Is it possible to mount a legal challenge to this error 53 problem under the Digital Content paragraph in the new Consumer Rights Legislation?
Under this bill' traders are obliged to provide additional information concerning the functionality of the digital content and any relevant information about its compatibility with other hardware My Ipad worked perfectly until the upgrade software was installed. We should have been told that a device with a replacement screen or button could rendered unusable if the software was upgraded.
The bill states that the software has to be of satisfactory quality and must meet a given description. Any software that renders a device unusable could not be of satisfactory. quality especially when it prevents the user from returning to its original software.
Of course it's illegal what they do. Or maybe not what they do, but how they do it. But nobody has the will to sue them, although he/she would most likely succed. And since nobody with this problem sues them of course they go on with this. I can't even blame them although I dislike they methods for sure.
No, still a stupid analogy that only proves you know nothing about the secure enclave and how it works.
The secure enclave is used for device encryption, your passcode, your fingerprint, access controls lists (things like application passwords and private keys).
You seem to think it's only used for Touch ID, and there's nothing to worry about if a piece of hardware that works with the secure enclave has been swapped out. And then have the nerve to tell others they are delusional or morons.
Seems pretty clear who the "delusional moron" is.
I've explained it to you twice. It's not my job to make you understand why you're wrong. In your latest reply you're trying to change the question to one that makes you less wrong but the extra detail you provide has nothing to do with my analogy or this discussion.
I don't know exactly what conversation you are trying to participate in, but the conversation that I'm in is about the error that is generated when a third party replacement of the home button/Touch ID sensor take place - the secure enclave is NOT being replaced. The secure enclave and everything in it remains intact, but the new Touch ID sensor is not able to communicate with it because the technician is unable to initialize it like Apple does.
In the above case, the only thing that need fail is Touch ID authentication - for anything - logins, Apple Pay, app unlocks, etc. Touch ID would be completely unusable - but every other feature and function within the phone - can and should continue to operate - 100% SECURELY - using just your password/passcode. This includes device encryption, passcodes, etc. Everything except Touch ID and fingerprint data.
Touch ID is an OPTIONAL feature that can be turned on and off. After a replacement of the sensor - until the new sensor is properly initialized by Apple - the phone CAN AND SHOULD FUNCTION AS IF TOUCH ID WERE SIMPLY TURNED OFF in settings.
Its frustrating trying to educate you. Two things are obvious. One is that you think you're right - and the other is that you're not. I've given up trying to show you exactly where and why you're wrong. At this point I'm only replying so that the great many forum readers who are smarter than you will understand why you're wrong - although to be honest - most of them probably understood after reading my initial analogy - or even before I posted it.
If you still don't get it - I'm sorry, I can't make it any clearer. You'll just have to continue forward in life remaininghl ignorant of how this stuff actually works.
Agree turning off all functions of the touch ID would've been enough of course. But apple treats there customers like the last crap since steve jobs died. Poor steve he'd be crying seeing how the current management is destroying his dream of this unique company step by step.
This behavior is a clear violation of restraint of trade (Apple has been in court on this before). Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, this is illegally creating a monopoly because Apple refuses to sell OEM parts to 3rd party repair shops thus -- in this case -- forcing customers to use Apple's expensive service. That is against Federal law. And, of course Apple doesn't HAVE to wipe your phone. They could just temporarily lock it, right? Bricking your phone without warning? Sleazy. With BlackBerry OS 10, for example, if you accidentally brick your phone because you have forgotten your credentials, you have the option of sending it to BlackBerry with proof of ownership, and they will unlock your phone. Considering Apple has stores almost everywhere, it would be simple. Why won't they? Well... they want you to buy a new phone. Are we there yet?
I've explained it to you twice. It's not my job to make you understand why you're wrong. In your latest reply you're trying to change the question to one that makes you less wrong but the extra detail you provide has nothing to do with my analogy or this discussion.
I don't know exactly what conversation you are trying to participate in, but the conversation that I'm in is about the error that is generated when a third party replacement of the home button/Touch ID sensor take place - the secure enclave is NOT being replaced. The secure enclave and everything in it remains intact, but the new Touch ID sensor is not able to communicate with it because the technician is unable to initialize it like Apple does.
In the above case, the only thing that need fail is Touch ID authentication - for anything - logins, Apple Pay, app unlocks, etc. Touch ID would be completely unusable - but every other feature and function within the phone - can and should continue to operate - 100% SECURELY - using just your password/passcode. This includes device encryption, passcodes, etc. Everything except Touch ID and fingerprint data.
Touch ID is an OPTIONAL feature that can be turned on and off. After a replacement of the sensor - until the new sensor is properly initialized by Apple - the phone CAN AND SHOULD FUNCTION AS IF TOUCH ID WERE SIMPLY TURNED OFF in settings.
Its frustrating trying to educate you. Two things are obvious. One is that you think you're right - and the other is that you're not. I've given up trying to show you exactly where and why you're wrong. At this point I'm only replying so that the great many forum readers who are smarter than you will understand why you're wrong - although to be honest - most of them probably understood after reading my initial analogy - or even before I posted it.
If you still don't get it - I'm sorry, I can't make it any clearer. You'll just have to continue forward in life remaininghl ignorant of how this stuff actually works.
Agree turning off all functions of the touch ID would've been enough of course. But apple treats there customers like the last crap since steve jobs died. Poor steve he'd be crying seeing how the current management is destroying his dream of this unique company step by step.
I think you might be overreacting and getting yourself all worked up over a misunderstanding.
Unless there are statements from Apple that I haven't seen, I think people are mixing up speculations and suppositions from the author that aren't exactly true.
Until I see a statement directly from Apple, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the "bricking" which is being reported - temporary or permanent - is unintentional. My guess is that there is a bug - introduced with the latest update which is what is causing the "bricks". I'd be willing to bet that Apple fixes any affected devices free of charge and that the go-forward response to unauthorized, 3rd party Touch ID repairs will NOT involve disabling the phone - it will simply disable the Touch ID feature.
Apple haters will be coming out of the woodwork, stirring things up and manipulating normal users, like you - into a fury based on lies and misinformation.
I would understand your anger - if all of the information it is based on, is true - but I really don't think it is. Give it a week or two (probably less) to play out - or at least wait for Apples "official" statement regarding this situation before you lose too much sleep over it. Bricking the phone - even temporarily is a ridiculous response and no matter what the haters think - Apple wouldn't intentionally respond so drastically. Of course, when all of this before officially known, the haters won't miss a beat - instead of complaining about this, they'll shift their tune only slightly and start complaining about Apples code-quality - highlighting this glitch as proof that without Steve Jobs around to review every line of code that is added to iOS, mistakes like this will happen more and more often!
i think we'll find that they truth is this glitch, Error 53 and the bricked iPhones affected a very, very small number of users. We should just relax and see what happens over the next week...
^ No, you won't be replying again because you're wrong and won't admit it. And you lack the basic knowledge to prove your side right. In fact, you have posted literally NOTHING about how the security on an iPhone (secure enclave, encryption, Touch ID) works. You're just throwing arond a bunch of theories about how you THINK it works and expect s to believe you.
Dont get so upset when people call you out when you're wrong.
Edited: Can't believe I forgot this as I just assumed the basic concept would be simple for anyone to understand. Apparently not.
I work for BMW (as I've posted here before). They do the EXACT same thing. If you replace the access module on a BMW (the one that decides if it should unlock the doors with the remote key) then the entire car is bricked. That's right, it won't even work. You'll need to get towed to BMW and they'll have to order in a brand-new module direct from BMW which they will then code (pair) to the vehicle. It's impossible for dealers or anyone to buy a used module and code (pair it).
According to your logic, BMW should allow the car to start so you can drive it, and turn off the feature for unlocking the doors (just like you claim Touch ID should be turned off and the rest of the iPhone should continue to work).
Sound familiar? Sort of like using a Touch ID sensor that hasn't been coded (paired) and the entire phone stops working. Now for the others who clearly don't comprehend the Magnusson Moss act (and think it applies here), how is BMW able to get away with this? If you have the right to repair your car at a third party shop, then how can this situation arise?
I lied. I will continue to reply - only to make sure that people aren't left with your misguided and incorrect information.
Again - you are trying to confuse the issue and the conversation by making some weak vehicular analogy. I'm not going to dispute anything you said about BMW or how their system works - but I will point out that it's a silly comparison to make. The system you are describing is designed to prevent theft. The iPhone security system we are discussing is designed to protect your data. That's a huge difference - and at least now I know why you're thoughts are so far from accurate - you're speaking about what you know - which is vehicle theft protection. Your mistake is in assuming that the security required to protect data is (or should be) similar. It's not - and you clearly have no experience or knowledge about those types of systems!
If you want to pull out credentials, sure - let's play! I have a Masters in Computer Science and have worked as a consultant in the IT industry for more than 20 years including 6 years of architecting, engineering and implementing secure systems. Sorry, I've never worked on automotive security systems.
So - rather than comparing cars to smartphones, why don't you look at the exact items in question and then point out to all of us exactly where and how the phone with the uninitialized Touch ID sensor is more vulnerable to unauthorized data access or unauthorized use than the system which has Touch ID disabled via the settings app. And remember, we want to compare Apples to Apples here - so for the devices we're going to compare - the ONLY difference between the 2 devices should be that one has all of the original parts and the other has an aftermarket Touch ID sensor that is not able to communicate with the secure enclave.
My assertion is that if Apple (iOS) detects that the Touch ID sensor cannot communicate with the secure enclave, the "Use Touch ID" setting should be turned off and grayed out - and the phone should operate as if it had never been activated in the first place.
Your claim is that by doing so, some portion of the users data would potentially be exposed and the only "secure" thing to do is to temporarily brick the phone - yet you offer no explanation as to how this could possibly happen.
By now, I'm sure you can see where you went wrong. Whether you misunderstood the proposed alternative to bricking, whether you honestly believed that "securing a vehicle from theft" and "securing access to private data on a computing device" were the same thing and should be treated the same way - or whether you are just an Apple apologist and blindly defend Apple and assume that if they do something a particular way, it's the best way (or the only way)...
Anyhow - no matter why you initially disputed the assertion, I'm certain that you now see that you were wrong. I'm also equally certain that you'll never admit it. You've slung too many names and insults to back down and apologize at this point. I'm quite sure that you will go to your grave still claiming to be right - even if Apple releases an update that makes the system work EXACTLY as I've described - which I see as a *very* likely possibility...!
Playing the "argument from authority" card are we? Funny that someone with a masters in comp sci is unable to explain how security in iOS works and uses vague terms while expecting us to just believe what you say. I'm still WAITING for any technical explanation from you why Apple should go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised. Why are you afraid to do so? Why do you continue to speak in vague terms? Go on, explain it to me like I also have my Masters (instead of assuming I'm nothing more than a Best Buy alarm installer). Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I can understand all the big words you decide to use.
My BMW analogy is correct. Why? Because when BMW detects tampering with a hardware component in the vehicle they operate under the assumption the vehicle is either stolen, or that someone is trying to "assemble" a working vehicle using parts from several stolen or suspect vehicles.
While this occasionally causes problems for customers (if a related module malfunctions the car still "bricks" and requires a visit to the dealer), the benefits for the majority of users outweigh the inconvenience for a few.
Apple is doing the exact same thing here. A key component in the security of the iPhone has been tampered with and Apple is playing it safe by assuming it's an attempt at gaining access to a customers device.
Agree turning off all functions of the touch ID would've been enough of course. But apple treats there customers like the last crap since steve jobs died. Poor steve he'd be crying seeing how the current management is destroying his dream of this unique company step by step.
My guess is that there is a bug - introduced with the latest update which is what is causing the "bricks". I'd be willing to bet that Apple fixes any affected devices free of charge and that the go-forward response to unauthorized, 3rd party Touch ID repairs will NOT involve disabling the phone - it will simply disable the Touch ID feature.
Wrong. One of the people with error 53 in the Apple Support forums got it when they upgraded from iOS 8.3 to 8.4. All the people claiming this is something new in the latest version of iOS 9 are completely wrong. It has to do with checks Apple makes when installing a newer iOS version (likely during the phase where it says "Verifying Update" on your iPhone).
People are assuming this is in the "latest" update just because of the one guy having it happen on iOS 9.x while forgetting this is not a new issue. The reporting of it so widely is what's new.
Apple Zombies please wake up: this behavior is a clear violation of restraint of trade (Apple has been in court on this before). Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, this is illegally creating a monopoly because Apple refuses to sell OEM parts to 3rd party repair shops thus -- in this case -- forcing customers to use Apple's expensive service. That is against Federal law. And, of course Apple doesn't HAVE to wipe your phone. They could just temporarily lock it, right? Bricking your phone without warning? Sleazy. With BlackBerry OS 10, for example, if you accidentally brick your phone because you have forgotten your credentials, you have the option of sending it to BlackBerry with proof of ownership, and they will unlock your phone. Considering Apple has stores almost everywhere, it would be simple. Why won't they? Well... they want you to buy a new phone. Are we there yet?
You created an account to post this crap? LOL
When you create a new account and instantly start bashing Apple.... You might be a troll..,
When you misrepresent rumors as if they were facts... You might be a troll....
When you join a pro-Apple site and you yourself are not pro-Apple... You might be a troll...
When you type and type and type and type without breaking up your text into paragraphs... You might be a troll...
Actually, there's no "might" about it. You're a troll.
This is not a clear violation of anything. The only thing that's clear is your hatred of Apple. You quote rumors as if they were facts. You say that Apple has been "in court before" for restraint of trade... I guess they were found to be innocent, right? If not - you most certainly would have told us Apple "has been convicted before".
Peope will see your message for the trolling it is and just ignore you.
You've wasted your time creating your account and composing this drivel.
I lied. I will continue to reply - only to make sure that people aren't left with your misguided and incorrect information.
Again - you are trying to confuse the issue and the conversation by making some weak vehicular analogy. I'm not going to dispute anything you said about BMW or how their system works - but I will point out that it's a silly comparison to make. The system you are describing is designed to prevent theft. The iPhone security system we are discussing is designed to protect your data. That's a huge difference - and at least now I know why you're thoughts are so far from accurate - you're speaking about what you know - which is vehicle theft protection. Your mistake is in assuming that the security required to protect data is (or should be) similar. It's not - and you clearly have no experience or knowledge about those types of systems!
If you want to pull out credentials, sure - let's play! I have a Masters in Computer Science and have worked as a consultant in the IT industry for more than 20 years including 6 years of architecting, engineering and implementing secure systems. Sorry, I've never worked on automotive security systems.
So - rather than comparing cars to smartphones, why don't you look at the exact items in question and then point out to all of us exactly where and how the phone with the uninitialized Touch ID sensor is more vulnerable to unauthorized data access or unauthorized use than the system which has Touch ID disabled via the settings app. And remember, we want to compare Apples to Apples here - so for the devices we're going to compare - the ONLY difference between the 2 devices should be that one has all of the original parts and the other has an aftermarket Touch ID sensor that is not able to communicate with the secure enclave.
My assertion is that if Apple (iOS) detects that the Touch ID sensor cannot communicate with the secure enclave, the "Use Touch ID" setting should be turned off and grayed out - and the phone should operate as if it had never been activated in the first place.
Your claim is that by doing so, some portion of the users data would potentially be exposed and the only "secure" thing to do is to temporarily brick the phone - yet you offer no explanation as to how this could possibly happen.
By now, I'm sure you can see where you went wrong. Whether you misunderstood the proposed alternative to bricking, whether you honestly believed that "securing a vehicle from theft" and "securing access to private data on a computing device" were the same thing and should be treated the same way - or whether you are just an Apple apologist and blindly defend Apple and assume that if they do something a particular way, it's the best way (or the only way)...
Anyhow - no matter why you initially disputed the assertion, I'm certain that you now see that you were wrong. I'm also equally certain that you'll never admit it. You've slung too many names and insults to back down and apologize at this point. I'm quite sure that you will go to your grave still claiming to be right - even if Apple releases an update that makes the system work EXACTLY as I've described - which I see as a *very* likely possibility...!
Playing the "argument from authority" card are we? Funny that someone with a masters in comp sci is unable to explain how security in iOS works and uses vague terms while expecting us to just believe what you say. I'm still WAITING for any technical explanation from you why Apple should go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised. Why are you afraid to do so? Why do you continue to speak in vague terms? Go on, explain it to me like I also have my Masters (instead of assuming I'm nothing more than a Best Buy alarm installer). Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I can understand all the big words you decide to use.
My BMW analogy is correct. Why? Because when BMW detects tampering with a hardware component in the vehicle they operate under the assumption the vehicle is either stolen, or that someone is trying to "assemble" a working vehicle using parts from several stolen or suspect vehicles.
While this occasionally causes problems for customers (if a related module malfunctions the car still "bricks" and requires a visit to the dealer), the benefits for the majority of users outweigh the inconvenience for a few.
Apple is doing the exact same thing here. A key component in the security of the iPhone has been tampered with and Apple is playing it safe by assuming it's an attempt at gaining access to a customers device.
Sigh. Here we go again. I'm starting to lose interest in this discussion because I think most people already understand my point - and you either already do as well - or never will. Are you going to apologize in a week or two if/when Apple makes it clear that their intention all along was for it to work the way I described? Or will you claim at that point that *they* are now wrong also?
There is absolutely no need to use bigger words or more complex descriptions of the security systems in this discussion. Doing so is not necessary to explain how things should work. You can't even seem to grasp the simple explanation - so why would I add detail and complexity when it's not necessary. It would just add confusion, make it harder for you to understand and it would exclude a lot of readers from following the conversation. If it was necessary to convey my point, I'd use the minimum required - but it's not so it's actually kind a of a dumb request.
Here's where your argument goes off the tracks: "why should apple go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised?" - They shouldn't! But the fingerprint sensor is NOT "a critical security component" in my analogy! It's ONLY a critical component when it is being used to validate and grant access to the device! If you disable that function, it is no longer "a CRITICAL security component". How can you not understand that?
Every device that can be unlocked with Touch ID can also be unlocked with a password. Even if Touch ID is enabled, you can ignore it and log in with just your password. How is it "a critical component" if you can disable the feature, or you can enable it but choose to ignore it and not use it?
Forget about everything else - because the whole discussion centers around this one thing. If Apple disables Touch ID because a sensor was not installed properly, but leaves everything else active....WHERE IS THE NEW VULNERABILITY??? Where? Tell me where?
There isn't one.
The only argument you have is that the new Touch ID sensor being installed *could* represent an intrusion attempt. Somebody might be trying to hack into your phone. So what? The same could be said about a failed fingerprint read - or a failed password entry - or connecting an unrecognized lightning device or adapter - yet none of those other actions will trigger the phone to go into lockdown mode.
So let's say that it IS definitely a hack attempt - if the hacker messes with the fingerprint sensor - tell us why disabling Touch ID is not a sufficient response. Why does the phone have to go into lockdown mode? Why doesn't it allow me, as the owner to specify the action that I want to happen on a Touch ID intrusion attempt? It does for the password. I can say wipe all my personal data after 10 failed attempts. Why do I get a choice for bad passwords, yet for a touch if intrusion attempt, the only thing "safe" is turning it into a brick?
LOL! Okay. Forget the apology. Keep your pride. You can acknowledge that you finally understand simply by NOT replying to this message. I promise I won't call you out on it....but seriously.... After I've explained it so many times, and so clearly (the house analogy works!)....How can you still NOT get it??? In other topics you post in, you don't come across as stupid - so it must be a pride thing on this one. Nothing else explains why you still pretend not to get it.
Here's hoping that I don't see a reply to this message!
I agree that this is a good thing by apple. But to replace the touch id means that it is paired with one specific A series processor because the secure element is in the A series processor itself. to repair the iPhone would require that the main processor and the touch id element would have to be replaced as a pair which in the case of the A9 or any A series would require a mother board replacement. which would be quite expensive. The moral of the story don't take your iPhone to 3rd party repair shops for anything other than screen and glass replacements.
I lied. I will continue to reply - only to make sure that people aren't left with your misguided and incorrect information.
Again - you are trying to confuse the issue and the conversation by making some weak vehicular analogy. I'm not going to dispute anything you said about BMW or how their system works - but I will point out that it's a silly comparison to make. The system you are describing is designed to prevent theft. The iPhone security system we are discussing is designed to protect your data. That's a huge difference - and at least now I know why you're thoughts are so far from accurate - you're speaking about what you know - which is vehicle theft protection. Your mistake is in assuming that the security required to protect data is (or should be) similar. It's not - and you clearly have no experience or knowledge about those types of systems!
If you want to pull out credentials, sure - let's play! I have a Masters in Computer Science and have worked as a consultant in the IT industry for more than 20 years including 6 years of architecting, engineering and implementing secure systems. Sorry, I've never worked on automotive security systems.
So - rather than comparing cars to smartphones, why don't you look at the exact items in question and then point out to all of us exactly where and how the phone with the uninitialized Touch ID sensor is more vulnerable to unauthorized data access or unauthorized use than the system which has Touch ID disabled via the settings app. And remember, we want to compare Apples to Apples here - so for the devices we're going to compare - the ONLY difference between the 2 devices should be that one has all of the original parts and the other has an aftermarket Touch ID sensor that is not able to communicate with the secure enclave.
My assertion is that if Apple (iOS) detects that the Touch ID sensor cannot communicate with the secure enclave, the "Use Touch ID" setting should be turned off and grayed out - and the phone should operate as if it had never been activated in the first place.
Your claim is that by doing so, some portion of the users data would potentially be exposed and the only "secure" thing to do is to temporarily brick the phone - yet you offer no explanation as to how this could possibly happen.
By now, I'm sure you can see where you went wrong. Whether you misunderstood the proposed alternative to bricking, whether you honestly believed that "securing a vehicle from theft" and "securing access to private data on a computing device" were the same thing and should be treated the same way - or whether you are just an Apple apologist and blindly defend Apple and assume that if they do something a particular way, it's the best way (or the only way)...
Anyhow - no matter why you initially disputed the assertion, I'm certain that you now see that you were wrong. I'm also equally certain that you'll never admit it. You've slung too many names and insults to back down and apologize at this point. I'm quite sure that you will go to your grave still claiming to be right - even if Apple releases an update that makes the system work EXACTLY as I've described - which I see as a *very* likely possibility...!
Playing the "argument from authority" card are we? Funny that someone with a masters in comp sci is unable to explain how security in iOS works and uses vague terms while expecting us to just believe what you say. I'm still WAITING for any technical explanation from you why Apple should go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised. Why are you afraid to do so? Why do you continue to speak in vague terms? Go on, explain it to me like I also have my Masters (instead of assuming I'm nothing more than a Best Buy alarm installer). Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I can understand all the big words you decide to use.
My BMW analogy is correct. Why? Because when BMW detects tampering with a hardware component in the vehicle they operate under the assumption the vehicle is either stolen, or that someone is trying to "assemble" a working vehicle using parts from several stolen or suspect vehicles.
While this occasionally causes problems for customers (if a related module malfunctions the car still "bricks" and requires a visit to the dealer), the benefits for the majority of users outweigh the inconvenience for a few.
Apple is doing the exact same thing here. A key component in the security of the iPhone has been tampered with and Apple is playing it safe by assuming it's an attempt at gaining access to a customers device.
It's really straightforward. How protection is achieved through passcode and Touch ID are slightly different but "The passcode can always be used instead of Touch ID" (those are Apple's words, not mine) to unlock the device.
Touch ID is subordinate to Passcode - the documentation makes this very clear. It should be easy enough to simply disable it if there's a problem. No security is compromised.
So quit the conjecture and read the words that apple wrote in their own security guide. They should be able to separate out this functionality and they must be able to as they are still selling devices which do not contain a touch id component.
Playing the "argument from authority" card are we? Funny that someone with a masters in comp sci is unable to explain how security in iOS works and uses vague terms while expecting us to just believe what you say. I'm still WAITING for any technical explanation from you why Apple should go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised. Why are you afraid to do so? Why do you continue to speak in vague terms? Go on, explain it to me like I also have my Masters (instead of assuming I'm nothing more than a Best Buy alarm installer). Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I can understand all the big words you decide to use.
My BMW analogy is correct. Why? Because when BMW detects tampering with a hardware component in the vehicle they operate under the assumption the vehicle is either stolen, or that someone is trying to "assemble" a working vehicle using parts from several stolen or suspect vehicles.
While this occasionally causes problems for customers (if a related module malfunctions the car still "bricks" and requires a visit to the dealer), the benefits for the majority of users outweigh the inconvenience for a few.
Apple is doing the exact same thing here. A key component in the security of the iPhone has been tampered with and Apple is playing it safe by assuming it's an attempt at gaining access to a customers device.
It's really straightforward. How protection is achieved through passcode and Touch ID are slightly different but "The passcode can always be used instead of Touch ID" (those are Apple's words, not mine) to unlock the device.
Touch ID is subordinate to Passcode - the documentation makes this very clear. It should be easy enough to simply disable it if there's a problem. No security is compromised.
So quit the conjecture and read the words that apple wrote in their own security guide. They should be able to separate out this functionality and they must be able to as they are still selling devices which do not contain a touch id component.
Do we know how many people are actually encountering this? Is this an issue affecting a lot of people or is it just something that has the tech press, rumor sites and twitterverse all in a flutter making it look like a bigger deal than it is (especially on a slow news day)?
I hope Apple gets sued left and right for this. Intentionally damaging/breaking someone's property is a criminal offense and I hope lawers have a field day with this. People deserve compensation. This has nothing to do with security. This is a very dirty way to increase revenue by forcing out 3rd party service centers and monopolizing repairs. Personally, this is the last iPhone I ever purchased. Time to boycott this greedy, dirty company and move on.
This behavior is a clear violation of restraint of trade (Apple has been in court on this before). Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, this is illegally creating a monopoly because Apple refuses to sell OEM parts to 3rd party repair shops thus -- in this case -- forcing customers to use Apple's expensive service. That is against Federal law. And, of course Apple doesn't HAVE to wipe your phone. They could just temporarily lock it, right? Bricking your phone without warning? Sleazy. With BlackBerry OS 10, for example, if you accidentally brick your phone because you have forgotten your credentials, you have the option of sending it to BlackBerry with proof of ownership, and they will unlock your phone. Considering Apple has stores almost everywhere, it would be simple. Why won't they? Well... they want you to buy a new phone. Are we there yet?
It isn't even close to an Anti-Trust issue or a Sherman violation. You haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. Not even close. "Are we there yet?" You bet we are. Your Blackberry love and limited trail (just two posts, both on this thread) is more revealing than you expected. Dots are easy to connect. Did you not think anyone would connect them where you are concerned? Go to the notorious hater websites like BGR. There you will find large contingents of anti-Apple trolls you can hang around with and trade ridiculous, untrue comments with.
I hope Apple gets sued left and right for this. Intentionally damaging/breaking someone's property is a criminal offense and I hope lawers have a field day with this. People deserve compensation. This has nothing to do with security. This is a very dirty way to increase revenue by forcing out 3rd party service centers and monopolizing repairs. Personally, this is the last iPhone I ever purchased. Time to boycott this greedy, dirty company and move on.
First post by you! Hit and run Apple hater. You are more transparent than the people who go and download iOS apps just so the can give them a one-star rating. You don't own an iPhone and probably never have owned one or any other device. Pretty pathetic. "Criminal offense"!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea you are projecting yourself to have the maturity of a kindergartener?
Apple Zombies please wake up: this behavior is a clear violation of restraint of trade (Apple has been in court on this before). Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, this is illegally creating a monopoly because Apple refuses to sell OEM parts to 3rd party repair shops thus -- in this case -- forcing customers to use Apple's expensive service. That is against Federal law. And, of course Apple doesn't HAVE to wipe your phone. They could just temporarily lock it, right? Bricking your phone without warning? Sleazy. With BlackBerry OS 10, for example, if you accidentally brick your phone because you have forgotten your credentials, you have the option of sending it to BlackBerry with proof of ownership, and they will unlock your phone. Considering Apple has stores almost everywhere, it would be simple. Why won't they? Well... they want you to buy a new phone. Are we there yet?
You created an account to post this crap? LOL
When you create a new account and instantly start bashing Apple.... You might be a troll..,
When you misrepresent rumors as if they were facts... You might be a troll....
When you join a pro-Apple site and you yourself are not pro-Apple... You might be a troll...
When you type and type and type and type without breaking up your text into paragraphs... You might be a troll...
Actually, there's no "might" about it. You're a troll.
This is not a clear violation of anything. The only thing that's clear is your hatred of Apple. You quote rumors as if they were facts. You say that Apple has been "in court before" for restraint of trade... I guess they were found to be innocent, right? If not - you most certainly would have told us Apple "has been convicted before".
Peope will see your message for the trolling it is and just ignore you.
You've wasted your time creating your account and composing this drivel.
He created more than one account to post about this. There are a few. All with one or two posts making the same stupid, untrue claims. Frustrated little Android fanboi/Apple haters leave trails a blind man could see.
It seems I was exactly right all along! The house analogy beats the car analogy! It was a software "glitch" and never Apples intention to brick anybody's phone!
Those of you who flamed me or told me I was completely wrong (or even partially wrong) can feel free to go ahead and add your apologies to this thread. Or if you're shy and just want to apologize anonymously, you can just go ahead and hit the "like" button...
Comments
Of course it's illegal what they do. Or maybe not what they do, but how they do it. But nobody has the will to sue them, although he/she would most likely succed. And since nobody with this problem sues them of course they go on with this. I can't even blame them although I dislike they methods for sure.
Agree turning off all functions of the touch ID would've been enough of course. But apple treats there customers like the last crap since steve jobs died. Poor steve he'd be crying seeing how the current management is destroying his dream of this unique company step by step.
Unless there are statements from Apple that I haven't seen, I think people are mixing up speculations and suppositions from the author that aren't exactly true.
Until I see a statement directly from Apple, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the "bricking" which is being reported - temporary or permanent - is unintentional. My guess is that there is a bug - introduced with the latest update which is what is causing the "bricks". I'd be willing to bet that Apple fixes any affected devices free of charge and that the go-forward response to unauthorized, 3rd party Touch ID repairs will NOT involve disabling the phone - it will simply disable the Touch ID feature.
Apple haters will be coming out of the woodwork, stirring things up and manipulating normal users, like you - into a fury based on lies and misinformation.
I would understand your anger - if all of the information it is based on, is true - but I really don't think it is. Give it a week or two (probably less) to play out - or at least wait for Apples "official" statement regarding this situation before you lose too much sleep over it. Bricking the phone - even temporarily is a ridiculous response and no matter what the haters think - Apple wouldn't intentionally respond so drastically. Of course, when all of this before officially known, the haters won't miss a beat - instead of complaining about this, they'll shift their tune only slightly and start complaining about Apples code-quality - highlighting this glitch as proof that without Steve Jobs around to review every line of code that is added to iOS, mistakes like this will happen more and more often!
i think we'll find that they truth is this glitch, Error 53 and the bricked iPhones affected a very, very small number of users. We should just relax and see what happens over the next week...
Playing the "argument from authority" card are we? Funny that someone with a masters in comp sci is unable to explain how security in iOS works and uses vague terms while expecting us to just believe what you say. I'm still WAITING for any technical explanation from you why Apple should go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised. Why are you afraid to do so? Why do you continue to speak in vague terms? Go on, explain it to me like I also have my Masters (instead of assuming I'm nothing more than a Best Buy alarm installer). Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I can understand all the big words you decide to use.
My BMW analogy is correct. Why? Because when BMW detects tampering with a hardware component in the vehicle they operate under the assumption the vehicle is either stolen, or that someone is trying to "assemble" a working vehicle using parts from several stolen or suspect vehicles.
While this occasionally causes problems for customers (if a related module malfunctions the car still "bricks" and requires a visit to the dealer), the benefits for the majority of users outweigh the inconvenience for a few.
Apple is doing the exact same thing here. A key component in the security of the iPhone has been tampered with and Apple is playing it safe by assuming it's an attempt at gaining access to a customers device.
Wrong. One of the people with error 53 in the Apple Support forums got it when they upgraded from iOS 8.3 to 8.4. All the people claiming this is something new in the latest version of iOS 9 are completely wrong. It has to do with checks Apple makes when installing a newer iOS version (likely during the phase where it says "Verifying Update" on your iPhone).
People are assuming this is in the "latest" update just because of the one guy having it happen on iOS 9.x while forgetting this is not a new issue. The reporting of it so widely is what's new.
When you create a new account and instantly start bashing Apple.... You might be a troll..,
When you misrepresent rumors as if they were facts... You might be a troll....
When you join a pro-Apple site and you yourself are not pro-Apple... You might be a troll...
When you type and type and type and type without breaking up your text into paragraphs... You might be a troll...
Actually, there's no "might" about it. You're a troll.
This is not a clear violation of anything. The only thing that's clear is your hatred of Apple. You quote rumors as if they were facts. You say that Apple has been "in court before" for restraint of trade... I guess they were found to be innocent, right? If not - you most certainly would have told us Apple "has been convicted before".
Peope will see your message for the trolling it is and just ignore you.
You've wasted your time creating your account and composing this drivel.
There is absolutely no need to use bigger words or more complex descriptions of the security systems in this discussion. Doing so is not necessary to explain how things should work. You can't even seem to grasp the simple explanation - so why would I add detail and complexity when it's not necessary. It would just add confusion, make it harder for you to understand and it would exclude a lot of readers from following the conversation. If it was necessary to convey my point, I'd use the minimum required - but it's not so it's actually kind a of a dumb request.
Here's where your argument goes off the tracks: "why should apple go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised?" - They shouldn't! But the fingerprint sensor is NOT "a critical security component" in my analogy! It's ONLY a critical component when it is being used to validate and grant access to the device! If you disable that function, it is no longer "a CRITICAL security component". How can you not understand that?
Every device that can be unlocked with Touch ID can also be unlocked with a password. Even if Touch ID is enabled, you can ignore it and log in with just your password. How is it "a critical component" if you can disable the feature, or you can enable it but choose to ignore it and not use it?
Forget about everything else - because the whole discussion centers around this one thing. If Apple disables Touch ID because a sensor was not installed properly, but leaves everything else active....WHERE IS THE NEW VULNERABILITY??? Where? Tell me where?
There isn't one.
The only argument you have is that the new Touch ID sensor being installed *could* represent an intrusion attempt. Somebody might be trying to hack into your phone. So what? The same could be said about a failed fingerprint read - or a failed password entry - or connecting an unrecognized lightning device or adapter - yet none of those other actions will trigger the phone to go into lockdown mode.
So let's say that it IS definitely a hack attempt - if the hacker messes with the fingerprint sensor - tell us why disabling Touch ID is not a sufficient response. Why does the phone have to go into lockdown mode? Why doesn't it allow me, as the owner to specify the action that I want to happen on a Touch ID intrusion attempt? It does for the password. I can say wipe all my personal data after 10 failed attempts. Why do I get a choice for bad passwords, yet for a touch if intrusion attempt, the only thing "safe" is turning it into a brick?
LOL! Okay. Forget the apology. Keep your pride. You can acknowledge that you finally understand simply by NOT replying to this message. I promise I won't call you out on it....but seriously.... After I've explained it so many times, and so clearly (the house analogy works!)....How can you still NOT get it??? In other topics you post in, you don't come across as stupid - so it must be a pride thing on this one. Nothing else explains why you still pretend not to get it.
Here's hoping that I don't see a reply to this message!
Read it for your self.
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
It's really straightforward. How protection is achieved through passcode and Touch ID are slightly different but "The passcode can always be used instead of Touch ID" (those are Apple's words, not mine) to unlock the device.
Touch ID is subordinate to Passcode - the documentation makes this very clear. It should be easy enough to simply disable it if there's a problem. No security is compromised.
So quit the conjecture and read the words that apple wrote in their own security guide. They should be able to separate out this functionality and they must be able to as they are still selling devices which do not contain a touch id component.
.
First post by you! Hit and run Apple hater. You are more transparent than the people who go and download iOS apps just so the can give them a one-star rating. You don't own an iPhone and probably never have owned one or any other device. Pretty pathetic. "Criminal offense"!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea you are projecting yourself to have the maturity of a kindergartener?
He created more than one account to post about this. There are a few. All with one or two posts making the same stupid, untrue claims. Frustrated little Android fanboi/Apple haters leave trails a blind man could see.
The error message should not brick your device, it should only alert you every time you restart the phone that you may be in danger.
Bricking the device is evil. Pestering with truthful information is not evil.
It seems I was exactly right all along! The house analogy beats the car analogy! It was a software "glitch" and never Apples intention to brick anybody's phone!
Those of you who flamed me or told me I was completely wrong (or even partially wrong) can feel free to go ahead and add your apologies to this thread. Or if you're shy and just want to apologize anonymously, you can just go ahead and hit the "like" button...
Hit the dislike button if you're a sore loser.