or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 I think that the problem (if you regard it that way) is that the intelligence agencies, much like the military, tend to develop whatever capabilities that they can to try to keep their edge and for use if needed. That may be fine, but tends to spawn the problem of regulation of such use, scope creep in the use, and "best intentions" justifications for going too far. It's not a simple issue to fix.
 I don't think anyone is disputing that they can do this if they get hold of your phone, but that is not a simple matter itself, which probably makes it just as difficult to pull off as any other kind of covert surveillance operation.  The phones don't get shipped from the factory destined for an identifiable customer. Maybe with a court order they can intercept online order deliveries, but if you buy it in a store then it's just not going to be feasible at all.
 Obviously it can't be ruled out, but going from an established capability (inserting code with physical access) to inserting code without physical access, on any reasonably secure operating system, is more than just improved technique.  It's a fundamental jump in capability, and one that has not been demonstrated on OS X or iOS, so I'd be more surprised if they can do that.
 I suggest that you take your political rants to AppleOutsider, where they belong.
As has been pointed out many times, it's not surprising, not an indication of poor security on the iOS, and not evidence of collusion by Apple that it was, and probably still is, possible to install spyware on an iPhone if one has physical access.
 If you are just going to start rampant speculation, it's also possible that they can access and control every device and computer that you own without physical access first.  Or maybe they really can't, and it's just the usual kind of FUD that bored conspiracy theory enthusiasts  love to spread.
 Pretty remarkable that analytic problems can expand that far, but that does explain the memory requirements.  It's interesting that even in the large numerical simulation domain of the massively parallel systems, modern processor architecture is starting to be an issue since they do not have fast enough access to sufficient memory - not surprising as the processors were not designed for this kind of problem.
 No question - it would have been more accurate to write that Apple enabled those people to make money, but you went even further in the other direction in saying that the developers could have existed with the contribution from Apple.  Part of the process of making a profit is selling the goods.  Not only does Apple sell the goods, but it even provides the tools with which to make the goods and, effectively, the materials from which to make them. They are definitely part...
 And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer.  In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.
 OK - I see what you are saying. It's predicated on an incorrect assumption - namely that the developers are a single entity providing the software for Apple's platform, which permits the argument that Apple needs the developers but the developers don't need Apple because they could develop for a different platform.  This ignores the market forces that define iOS as the most profitable platform by far, and renders the individual developers powerless to affect that...
New Posts  All Forums: