For all of Apple's App Store vetting one would think this kind of behavior would have thrown up a flag at some point no?
It'd be harder to pull off on Google Play Store but I think Apple could make this happen if they wanted to.
Ethically, and morally, requiring the source to be available might be good.
to be clear, this is the reaction I anticipated when I wrote the gp. I don't think this is a cut and dried topic. I was merely expressing one side of the argument.
I don't think Apple compiling and signing binaries changes much when it comes to the average user and their security and trust model. It is my impression that Apple could easily intercept any keyboard input if they wanted to and frankly I wouldn't put it beyond the people at some other companies like Facebook or LinkedIn but I don't think we have found any good reason to lose faith in Apple's (or Google's) ability and will to do the right thing. Of course, ideally the idea of Trust No One is great but at some point you have to trust someone because who can read all the lines of all the code in the world?
I don't think Apple needs access to the source code to do things it needs to do. I was just saying that they have enough clout that the platform iOS has a solid foundation and can weather the storm that would inevitably rise from such a divisive decision.
I wouldn’t ever stake my reputation on signed code which hasn’t been signed by myself!
The only thing it can do do is show Apple you compiled the code.
There's no way you as the dev or the end user can verify the installed software really originated from you.
Excessive NTP queries aren't going to cause noticeable issues on the device or on Apple's test network, especially with only one or two people testing simultaneously.
edit: snapchat apparantly isn't a facebook property, but it has very deep pockets and as such my comment still stands.