Why not? You should blame them. They have positioned themselves as the gatekeepers. Why? To extract profit from application developers. However, such a powerful position also comes with expectations and responsibilities. They should absolutely not be allowed to get away with gross negligence.
We absolutely must blame them every single time they fail to keep malicious software out. They are responsible for that man's losses and should fully indemnify him. Had they not approved that software, it would not have happened.
Nobody cares about their "scale" or how "difficult" it is for them to determine what is and isn't malicious. They have assumed that responsibility by gatekeeping their devices and therefore any failures are directly attributable to them.
The fact is, no matter how much time/energy/effort they spend, they will never eliminate all scams, scams would just become more and more sophisticated. This doesn't mean, they should just give up, but having been through the review process, they are already doing quite a bit.
So that would mean, they will make it much harder for apps to get approved in the store (and it's already a very painful process), so you'd only end up with apps from large developers which is not ideal.
We are seeing a similar dynamic with Youtube which has become rather "ban-happy" as in they don't want to take risks, so would rather ban content than try to reduce false positives, because at a certain scale, you just can't identify content with good precision/recall.
Absolutely. Apple should be afraid of holding the gatekeeper position. Anyone should.
When people can install and use whatever they want, safety becomes their responsibility. They should open up their platform and let people do their own due dilligence. If they assume that responsibility and then neglect it, they absolutely can and should be blamed for any problems.
The appropriate metric for safety of an app store is not whether you can get attacked, but rather how many users - proportional to all users - get attacked every year.
This is the second person in this thread to think using an open source repo as an example carries weight. There are less users, therefore less malware is released here in the first place and then there’s less load for the malware filters for that that does get through.
My comment stands, why target f-droid?
> But we have historically seen issues with those repos haven’t we?
Care to elaborate?
Here’s one issue we’ve had with these repos:
https://lwn.net/Articles/295406/
Then there’s things like NPM that’s broken quite a few production deployments in spectacularly public ways.
Apple's filters are clearly garbage.
Using linux as an example here doesn’t work.
You're not perfect at anything you do. Does that make you useless? Of course not.
As a gatekeeper? Yes, yes it does; hence why there shouldn't be any gatekeepers.
It's not about adding layers of protection or not; it's about being transparent with your customers about how effective those layers actually are.
> Because we offer nearly two million apps — and we want you to feel good about using every single one of them.
> Apps must adhere to our guidelines.
> You should never have to worry about inappropriate content.
> Every day, moderators review worldwide App Store charts for quality and accuracy.
All of these are far stronger claims than I would be comfortable making about the current state of the store.
That is the most ridiculous implication.
'We did not expect anyone to read the terms of the product, so we shouldn't have to deliver on what we promised.'
That is not resonable.
Apple is using weezle-words like "should" which gives them wiggle room, but I guess it will be up to a court to decide.
I think about 0 out of the first 100 people I know that I think of have heard any version of those claims (maybe 5 now since a few read HN). It’s probably not even a top 10,000 trafficked page on their site.
Do you have any ties against apple or for a competitor?
https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9470551/volvo-self-drivin...
In contrast, it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone.
Protections? Encryption is protection. Address space randomization is protection. This Apple review process? This is just humans failing to do what's expected of them. Also known as negligence.
which is why he hasn't placed himself in the position of "arbiter of what's right and wrong on phones", the way Apple has with their App Store.
Nobody wants Apple to be judge and jury, we have judges and juries for that, but it would be nice if they could tell us who to go after when we have to.
If they can't do that, I don't think its unreasonable for us to ask Apple to be responsible any losses, then let Apple seek compensation for their losses from the app publisher.
They must be focusing on the wrong things then. Certain categories are filled with scam apps at the top ranks, including scam subscriptions.
I also think it's easy to forget just how much Apple could spend on this if they actually cared
But I don’t like that kind of approach, so therefore I would be careful in demanding Apple to fix the problem. Any fix they come up with, would likely cause troubles for small players.
Sandboxing is a step in the right direction, as are various levels of things like code signing and even Windows Defender-esque systems that maintain lists of known malicious apps, authors etc and prevent them from running.
It also helps not to have an easy monetization scheme for malicious actors, either. Making it easy to give them money, and even sign you up for fraudulent subscriptions so you keep giving them money, is a mistake.
An actually user-friendly system would look at the apps that you're making payments with, and ask whether or not you want to keep subscriptions that you don't appear to be using much. This doesn't happen, though, because it is in no one's interests but the users' to help save them money.
It's the most profitable course of action, that's all there is to it.
But to address your question: if apple allowed other stores, they could be significantly more picky about what's allowed on their store. This would consequently increase the security for people only using the official store.
This is obviously a no-go however, as that would be less profitable then the current situation.
also you do understand businesses need to make profit, and keeping their customers happy is definitely the right way to do it in my book. so given your logic here, how do you explain all of the other privacy features apple gives away for free?
Are they managing to keep it safe is independent of that claim and we can ask why are those getting through.
If anything I think this story is just a prime example of why irreversible crypto transactions are an absolute nightmare for the general public. With the banking system this person would likely have recourse, with crypto it's "Whoops, your wallet key words got stolen, sorry, there go your life savings."
If the responsibility is too impossible (and I'm fine saying that it is), then their paternalism shouldn't be called out and their reputation knocked down a rung or two. Instead, they get to keep a reputation which is far better than the other megacorps'.
I think this is what having strong marketing gets you. You can see from the defence on HN/Twitter where most people would be fine with Apple having a control over all their devices and aren't afraid of the growing dominance of a single company.
Totally off topic: that phrasing made my brain skip a beat. I've always seen "called out" used to convey confrontation, especially in a public manner like "He called out Apple on Twitter for their paternalism." Turns out a similarly common use is the more general "to bring attention to" in a positive way.
If it was an open market (no review process), and they just took enough to cover operations and processing fees, I can see them being blameless, but if you are going to review apps, you need to actually review them.
That’s exacerbated when products are counterfeits and legit brands get pissed off, but it would got the same for unsafe products as well I’d guess.
Amazon getting their provisions corrected could make a positive precedent for digital goods as well.
The problem is that if you are associated with a crime committed in the United States in any way (besides being a very distant third-person witness with no associations whatsoever to the individual), and you are not a crime victim or an individual reporting the crime, you are almost always considered to be an _accessory to the crime_ which is a misdemeanor (go to jail for up to 365 days) or felony (go to prison for over 365 days) state level (has parole for prisoners) or federal level (effectively has no parole for prisoners) criminal offense, which the police will arrest you for and charge you with, while the person committing the misdemeanor/felony gets charged with whatever crime they perpetrated.
For example, if your "acquaintance" shoplifts at a store and gets caught, and you don't stop or report them: you will get charged as being an accessory to a crime and you're going to jail.
Also, if you are involved in an altercation in any way, the cop can put everyone involved in handcuffs and charge them, even if you never got physically or verbally violent.
There are also catch-all laws in the US that one can go to prison for, basically for acting in "bad faith" but never actually doing anything else criminally wrong.
This is why you never talk to the police, ever. They will twist your statements in the wildest ways imaginable. If you get pulled over by the police, you should practice, every single time, saying as little as possible to the officer.
This has never happened to me personally, but, everyone needs to know this: If the police in America start questioning you and it gets into a detailed discussion, you stop right there and say: "No comment: I need to talk to my lawyer first."
As someone who used to be a criminal prosecutor in the US, I would be very interested in seeing citations to whatever statute you are referencing.
As far as being charged as an accessory, you generally need to have known that a crime was or would be occurring, and to have provided some form of assistance. That doesn't need to be direct actions in the act, it could be financial or emotional assistance.
And no one is going to prison over shoplifting unless we're talking about repeat offenders or large amounts of cash. Let alone just happening to know someone who shoplifted and failing to report them.
Having said that, definitely don't talk to the police without a lawyer present.
Not just facilitating. They get 30% for it.
Arguing about the $99/year developer fee is a pointless rabbit hole. You might as well also accuse Apple of selling the developers an iPhone and a Mac for developing the scam app. And then don't forget to accuse the electrical grid operator of selling electricity to the scammers.
Arguing about the $99/year developer fee is a pointless rabbit hole.
Do you seriously think that Apple values the promise of a scammer’s $99 fee recurring next year more then they would value having fewer scams in their store?
I genuinely believe you’re being unserious here.
Also, this is just one example, the article itself has other ones.
They don’t. This is made up.
Summarized Apple lawyers said: "We can't offer alternative stores because they would be full of scams which would be bad for users. Our store is curated and safe for users.".
These are the very first words describing the App Store (https://www.apple.com/app-store/):
"The apps you love. From a place you can trust.
For over a decade, the App Store has proved to be a safe and trusted place to discover and download apps....And a big part of those experiences is ensuring that the apps we offer are held to the highest standards for privacy, security, and content."
The page then says this about security:
"Security for every app. At every level.
We ensure that apps come from known sources, are free of known malware, and haven’t been tampered with at the time of installation or launch."
And this about trust:
"Apps must adhere to our guidelines.
When you download an app, it should work as promised. Which is why human App Reviewers ensure that the apps on the App Store adhere to our strict app review standards. Our App Store Review Guidelines require apps to be safe, provide a good user experience, comply with our privacy rules, secure devices from malware and threats, and use approved business models."*
Approval doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Just because they don’t detect a scam doesn’t mean they approve of what it does - it is still in breach of contract with Apple.
If they had said anything like that you’d be be able to quote them.
No system is perfect, and when you get the realm of people submitting privileged information to third parties, all bets are always off. There is absolutely no way Apple could make guarantees about that. And they don't. Anywhere.
And no, saying that they review apps isn't a promise that it is "completely secure". That is absurd.
Trying for some security and confidence is a world removed from absolute security. The latter is effectively impossible.
This thread is farce. Anything if it gives people an opportunity to ply their rhetoric. It is a reminder that while HN has some good discussions, it has a lot of people who just want to make stupid arguments based on lies.
"But I thought you said TLS was completely secure? How could someripoffsite.com steal my cash?"
From apple.com/privacy:
"Every one of the more than 1.8 million apps on the App Store is required to follow strict privacy guidelines and report how it uses your data. And every app is rigorously reviewed by a team of experts at Apple."
Your private key is used to sign a transaction transfering your bitcoin to our account. We do not share your private key with anyone and it does not leave your phone.
I think it's a given that no one expects any QA or security process to perform perfectly. But there's some fuzzy line past which Apple's process fails to be "rigorous", and whatever that line is (or should be), courts will inevitably contrast the high expectations set by Apple's marketing with these real-world results when considering claims of negligence, liability, false advertising, anti-competitive behavior, etc.
Or in the alternative, Perhaps Apple should create a different tier of app review for any apps which claim to facilitate financial transactions (other than purchases, game currencies and microtransactions). This would encompass all apps for banking, investment and crypto. This tier should require a much higher verification of the developer's identity. The iOS sandbox should be further locked down to limit communication only to whitelisted IPs/domains which must all be under the control of the verified developer. And hey, you know what, let's even require the developer to submit the app in source code form.
> There's no practical way for Apple to prove that any app won't betray the user.
This is honestly a fundamental problem with both the App Review model, and the very concept of cryptocurrency (which for the record, I'm positively inclined towards, both technologically and ideologically):
- The Review model because the developer doesn't actually submit code, and static analysis tools can only go so far. Even if Apple started requiring source (opening many thorny IP liability issues), no reviewer can realistically audit every line. Even then, the mere fact WebViews are trivially common means a developer (or a malicious hacker) can always swap out the web backend with phishing attacks, credit card scams, etc.
- The cryptocurrency model because while it tells a story of "trustless" interaction and autonomy, in practice even the most knowledgable techies end up having to outsource trust to developers, firms, and communities. While it tends to be a safe bet to trust a highly-trafficked community GitHub over a random .ru site, (a) it still requires making a trust decision on imperfect information, and (b) non-technical users suffer an agent-principal dilemma when it comes time to make those decisions, which is a prerequisite to actually use crypto-currency. There are many, many shortcomings to the central-banking state currency model; but at least it has a pretty well-defined UX to the average "holder", and some hope of recourse in the event of a scam.
FWIW, browser-based wallets (with or without client-side storage) do exist, and would probably be used more heavily on iOS if Apple were to forbid native wallets. In which case, it's possible the guy who lost his life savings would have gotten scammed by a "trusted" web app instead.
Perhaps if Apple was held responsible for these kinds of expensive mishaps they would be more honest in their marketing. Maybe. And that's kind of the point of this article. :-P
[0]: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/554790-cook-says-apple...
I know they claim it is "the most secure" app store, which I am not sure what they use to back that up, it does seem to be one of the most secure platforms, it has my highest trust but I don't completely trust it.
As others have said I do believe a curated app is is more secure than an un curated one or no app store, but nothing is perfect and there is a trade off for that curation and tight control.
All cryptocurrency transfers (between digital wallets) are recorded in a public ledger (the blockchain).
Anybody can read it. But only those with the correct encryption keys to a wallet can write to it (add a record). Once someone steals the encryption key of your wallet A, it can be used to access your wallet and add a record to the public ledger that all the cryptocurrency of wallet A has been transferred to wallet B. This record cannot be changed by anyone.
But since every transaction on the ledger is a public record that anyone can read, one can theoretically track where the cryptocurrency goes from one wallet to another. This can be used to catch a thief by the police. Anyone can create a digital wallet anonymously, but to convert it into real currency you need to provide your real life identity and bank account to a crypto-exchange. This is the point where someone becomes exposed and loses their anonymity, and hence can be identified by the law.
There's a lot more wrong in this scenario than just the app store. If someone is going to be so amazingly careless with half a million dollars...
So basically no technical or smarts are needed to get to this situation. If anything this suggests the person is your fairly average "dumb" user.
* I said "Bitcoin" and not "cryptocurrency" intentionally. Because the jury is still own on the latter, but the former most certainly will not be the CC of the future IMHO due to its massive privacy shortcomings, among other things.
It also enables you to export those private keys so that you can keep a backup in the event of a hardware failure, because all hardware eventually fails.
It doesn’t lock you into their platform / ecosystem exclusively. It doesn’t prevent you from using that backup elsewhere.
I guess I'm victim-shaming here, but using mobile apps for large financial arrangements, no matter how trustworthy the app claims to be is a bad move. For this type of stuff you would use a clean computer with no known malware present, and use a privacy-aware browser like Firefox or Brave preferably with `HTTPS Everywhere` addon installed with the EASE feature turned on to avoid plaintext leaks / traffic going over HTTP.
Large transactions need extra special care. You need a trusted device with a trusted OS and a trusted browser, preferably with `EASE` turned on in HTTPS Everywhere so plaintext secrets can't leak out of your machine. You also need to vet the HTTPS Everywhere extension and ensure it came from the official addons site. You would also harden the OS. Using Linux is preferable over Windows 10 since Windows is targeted heavily by malware gangs.
At the end of the day people are responsible for not doing business with shady stores or people. But the idea that a single QR code can empty my entire account is sobering...
edit: to be clear, I'm not blaming Apple for not stopping these scams, at their scale, it's just practically impossible to stop every scam, but by making their unrealistic promise that everything on the app store is safe, they are misleading people into this false sense of security.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-...