Re:Apple’s dangerous game, part 2
by the8472 on Monday September 22, 2014 @10:44AM
(#8350732)
The whole premise of the argument strikes me as odd. Users always had the option of running a phone OS that does not send the keys to the kingdom to the mothership.
Desktop operating systems similarly provide such tools either out of the box (e.g. bitlocker, filevault, dm-crypt) or through 3rd party applications (e.g. truecrypt).
Apple's old security model may have been convenient for law enforcment agencies, but that does not mean that they are entitled to this convenience, i.e. that it is reasonable to demand that this security model is the only one offered to users.
So Apple merely switched to a different model that other systems were already providing out-of-the-box.
Desktop operating systems similarly provide such tools either out of the box (e.g. bitlocker, filevault, dm-crypt) or through 3rd party applications (e.g. truecrypt).
Apple's old security model may have been convenient for law enforcment agencies, but that does not mean that they are entitled to this convenience, i.e. that it is reasonable to demand that this security model is the only one offered to users.
So Apple merely switched to a different model that other systems were already providing out-of-the-box.