that are reachable over 5-6 different apps, one on each friend.
Don't underestimate the network effect.
Social networks are not an essential service. There are other social networks and there are other forms of communication including SMS which is standard on all phones. If you’re not willing to pay for a better service like iMessage instead of an ad supported one, that is your problem