Hacker News Reader

Comment by LanzVonL | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the most obvious answer that Apple, like other US tech firms such as Google, simply creates these wild backdoors for the NSA/GCHQ directly? Every time one's patched, three more pop up. We already know Apple and Google cooperate with the spy agencies very eagerly.

View on HN

I consider that plausible with Google due to Google's funding history [0], but Apple is afaik way less "influenced" and the way this pwn was pulled off could also have been done by compromising Apple's hardware supply chain and not Apple itself.

Particularly considering how in the past Apple has been very willing to be on the receiving end of negative headlines for not giving US agencies decrypted access to iCloud accounts of terrorist suspects, with Google I don't remember it ever having been the target of such controversy, meaning they willingly oblige with all incoming requests.

[0] https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

> We already know Apple and Google cooperate with the spy agencies very eagerly.

The evidence clearly indicates otherwise…

How so? Any competent intelligence service will not just depend on the goodwill of a corporation to secure access to assets and intelligence.

If they cooperate that's good and convenient, but that does not mean the intelligence service will not set in place contingencies for if the other side suddenly decides not to play ball anymore.

I said nothing about anything you stated, that’s all clearly possible, I specifically refuted the unsupported claim that Apple “eagerly cooperate with spy agencies”, where there’s ample evidence to support an opposite claim.

Ahem, Snowden, PRISM anyone?

Ahem, you mean you have a single example, from a decade ago, one where Apple was hardly a key player (hence why Apple didn’t sign onto PRISM until half a decade after Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, et all), as conclusive evidence of “eagerness to partner with spy agencies”, despite numerous public cases where they’ve done the opposite… got it!

That makes sense, would you agree to the revised statement:

"We already know Apple cooperated with the spy agencies behind the publics back"?

No, I won’t agree to context free blanket statements which are specifically worded to imply something which is simply not provably true, especially given evidence to the opposite. If you knew anything about PRISM at all, even the technical details publicly available with the minimalist of effort on your part, you wouldn’t be asking.

The struggle itself is a clue, nobody takes time out of their day to defend Apple and PRISM on the Internet. Opsec needs enhancement.

> nobody takes time out of their day to defend Apple and PRISM on the Internet

I’m definitely not defending Apple to be clear. I just believe facts matter, especially when it involves security topics. Parroting around misleading and/or straight false statements related to security topics does nobody any good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com