←back to thread

295 points djoldman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
solarkraft ◴[] No.42063965[source]
Sibling comments point out (and I believe, corrections are welcome) that all that theater is still no protection against Apple themselves, should they want to subvert the system in an organized way. They’re still fully in control. There is, for example, as far as I understand it, still plenty of attack surface for them to run different software than they say they do.

What they are doing by this is of course to make any kind of subversion a hell of a lot harder and I welcome that. It serves as a strong signal that they want to protect my data and I welcome that. To me this definitely makes them the most trusted AI vendor at the moment by far.

replies(10): >>42064235 #>>42064286 #>>42064293 #>>42064535 #>>42064716 #>>42066343 #>>42066619 #>>42067410 #>>42068246 #>>42069486 #
tw04 ◴[] No.42064286[source]
As soon as you start going down the rabbit hole of state sponsored supply chain alteration, you might as well just stop the conversation. There's literally NOTHING you can do to stop that specific attack vector.

History has shown, at least to date, Apple has been a good steward. They're as good a vendor to trust as anyone. Given a huge portion of their brand has been built on "we don't spy on you" - the second they do they lose all credibility, so they have a financial incentive to keep protecting your data.

replies(8): >>42065378 #>>42065849 #>>42065988 #>>42066649 #>>42067097 #>>42067858 #>>42068698 #>>42069588 #
vlovich123 ◴[] No.42067858[source]
Strictly speaking there's homomorphic encryption. It's still horribly slow and expensive but it literally lets you run compute on untrusted hardware in a way that's mathematically provable.
replies(2): >>42069609 #>>42069845 #
1. commandersaki ◴[] No.42069609[source]
Yeah the impetus for PCC was that homomorphic encryption wasn't feasible and this was the best realistic alternative.