A bit contradictory with Apple's supposedly privacy-focused approach, no?
replies(4):
Why was the FBI even able to get access to that person's phone? Sounds like there was a loophole. Not happening if it were an encrypted Android device with a high-entropy password.
Apple also has vastly different policies in different countries. They do cooperate with government privacy invasions but they don't publish that fact in the US. It's a business decision but they are most definitely profit-focused, not privacy-focused.
because you have to balance security with usability. iPhones use its security chip to slow/prevent password guessing. that allows you to use a weak password without losing much security, but if that system is compromised you're back to square one. I'm sure if you used a high entropy password on ios, they wouldn't be able to get access either.
The problem is you don't get this choice in iOS.
A privacy-respecting company would provide you this option -- Android does. You can have a high-entropy passcode in Android if you wish, and choose to sacrifice usability in the interest of privacy, if that is what you'd like.
Who says you can't?
https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/05/custo...
The use case for an end user managing their firewall experience with a 3rd-party software-based firewall AND who also wish to monitor Apple traffic is very niche.
For the overwhelming portion of the population, I would be more worried about the MacOS security model. Someone's iPad or iPhone experience can only be screwed up so much and can be reset without losing data. For MacOS the stakes are a lot higher, and users are trained to enter credentials for annoying-to-audit vague permissions.
In my view, MacOS is the biggest security hole in Apple's ecosystem. Doesn't this make you wonder how Apple will handle the health app on MacOS?
