> 1. People who post these stickers should go to prison.
2. People who create and distribute these stickers knowing their purpose should go to prison.
3. Tesla should be civilly liable for cases where preventing such an incident was possible with known technology.
4. Roads should be modified over time to make it more difficult to do this attack.
Translation: everyone else in the universe is responsible for solving my problem, and also I am not responsible for solving my problem, but i do want to profit from the current state of everything being broken all the time, and, i tell my family to keep their hands on the wheel
> I’m sorry but there’s no world where Apple can make perfect security
i think everyone knows that perfect security is not possible, the operative word being ‘perfect’. i think what we want is for apple to ‘actually try’ to provide security, in some way that results in security order of magnitudes better than we enjoy today, which would still be miles and miles away from ‘perfect’, vulnerable to nation state actors etc etc etc
Can you point to a single instance of a cellphone vendor who takes security more seriously than Apple?
Put a different way, is there any device with a high monthly active user count that has a higher cost to purchase a black market exploit than the iPhone?
Apple can always do better. It should also scare the living hell out of us that they’re currently the best in the world.
My point is that if Apple can’t secure your phones, who can? It’s enough to make one think about security through obscurity.
> Put a different way, is there any device with a high monthly active user count that has a higher cost to purchase a black market exploit than the iPhone?
I'm going to answer about operating system rather than device.
The selling price of an Android full chain with persistence zero click is up to $2.5 million. The selling price of an iOS full chain with persistence zero click is up to $2 million.
This isn't the benchmark of how secure those systems are, just a benchmark of how valuable exploiting them is. Hypothetically speaking, iOS could be more secure, but an Android exploit could be valued more if high valued targets tend to use Android. Keep in mind that phone OS usage varies quite a bit by country and wealth.
I was responding to a specific comment about prices.
You're right that the price doesn't fully correlate with security. It will reflect supply (security and interest of researchers) and demand (how much there is to be gained by breaking into each platform).
Android is more widely used, but I gather more money is spent in the app store than the play store. I don't know the market share of "interesting" users.
My analysis would be that the number shows they're not that far apart. I'd be skeptical of anyone (IE apple's press release) saying that either platform is more secure. Security is too nuanced to be expressed as a total order.
100%, thank you. I had spoken to someone at Apple who said Apple was $5M and Android was $2M, but I hadn’t bothered to check. Thanks for posting data!!
> is there any device with a high monthly active user count that has a higher cost to purchase a black market exploit than the iPhone?
This is unfair, because there is a duopoly and the only alternative on mass market is Android. Of course in such circumstances the exploits will be expensive, even if security is awful.
Ignoring this, Purism takes security more seriously, because they give the user full control over the OS with possibility to replace/reinstall or harden it. In contrast to that, rarely updated iMessage is impossible to uninstall on iOs.
> i think what we want is for apple to ‘actually try’ to provide security, in some way that results in security order of magnitudes better than we enjoy today
That's a pretty tall order, and would likely result in a device that is much more expensive and has a user experience that users would not like. Assuming "orders of magnitude better" is even possible, of which I am skeptical.
except thats it’s curiously well timed for this news to drop at the beginning of holiday shopping, like an advertisement, or possibly, this is pure marketing. nso and apple are partners. apple leaves holes, nso exploit, said holes.
That's a pretty massive thing to imply without any followup. As someone who understands how tech, business, governments and security services work, care to enlighten the rest of us?
apple controls the hardware and software on apple devices. nso does not. this is public relations for apple, as much as a holiday advert as any they put on tv. if apple wanted to provide their customers secure devices, apple would provide their customers secure devices.
apple builds their own hardware and software. security, or lack thereof, is clearly apples choice. apple blaming nso here is pure public relations and optics, nee propaganda, which many on this board drink like the koolaid it is. it’s confirmation bias.
Because it effectively confirms that the mod team wanted to be able to set and enforce CoC rules on the core team. If the core team can set CoC rules they can't effectively be moderated since they can change the rules.
