Apple might be implementing a VPN censorship order in Brazil
status.proton.me
status.proton.me
And this is why I want to have the option to install whatever I want on my devices without needing to use the app store everyone uses. Not a very popular position among Apple users because everything must come only from the App Store for some reason, but when something like this happens, you have no alternatives.
Because "security" is a great marketing point and they've bought into that completely, thinking that trusting Apple and having it control your life is a good thing.
Random example: the fuss about the facebook advertising/tracking SDKs back in the day. When apple started giving unique device IDs to each app, this cross-app tracking mesh imploded and they were screaming about lost revenue. Maybe you find billions of dollars worth of tracking to be creepy, maybe not. But if facebook had the option of getting that functionality and revenue back via an easy sideloading or some other frictionless alternative mechanism then the entire app ecosystem that was even remotely related to facebook tracking would have been off the app store in a heartbeat. Instead of being at the mercy of apple, you, and your extended tech-support family would have been at the mercy of facebook.
Apple is no angel, but the potential downsides are limitless. Instead of the facebook tracking example, consider partially or overtly malicious apps that your parents are now installing on their phones (as well as their malware-ridden PCs).
On the other hand, sideloading is a fairly low barrier for technically competent folks. Stuff like iResign and other tools have been around forever. You can grab any pirated/hacked/etc app package, sign it yourself, and sideload it via your dev credentials. But at least you don't have to worry about your parents doing that. Or facebook telling your parents to do that.
Anyway, that's a "for some reason" example. The readership of HN are not the target audience that the app store gatekeeping is there for.
(But don't get me started on fees/commissions/etc - that's indefensible IMO)
This is why a malware app on an iPhone can only do limited damage. It can't access all files, it can't encrypt the storage, it can't launch a DDoS in the background because the OS doesn't let it run, etc. iOS or Android are not Windows.
If you want to know how it works in practice, look at Android. It has supported sideloading for a long, long time. People do install a lot of crap, but that's from the app store. My parents are really bad with tech and never sideloaded anything.
And there are other layers of security too. If you go to a store, buy a Samsung, a Google Pixel, a OnePlus, Nokia, etc, they all come with Google Services, which includes Google Play Protect... essentially an anti-virus that looks at your apps and flags anything that is known to be malicious.
Are there any downsides? Yes. Are they as bad as some say? The Android example tells us that it doesn't have to be that bad.
Sandbox escapes are incredibly common, Apple still controls eliminating your business from iphones if you attempt to use an exploit to pull user data when you distribute through the App Store.
If you can do distribution via your own site, it becomes a whack-a-mole game with Apple - where data exfiltration exploits are found, Apple fixes them in a new update, then we have to wait for people to update.
And until most users update, the at-fault company is busy siphoning data from any user who can't update (e.g. no wifi / limited data plan) or any user who is slow to approve the update dialog. Eventually the company's app will grow to contain an exploit for the last dozen iOS versions that conditionally execute based on the iOS version/feature detection/probing for exploit availability.
If iOS' sandbox is that insecure, then they have a problem on their hands.
There are downsides for Apple to the rate of their 30% cut. That is why they are doing their best to keep sideloading off their devices. Not to protect users - as you already stated there are many other layers of protection in place for that - but to protect their revenue.
It's not like the App Store review process is particularly trustworthy either. There have been plenty of stories here and elsewhere of that.
Almost no app developers had your best interests at heart
Neither does Apple nor the developers of apps in the App Store. In fact, given the fees, they have even less incentive to avoid greed.
Just because the app store is closed it doesn't mean it's not full of crapware?
All the "games" are IAP fests. Every time you search for some big name app you get the app (if available) and a bunch of results that are named so deceptively that you're afraid to click on them.
Every week there's another story about a flashlight app that charges a 50/month or 9.99/week subscription.
So tell me how Apple's app curation helps?
> If that risk seems remote now
Maybe to you? I haven't looked at iOS games since the days of the iPad 1, when Apple hadn't pushed all game devs into IAPs yet.
And the few apps I bought, they were mentioned on forums not connected to Apple. And as you said yourself, there's always the chance the app gets sold and the terms change, and the walled garden won't help a single bit.
What about Android, which lets you sideload apps? How many people do you know that sideload apps or have installed a malicious app from outside the Play Store?
Yes, the App Store was and is important, but you need to look at other platforms if you really think that Apple allowing app sideloading (proper sideloading, not that shit they're doing in the EU) is going to take us back to the days of browser toolbars. iOS is not Windows XP.
A very specific type of VPN, which is easily blocked.
I don't know if it's monopolistic as the comment you replied to says, but in the context of the thread, the build-in support doesn't fix the problem banning apps from the app store creates.
You are right, and neither Apple does.
The difference between Apple's response and Twitter's response[0] to internet censorship efforts by the Brazilian government also shows why privately owned companies are more likely to stand on principle than publicly traded (i.e. stock market owned) companies which mainly answer to the pension funds and gamblers who control the stock market.
You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made.
Guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
It doesn't sell as well as iPhones or is only available on a small number of countries, but that's a different question. Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone.
You’re misunderstanding why people want an iPhone. There are many reasons, but “they just work” is a common refrain…and security underpins that.
Even if you installed something malicious - something that should be a widespread problem on Android but isn't for some reason - the app would still run in the same sandbox that stops it from do a lot of bad things. iOS/Android is not Windows and Apple will always control that sandbox and OS updates.
But I'm not going to insist on this, it's your phone after all... I just look at what happens in some countries where you go from a good situation to a bad one pretty quickly (eg: Russia, some things in the US, etc) and suddenly Apple bans a VPN that lets you read outside news and things like that and you're essentially f*cked. I don't see how being in this position is good for anyone.
It's worth pointing out that this is a very recent development in Android land that only arrived due to EU regulations.
In any case, what I struggle to understand is the position some have when it comes to install apps on iOS. I understand the security angle, but you can do it right (with Apple always in control of the OS and the permissions apps get), still be in the Apple ecosystem, and having the option to install a VPN app after Apple receives a court order to block said app.
Oh right, the mobile Linux experience is so bad only the most devoted will subject themselves to it.
I get that a lot of nerds long for the day when "desktop computer janitor" was a well-paid job and normal people couldn't use a computer effectively for any length of time. But that doesn't mean it was a good time.
To be fair, Apple doesn't have much choice since government does have a legal handle against their commercial activities at least. This would not be the case if it was the choice of users.
This situation was entirely predictable and I believe it is a case where some people just make stupid choices (not if you buy Apple, but if you argue that everything has to be locked down without the option to opt-out for that matter).
Apple users can argue all they want about not wanting side loading, but one day that will come back and bite them.
I just don't get it. Why the heck do IT folks who know this crap from left and right keep blindly celebrating whatever that company comes up with. Just because they have huge market cap, is money really your primary judge of whats good and moral and worthy of your resources? Phones went from useful portable call/sms device into by far the most important electronic device in our lives and there is no way back.
More than any shininess and massive PR I care about options it gives me. Options means freedom, coupled of course with responsibility. I, nor absolutely nobody I know of in IT, is installing random unknown apps just for the heck of it. But when I need to and I know what I am doing, I can do it without breaking a sweat since its my and only my darn device and its basic purpose is installing & running apps. That's just basic freedom, and darn important one.
I've heard all the arguments for apple, here and elsewhere. Nothing, even combined together, trumps freedom of choice and thats directly against the core of their company policy. Time for some EU decisions I'd say to get superior product than elsewhere (although they will try to cripple it hard, very hard as we've seen in few childish steps recently).
Maybe it's rational on some level; if you manage to give the people you prefer limitless power while they rule, maybe they'll become powerful enough to end elections.
edit: of course Moraes did the same for Bolsonaro as for Lula. Some people's ideologies rest mainly on their hatred of the general population, not a preference for the rule of any particular party.
What you're suggesting would be a escalation and we should worry about that when it happens. Package names (the real name of an app on Android) can be randomised, for example.
The problem right now is that if you own an Apple device in Brazil, you can't install the app of this VPN provider. That doesn't sit right with me. Android has its issues, but if I can find the apk, then I can install it. What can you do with an iPhone? Perhaps use a 3rd party Wireguard or OpenVPN client that hasn't been blocked yet and download a profile from Proton's website? What happens when that client is blocked too?
On the other hand, it may be just incompetence somewhere, as another thread here says.
So this seems like a tech glitch, could even be some block implemented for example at the Embratel backbone connecting Brazil to the rest of the world. Or, could indeed be the unlikely but possible cases of Apple just responding to a “secret” order or deciding out of its own volition to block them.
Anyone has any idea what's going on down there?
Relevant news:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-14/leaked-me...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240818034709/https://www.bloom...
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1775516415023251835
Note that Twitter is not refusing to comply with local laws. They’re saying that the orders from Moraes are not legal under Brazilian law, and therefore they are refusing to comply. Moraes is one justice. There is a due process there. You can’t just arbitrarily order bans on social media accounts or call for people of the opposing political camp to be arrested for illegal speech, even in Brazil. Moraes, for his part, claims he was given the power to unilaterally censor speech and arrest violators by the Superior Electoral Court (a different court from the one he is a sitting justice on). Which makes no sense, since the courts cannot make up laws, since they are not the legislature.
By the way Musk isn’t the only one criticized Moraes. Even the New York Times wrote an article that labeled him as a threat to Brazilian democracy, as have various press organizations:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/world/americas/brazil-ale...
More disturbingly, their new leader Lula - who has a history of corruption and authoritarianism - has been calling for criminalizing lies, whatever that means:
About VPN: As far as I know, there is no previous case in Brazil where VPN services were targeted. Apple do not have a huge market share in Brazil (just 16.54% for iOS), so it would be very strange trying to block something there. I do not think that blocking VPN makes any sense and I would wait for Apple pronouncement before suggesting "censorship" or something like this.
These are great comments from fellow brazilian HNers, I always point to them whenever context is needed:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
I also submitted this bit of news here on HN back in 2022:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/world/americas/brazil-onl...
I'm pretty happy with Apple's walled garden but IMHO the risk is too high to run the society on infrastructure that can be used to fully control the communications and individual ability of people on press of a button.
I fully expect the US to learn their lesson after the US elections this year, either pro-Trump or the anti-Trump folks will learn their lesson the hard way.
Whenever there's the technical ability, someone will want to use it. That's also why all the governments want to listen to our conversations and access our data, they are also always well intentioned(in their mind the solution to stop the bad people is just a click away, how can you deny this?). The problem is of course, either someone will get corrupted and use this to do something horrible(tech designed to save the children will be used to target people) or people will disagree on what's what's the right thing to do and the tech will be used to destroy them(decisions on something will be met with protests and the tech will be used to silence/cancel/catch/demoralize/block communication etc).
I'm afraid the world will go through a techno-fascism stage.
It's more like Big Tech has become its own unelected global government. They already go beyond local government orders and control what information much of the population receives.
I'm afraid the world will go through a techno-fascism stage.
Will? We are already living in it.
In many of these cases, such a China, Russia, and some Latin American countries, the local government is also not elected.
> I fully expect the US to learn their lesson after the US elections
> I'm afraid the world will go through a techno-fascism stage
Do you remember last 4 years? All the censorship and election interference from big tech?
Hunka (it was just one person) was Waffen-SS, not SS -- and yes, there's a major difference between the two. From Wikipedia:
Non-Germanic units were not considered to be part of the SS, which still maintained its racial criteria, but rather were considered to be foreign nationals serving under the command of the SS. As a general rule, an "SS Division" was made up of Germans or other Germanic peoples, while a "Division of the SS" was made up of non-Germanic volunteers and conscripts.
So a "literal" Nazi, no.
There was similar case with another SS member in Canadian Parliament a few decades ago.
> was Waffen-SS, not SS -- and yes, there's a major difference between the two.
Poland asked for his extradition. They seems to have different opinion.
From wiki:
Elements of the Waffen-SS Galizien worked alongside one of the most brutal units of Nazi Germany, the SS-Sonderbattalion Dirlewanger,[119] which had carried out brutal anti-partisan activities in Belarus and Poland, and had taken part in the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising.[123] The Waffen-SS Galizien destroyed several Polish communities in western Ukraine during the winter and spring of 1944.[124] Specifically, the 4th and 5th SS Police Regiments have been accused of murdering Polish civilians in the course of anti-guerilla activity.
But the distinction is nonetheless very significant, for obvious reasons -- and the fact of Poland having considered such an action doesn't change this fact.
It may also be driving the fact nothing seems to have come of the internal extradition effort so far. In particular, there's no sign that Poland has actually asked for extradition, only that they were publicly considering it in the aftermath of the scandal.
And that in turn -- could likely be because the sole fact of his being a member of that division (given how its status was decided at Nuremburg) does not present them with sufficient grounds to do so (absent any other signs of criminality). Being as, unlike other Waffen-SS divisions, foreign-born divisions such as his were specifically exempt from the additional criminal charge of being "an integral part of the SS" that the native-born divisions were. That's because legally and administratively they weren't (nor were its recruits subject to SS or even NS indoctrination, for the most part).
They were also intrinsically less involved in the Final Solution, unlike the regular Waffen-SS, by and large (in particular they were not involved operating the camps, nor did they contribute to units of the Einsatzgruppen).
This is why one can't just use the labels "SS", "Waffen-SS" interchangeably.
Or assume that the latter is simply a subset of the former.
BTW this isn't about nitpicking. It's very, very important to understand that one of the main reasons the Final Solution was so successful was that it didn't require all of its willing helpers to be fanatical, drooling Nazis (or even to care at all about its ideology or aims, let alone be members of its registered organizations).
By and large they were regular folks, "fighting for their country" or so they believed. Or doing what they thought they had to do to survive.
It was separate army, directly under Nazi party. Many members were German. They have different weapons, their own logistics, separate chain of command and so on.
> They were also intrinsically less involved in the Final Solution, unlike the regular Waffen-SS, by and large (in particular they were not involved operating the camps,
There were atrocities outside of West Europe as well.
I didn't say they were.
like you are trying to whitewash
I'm doing nothing of the sort.
Simply pointing out that this particular corner of reality is different from what you thought it was.
It was directly under Nazi party. Many members were German.
Not the non-Germanic legions, which were forbidden from becoming party members for precisely that reason.
Do you mean that whoever wins, they will abuse their power to suppress the other side in an unethical way? If so, I agree. The reality is simply that we have given to much power to the government and other institutions, while the individual is losing it.
Proton made its VPNs freely available in Venezuela after the fraudulent elections. They're probably aware of it. These people are all defenders of the venezuelan dictatorship after all.
This is why I love the power of F-Droid, Linux, and things like Apple not making browsers run its engine under the hood, forced 'App Stores'
You never. Ever. Ever. Force a VPN censorship. Access to the internet is our last hope, as a house divided against itself, falls. To separate the people and control their communications, is an act of war. While this may sound extreme, imagine going to log on the internet and not being able to know whats going on, or contact any of your friends while being told bullshit on local TV channels and curfews being 1pm while not having money to buy groceries.
Could you get back with me when you actually know?
As for Brazil - who do you get mad at? The people? Most of the people are just trying to survive day to day and aren’t involved in these power struggles. Everyone from independent journalists, to press organizations, to US House committees, to political opposition within Brazil have complained about the new hard push for authoritarian censorship by the sitting government under Lula. But who can create change? I think corporations have more power to influence than maybe all of these groups.
They were happy to deal with the CCP for decades and that only started changing when it became clear that China is turning into a major global power that will not simply roll over and do what it's told.
Basically every other country of any international prominence behaves in the same way, I'm not singling out the US.
The brazilian supreme court.
I don’t think you can run a successful international organization without respecting the local law and customs.