This is simply an extension of the practice of sensationalizing everything having to do with Apple and using everything they do as an attack vector for promoting ones personal agenda. When you are at the top of your game everyone who has ambition to rise above the herd will do whatever they can to knock you off the top to make a name for themselves and get their own 15 minutes of fame or infamy. This is basic human nature dating back to the roots of human existence. Mass media and pervasive info spew has only increased the number of and volume of the contenders. Whether you love Apple or loath them, this is simply how human nature plays out. Apple is the top dog and as such they will be under constant attack from everyone who covets the success that Apple has achieved. A pervasive fallacy of the attackers is the belief that lowering Apple's stature somehow raises their own. This is a self rationalizing but often played losers game, "if I can't beat you head to head I will try to pull you down into the hole that I'm in." That's just the way the game is played in meatspace.
First it's denied. Then when it's realized that it has been put there on purpose it's a diagnostics tool? I guess I'll have to see what type of diagnostics this handles first. It's not currently being utilized. As noted by others, it's not an exploit. It's an open door intentionally programmed for something. Strangely it has access to all of your personal data. We'll just have to wait and see what that something is.
Edit: added (Strangely it has access to all of your personal data) above.
I am confused. Apple never denied the alledged back doors. It denied working with governing agencies to provide unauthorized access. That combined with other statements and various reports seems like a clear message that Apple isn't intentionally selling its users out.
Moreover, Apple's explanations for the access seems satisfactory to me.
This is simply an extension of the practice of sensationalizing everything having to do with Apple and using everything they do as an attack vector for promoting ones personal agenda. When you are at the top of your game everyone who has ambition to rise above the herd will do whatever they can to knock you off the top to make a name for themselves and get their own 15 minutes of fame or infamy. This is basic human nature dating back to the roots of human existence. Mass media and pervasive info spew has only increased the number of and volume of the contenders. Whether you love Apple or loath them, this is simply how human nature plays out. Apple is the top dog and as such they will be under constant attack from everyone who covets the success that Apple has achieved. A pervasive fallacy of the attackers is the belief that lowering Apple's stature somehow raises their own. This is a self rationalizing but often played losers game, "if I can't beat you head to head I will try to pull you down into the hole that I'm in." That's just the way the game is played in meatspace.
That may be true for "meatspace", an apt term. However, a rational person need only look around a little to realize that there is an abundance of countless and limitless other "spaces" which are created by merely looking.
Sad to say, many of Apple's potential competitors don't seem to realize this. But I think IBM sanely does and is preparing to "play nicely" with its new partner and ally.
I would feel a little more comfortable if they had not used limiting words in their response such as "government agency" or "backdoor".
By limiting their response to "government" agencies, it doesn't tell us what they may or may not have done for a civilian agency. And by using the word "agency", does that automatically cover "departments", "organizations", "units", "groups" and "corporations"?
A slightly more reassuring response would have been:
"As we have said before, Apple has never worked with any person or persons to bypass security or privacy," Apple said.
This is paranoid nonsense. Apple was addressing specific allegations that it conspired with the government. You don't accuse someone then take their denial as implied admission for something entirely different.
When read in light of the actual allegations, Apple's response is every bit as reassuring as a verbal statement can be.
First it's denied. Then when it's realized that it has been put there on purpose it's a diagnostics tool? I guess I'll have to see what type of diagnostics this handles first. It's not currently being utilized. As noted by others, it's not an exploit. It's an open door intentionally programmed for something. Strangely it has access to all of your personal data. We'll just have to wait and see what that something is.
Edit: added (Strangely it has access to all of your personal data) above.
And the android trolls are the first to respond! Samsung maybe?
I'm glad to see their response also, although nothing in their press release or the subsequent links contained therein actually addressed why the deliberate holes were made.
I'm hoping it's for a future product, but I'm optimistic!
The problem is, if you JailBreak, that's instant access to every bit of personal data you have. That is of course if someone jailbreaks it. Those holes don't make it easier to JailBreak, but they do, all of your info is available. (Everything gets Jailbroken, it's just a matter of time).
This is paranoid nonsense. Apple was addressing specific allegations that it conspired with the government. You don't accuse someone then take their denial as implied admission for something entirely different.
When read in light of the actual allegations, Apple's response is every bit as reassuring as a verbal statement can be.
I'm not saying that AAPL is guilty of anything or has admitted to anything - implied or otherwise. I'm also not saying that they're intentionally lying or misleading anyone.
All I'm saying is that the wording they used in their denial is identical to the wording some of the worlds best liars would have used. I've dealt with a lot of liars in my day and this is exactly how they reply when accused. Instead of flat out denying everything, they add enough qualifiers to create a scope narrow enough that they can reply with a statement which is actually truthful (but doesn't necessarily fully answer the original question).
If you refer to my previous posts, it's pretty obvious that I'm pro-Apple. I own many Apple devices and currently control 2600 shares of AAPL in a mix of actual shares and options. I don't think that any of the capabilities currently under scrutiny are there for nefarious purposes.
The point of my original post was just that I wish that Apple had been more clear and more general in their response. I wish they had used wording that could not be questioned. I wish they had removed the qualifiers completely from the statement they issued. If they had, it would have been impossible for anyone to challenge the statement without accusing them of straight out lying.
The point of my original post was just that I wish that Apple had been more clear and more general in their response. I wish they had used wording that could not be questioned. I wish they had removed the qualifiers completely from the statement they issued. If they had, it would have been impossible for anyone to challenge the statement without accusing them of straight out lying.
There is no way a large corporation could every make an assertion like you wanted to put in their mouths without having a high likelihood of being "caught in a lie." If I told my wife "I've never had an inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman" in response to a question about that. Is she going to assume that I'm covering up a relationship with a man or be reassured that I addressed a particular concern of hers. If instead I said "I have never done anything inappropriate," would that be more reassuring or almost certainly false--in some ways that I perhaps can't even remember? And now try to apply that to a corporation with decades of history and tens of thousands of employees. Specific factual assertions are better than overly broad platitudes that can't be verified.
The point of my original post was just that I wish that Apple had been more clear and more general in their response. I wish they had used wording that could not be questioned. I wish they had removed the qualifiers completely from the statement they issued. If they had, it would have been impossible for anyone to challenge the statement without accusing them of straight out lying.[/quote]
Originally Posted by malax
There is no way a large corporation could every make an assertion like you wanted to put in their mouths without having a high likelihood of being "caught in a lie." If I told my wife "I've never had an inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman" in response to a question about that. Is she going to assume that I'm covering up a relationship with a man or be reassured that I addressed a particular concern of hers. If instead I said "I have never done anything inappropriate," would that be more reassuring or almost certainly false--in some ways that I perhaps can't even remember? And now try to apply that to a corporation with decades of history and tens of thousands of employees. Specific factual assertions are better than overly broad platitudes that can't be verified.
I see your point, but to continue playing devil's advocate here... by choosing to use the word 'woman' and 'inappropriate' in your reply to your wife, you've left open the possibility that you've had inappropriate sexual relationships with men, girls, animals, etc. (mostly kidding about this part). But, by inserting the word 'inappropriate' into your answer, you've further limited your denial it to the type of relationship that *YOU* would consider inappropriate.
Perhaps you think that it's inappropriate to have sex with another woman you have feelings for, however you could have convinced yourself that it's not "inappropriate" to do so with an escort or call girl since their are no feelings involved.
Okay. All joking aside now - In the case of your specific example, the alternative to "I've never had an inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman" is not "I have never done anything inappropriate". As you've said - that's far too general. However, wouldn't this be more reassuring to your wife and still limited in such a way that you can't be convicted for something that may have happened in your distant past? "I don't remember EVER doing anything you'd find inappropriate, but I absolutely haven't while we've been together!"
Anyhow. I'm happy to concede my original point. Apple PR has answered to the best of their ability. I don't believe that they are intentionally inserting code into their OS to create a backdoor for governments. Further - if they ever were ordered/mandated to assist government agencies in this type of invasion/data collection, it would probably not be implemented via code that lives on your phone all the time. It would be implemented via a server-side intercept or pushed from an Apple server to your device dynamically and/or temporarily.
Are you implying either of the two exist in my post?
“Backdoor” in the computing world is a method of bypassing normal authentication, securing remote access to a computer without the owner of the computer knowing or agreeing to the “connection". Providing functionality which allows Apple support, with approval from user, to obtain diagnostic data is not a “backdoor” service. Nothing in what Apple has said or written has indicated they provided a pathway to “all of your personal data”. A hacker claiming these services could be used to gain access to personal data "doesn’t make it so”.
Apple makes money selling high quality hardware, and is not likely to jeopardize their business by collecting user personal information. They continually get dinged for not providing more user info to companies paying for iAds. There are other companies, on the other hand, who make their money off of user data, who have motivation to collect as much data as they can. There are other things at work here that put so much attention on Apple, and less on the companies who are in the business of selling our information.
In your subsequent post, you describe the “holes” that Apple has created. Providing the functionality described is not creating a hole. Bypassing the user permission would be a potential for someone to access personal info, but even that is just a “potential possibility". Apple is not perfect and there will be errors they will need to address once discovered, but there is nothing indicating the service functionality has any issues.
At best, to take a position as you have, is silly.
First it's denied. Then when it's realized that it has been put there on purpose it's a diagnostics tool? I guess I'll have to see what type of diagnostics this handles first. It's not currently being utilized. As noted by others, it's not an exploit. It's an open door intentionally programmed for something. Strangely it has access to all of your personal data. We'll just have to wait and see what that something is.
Edit: added (Strangely it has access to all of your personal data) above.
1. Not denied. Denied as a "backdoor", and more specifically, as a backdoor for access by .... anyone uninvited. It IS a diagnostic tool. In fact. Really.
2. No need to toss up a 'cloud of doubt'. There's a link. To the pages on the Apple site that explain specifically "what type of diagnostics it handles".
3. As noted by others, it is NOT an "exploit". As also noted by others, it is NOT an "open door" either. How is it an open door?
If you live in a locked house, and someone asks permission to come in, and you unlock and open the door for them... I suppose you could call that an "open door". For that one visitor. That you gave permission to. Only.
How is this any different?
4. Strangely (really?) "It" has access to ALL your personal data.
"It"? Define "it"? And "all"... have you confirmed that once permission is given to this scary nameless, faceless entity, "it" now has access to ALL your personal data?
Sounds scary. Which it isn't. When you stop hyperventilating histrionically and start understanding the three, important, and specific points Apple clarified with.
If you worry about this? Don't give permission ... simple as that.
EDIT: all your posts after this one refer to "intentional holes" being added to the operating system. As if those are actually "holes" and are "open doors", which they are not. They are access points, guarded by 'permissions-based security checkpoints'.
There are all kinds of ways to access 'personal data' once we give permission for it to happen. Via websites, applications, etc. It doesn't take any scary-sounding "holes" or "backdoors".... hell, websites and apps ask for "permission" to access my Facebook contacts, posts, images, etc. all the time. If I say YES, that's my choice. According to you, those 'features' are equal to "Facebook and others have built in 'holes" simply by asking for access...
What you are talking about more specifically are SECURITY HOLES (typically accessed via exploits), which these are not. And by the way, you don't automatically override all permissions-based security simply by jailbreaking an iPhone. Saying that "jailbreaking" automatically means these checkpoints are disabled, is nonsense...
Show me otherwise, or stop talking like it's "a given". Thanks.
I don't believe that Apple would intentionally deceive us.
In that case, you should be thrown off the jury.
There are many people who think this way (or at least WANT to think this way), and thus precludes them from every comprehending that Apple is no different from Google, Facebook, or Microsoft under the surface. Once you get this big and this successful, the mafia comes in and shakes you down for everything you've got, and won't allow you to continue unless you play ball. And by mafia I of course mean government.
And the android trolls are the first to respond! Samsung maybe?
I've never owned an Android device. I have tried them for a few minutes in stores. However even if I can afford it, I see no reason to purchase one when the devices I have already handle everything perfectly. My brother has a Moto X. The home pages seem pretty cool but after that it's not so great.
I'm very sorry if I don't fall into the category you would wish me in. By the way, me being "first" was coincidence. Usually I'm posting to long dead threads.
Actually, as it currently stands, you don't need to jailbreak. However even if they tighten up the holes people would have to be brain dead to jailbreak iOS 8.
“Backdoor” in the computing world is a method of bypassing normal authentication,
At best, to take a position as you have, is silly.
You should have read the rest of my posts. They are there. The do exist. They can be taken advantage of. I did also say that I understand it's still in beta. Right now, they can be accessed wirelessly. I'm not claiming the sky is falling. I was pointing out an issue for discussion. Denying the issue does not make it go away.
Comments
I am confused. Apple never denied the alledged back doors. It denied working with governing agencies to provide unauthorized access. That combined with other statements and various reports seems like a clear message that Apple isn't intentionally selling its users out.
Moreover, Apple's explanations for the access seems satisfactory to me.
This is simply an extension of the practice of sensationalizing everything having to do with Apple and using everything they do as an attack vector for promoting ones personal agenda. When you are at the top of your game everyone who has ambition to rise above the herd will do whatever they can to knock you off the top to make a name for themselves and get their own 15 minutes of fame or infamy. This is basic human nature dating back to the roots of human existence. Mass media and pervasive info spew has only increased the number of and volume of the contenders. Whether you love Apple or loath them, this is simply how human nature plays out. Apple is the top dog and as such they will be under constant attack from everyone who covets the success that Apple has achieved. A pervasive fallacy of the attackers is the belief that lowering Apple's stature somehow raises their own. This is a self rationalizing but often played losers game, "if I can't beat you head to head I will try to pull you down into the hole that I'm in." That's just the way the game is played in meatspace.
That may be true for "meatspace", an apt term. However, a rational person need only look around a little to realize that there is an abundance of countless and limitless other "spaces" which are created by merely looking.
Sad to say, many of Apple's potential competitors don't seem to realize this. But I think IBM sanely does and is preparing to "play nicely" with its new partner and ally.
This is paranoid nonsense. Apple was addressing specific allegations that it conspired with the government. You don't accuse someone then take their denial as implied admission for something entirely different.
When read in light of the actual allegations, Apple's response is every bit as reassuring as a verbal statement can be.
And the android trolls are the first to respond! Samsung maybe?
If you jailbreak, you're a moron.
This is paranoid nonsense. Apple was addressing specific allegations that it conspired with the government. You don't accuse someone then take their denial as implied admission for something entirely different.
When read in light of the actual allegations, Apple's response is every bit as reassuring as a verbal statement can be.
I'm not saying that AAPL is guilty of anything or has admitted to anything - implied or otherwise. I'm also not saying that they're intentionally lying or misleading anyone.
All I'm saying is that the wording they used in their denial is identical to the wording some of the worlds best liars would have used. I've dealt with a lot of liars in my day and this is exactly how they reply when accused. Instead of flat out denying everything, they add enough qualifiers to create a scope narrow enough that they can reply with a statement which is actually truthful (but doesn't necessarily fully answer the original question).
If you refer to my previous posts, it's pretty obvious that I'm pro-Apple. I own many Apple devices and currently control 2600 shares of AAPL in a mix of actual shares and options. I don't think that any of the capabilities currently under scrutiny are there for nefarious purposes.
The point of my original post was just that I wish that Apple had been more clear and more general in their response. I wish they had used wording that could not be questioned. I wish they had removed the qualifiers completely from the statement they issued. If they had, it would have been impossible for anyone to challenge the statement without accusing them of straight out lying.
Why do they say "products of services" in a sentence that most people unconsciously read as "products or services" without noticing?
Because it was simply a typo in the original email by the Apple PR guy? Seriously, what would "products of services" even mean in that context?
The point of my original post was just that I wish that Apple had been more clear and more general in their response. I wish they had used wording that could not be questioned. I wish they had removed the qualifiers completely from the statement they issued. If they had, it would have been impossible for anyone to challenge the statement without accusing them of straight out lying.
There is no way a large corporation could every make an assertion like you wanted to put in their mouths without having a high likelihood of being "caught in a lie." If I told my wife "I've never had an inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman" in response to a question about that. Is she going to assume that I'm covering up a relationship with a man or be reassured that I addressed a particular concern of hers. If instead I said "I have never done anything inappropriate," would that be more reassuring or almost certainly false--in some ways that I perhaps can't even remember? And now try to apply that to a corporation with decades of history and tens of thousands of employees. Specific factual assertions are better than overly broad platitudes that can't be verified.
Quote:
[quote]Originally Posted by tenly
The point of my original post was just that I wish that Apple had been more clear and more general in their response. I wish they had used wording that could not be questioned. I wish they had removed the qualifiers completely from the statement they issued. If they had, it would have been impossible for anyone to challenge the statement without accusing them of straight out lying.[/quote]
There is no way a large corporation could every make an assertion like you wanted to put in their mouths without having a high likelihood of being "caught in a lie." If I told my wife "I've never had an inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman" in response to a question about that. Is she going to assume that I'm covering up a relationship with a man or be reassured that I addressed a particular concern of hers. If instead I said "I have never done anything inappropriate," would that be more reassuring or almost certainly false--in some ways that I perhaps can't even remember? And now try to apply that to a corporation with decades of history and tens of thousands of employees. Specific factual assertions are better than overly broad platitudes that can't be verified.
I see your point, but to continue playing devil's advocate here... by choosing to use the word 'woman' and 'inappropriate' in your reply to your wife, you've left open the possibility that you've had inappropriate sexual relationships with men, girls, animals, etc. (mostly kidding about this part). But, by inserting the word 'inappropriate' into your answer, you've further limited your denial it to the type of relationship that *YOU* would consider inappropriate.
Perhaps you think that it's inappropriate to have sex with another woman you have feelings for, however you could have convinced yourself that it's not "inappropriate" to do so with an escort or call girl since their are no feelings involved.
Okay. All joking aside now - In the case of your specific example, the alternative to "I've never had an inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman" is not "I have never done anything inappropriate". As you've said - that's far too general. However, wouldn't this be more reassuring to your wife and still limited in such a way that you can't be convicted for something that may have happened in your distant past? "I don't remember EVER doing anything you'd find inappropriate, but I absolutely haven't while we've been together!"
Anyhow. I'm happy to concede my original point. Apple PR has answered to the best of their ability. I don't believe that they are intentionally inserting code into their OS to create a backdoor for governments. Further - if they ever were ordered/mandated to assist government agencies in this type of invasion/data collection, it would probably not be implemented via code that lives on your phone all the time. It would be implemented via a server-side intercept or pushed from an Apple server to your device dynamically and/or temporarily.
Are you implying either of the two exist in my post?
“Backdoor” in the computing world is a method of bypassing normal authentication, securing remote access to a computer without the owner of the computer knowing or agreeing to the “connection". Providing functionality which allows Apple support, with approval from user, to obtain diagnostic data is not a “backdoor” service. Nothing in what Apple has said or written has indicated they provided a pathway to “all of your personal data”. A hacker claiming these services could be used to gain access to personal data "doesn’t make it so”.
First it's denied. Then when it's realized that it has been put there on purpose it's a diagnostics tool? I guess I'll have to see what type of diagnostics this handles first. It's not currently being utilized. As noted by others, it's not an exploit. It's an open door intentionally programmed for something. Strangely it has access to all of your personal data. We'll just have to wait and see what that something is.
Edit: added (Strangely it has access to all of your personal data) above.
1. Not denied. Denied as a "backdoor", and more specifically, as a backdoor for access by .... anyone uninvited. It IS a diagnostic tool. In fact. Really.
2. No need to toss up a 'cloud of doubt'. There's a link. To the pages on the Apple site that explain specifically "what type of diagnostics it handles".
3. As noted by others, it is NOT an "exploit". As also noted by others, it is NOT an "open door" either. How is it an open door?
If you live in a locked house, and someone asks permission to come in, and you unlock and open the door for them... I suppose you could call that an "open door". For that one visitor. That you gave permission to. Only.
How is this any different?
4. Strangely (really?) "It" has access to ALL your personal data.
"It"? Define "it"? And "all"... have you confirmed that once permission is given to this scary nameless, faceless entity, "it" now has access to ALL your personal data?
Sounds scary. Which it isn't. When you stop hyperventilating histrionically and start understanding the three, important, and specific points Apple clarified with.
Permissions. Permissions. Permissions. Limits. Limits. Limits.
If you worry about this? Don't give permission ... simple as that.
EDIT: all your posts after this one refer to "intentional holes" being added to the operating system. As if those are actually "holes" and are "open doors", which they are not. They are access points, guarded by 'permissions-based security checkpoints'.
There are all kinds of ways to access 'personal data' once we give permission for it to happen. Via websites, applications, etc. It doesn't take any scary-sounding "holes" or "backdoors".... hell, websites and apps ask for "permission" to access my Facebook contacts, posts, images, etc. all the time. If I say YES, that's my choice. According to you, those 'features' are equal to "Facebook and others have built in 'holes" simply by asking for access...
What you are talking about more specifically are SECURITY HOLES (typically accessed via exploits), which these are not. And by the way, you don't automatically override all permissions-based security simply by jailbreaking an iPhone. Saying that "jailbreaking" automatically means these checkpoints are disabled, is nonsense...
Show me otherwise, or stop talking like it's "a given". Thanks.
Are you implying either of the two exist in my post?
I'd say quite a bit of both with a healthy dose of FUD on top....
I don't believe that Apple would intentionally deceive us.
In that case, you should be thrown off the jury.
There are many people who think this way (or at least WANT to think this way), and thus precludes them from every comprehending that Apple is no different from Google, Facebook, or Microsoft under the surface. Once you get this big and this successful, the mafia comes in and shakes you down for everything you've got, and won't allow you to continue unless you play ball. And by mafia I of course mean government.
They were compromised years ago, I'm sure.
I've never owned an Android device. I have tried them for a few minutes in stores. However even if I can afford it, I see no reason to purchase one when the devices I have already handle everything perfectly. My brother has a Moto X. The home pages seem pretty cool but after that it's not so great.
I'm very sorry if I don't fall into the category you would wish me in. By the way, me being "first" was coincidence. Usually I'm posting to long dead threads.
Actually, as it currently stands, you don't need to jailbreak. However even if they tighten up the holes people would have to be brain dead to jailbreak iOS 8.
You should have read the rest of my posts. They are there. The do exist. They can be taken advantage of. I did also say that I understand it's still in beta. Right now, they can be accessed wirelessly. I'm not claiming the sky is falling. I was pointing out an issue for discussion. Denying the issue does not make it go away.