←back to thread

295 points djoldman | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.802s | source
1. lukev ◴[] No.42071345[source]
There's something missing from this discussion.

What really matters isn't how secure this is on an absolute scale, or how much one can trust Apple.

Rather, we should weigh this against what other cloud providers offer.

The status quo for every other provider is: "this data is just lying around on our servers. The only thing preventing a employee from accessing it is that it would be a violation of policy (and might be caught in an internal audit.)" Most providers also carve out several cases where they can look at your data, for support, debugging, or analytics purposes.

So even though the punchline of "you still need to trust Apple" is technically true, this is qualitatively different because what would need to occur for Apple to break their promises here is so much more drastic. For other services to leak their data, all it takes is for one employee to do something they shouldn't. For Apple, it would require a deliberate compromise of the entire stack at the hardware level.

This is very much harder to pull off, and more difficult to hide, and therefore Apple's security posture is qualitatively better than Google, Meta or Microsoft.

If you want to keep your data local and trust no-one, sure, fine, then you don't need to trust anyone else at all. But presuming you (a) are going to use cloud services and (b) you care about privacy, Apple has a compelling value proposition.

replies(1): >>42072229 #
2. harry8 ◴[] No.42072229[source]
> Apple has a compelling value proposition.

No. Apple has a proposition that /may/ be better than the current alternatives?

replies(1): >>42073046 #
3. lukev ◴[] No.42073046[source]
If Apple is doing what they say they are, it is in fact better. No maybe about it.

If they’re not, that means they are acting and intentionally deceiving the public security community which they are inviting to audit it.

Is that something you actually think is happening? I think we need to be clear here.

Your threat model may or may not be covered by the guarantees they are able to document, but just saying “well maybe they’re still doing some unspecified nefarious thing” is not contributing to the discussion.

Especially when none of the alternatives are even trying.