| I dunno if I just haven’t kept up with the arguments on this but they’ve brought up a couple points I’ve never heard before: Since Apple signs the app, they can modify the app at the behest of a government.
Though unlikely, I understand this point as creating the potential for a MITM attack. Surprised I hadn’t thought of, nor heard this before. So, say Apple counters with “we would sooner pull the app, rather than modify it…” it leads to the fact that their App Store monopoly prevents users from installing secure communication apps that the App Store’s potentially host government would not allow. E.g. vpn-type apps to get out of China’s GFW. That gives… I’ll say “Linux kernel based devices” to including the niche phones, an edge for allowing the option, but not the obligation, to install something out of band. Users don’t have to do this. They can feel free to CHOOSE to live in walled garden land, in fact most do. I know I do (I’m on iOS). I hate to bring the crypto world into this, but there was a phrase used to disparage Robinhood’s initial crypto support. “Not your keys, not your crypto” I think the spirit of that idea can sort of sum up most of these security objections pretty well. If I’m not allowed control, it isn’t mine. |