Not any longer. Users must explicitly approve app access to contacts the first time it's requested.
Yes, Apple just told us your fingerprint will be stored locally. So? Does that mean Apple si telling the truth, or couldn't leave a backdoor for NSA to get the data? No it doesn't, and we wouldn't know if they did do that. That's the problem with closed software.
It's also a guarantee that Apple knows this, so why bother lying?
That's also the problem with open software people get off of the internet/provider in binary form instead of compiling it themselves.
That is, all software.
I don't have a solution for this problem, I'm just commenting the fact that it is more complex than "compile from source" and that you have to draw a line somewhere unless you assemble your hardware from raw materials and write your own software.
If one is going to reason in black and white, then the only answer is that everything, absolutely everything, is susceptible to being compromised. In such a black and white world, there's no security benefit for open source software, because it is also possible that you could be tricked into running something that compromises your security, as it is also possible to have a design flaw in the architecture of open source code, as it is with closed source code.
It is only when one allows the concept of risk that a coherent security picture can emerge. Leave absolutes to mathematical proofs, and trust and risk assessments to the real world, at least until we can prove code correctness for an entire computer system.
Not stretching the point at all, because this isn't the only case of a security or trust breach, and once that is broken, you have no reason to trust them again.
OP's post made the ridiculous claim that somehow Apple's 'controlled' approach protects users. I provided evidence which proved that false.
Blame Path &c., not Apple, for abusing a feature that was originally provided for the convenience of developers and users together.
> Blame Path &c., not Apple
Oh sure, I won't blame Apple for leaving the door wide open and turning a blind eye for years! Wow.
This is foolish. Every non-trivial piece of software will eventually succumb to a security flaw. This does not mean the software is untrustworthy in toto.
You fix the bug and move on.
You may not have any interest in those restrictions on communication, but you'd have an easier time getting someone to admit their ignorance.
Anyway, for years apps have been collecting user data without interference.
My point still stands. Apple can't protect users on their own platform. Keep those blinders on, I guess.
Nah, no where did that happen. It's just hard for some people to handle truths and make connections.
> NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach [that of having a closed source operating system] protects users
Definitely shifted goal posts.
Unrelated: you've said nothing to support this point anywhere throughout this thread.
That's not true.
The address book was an example of that.
Open source software freedom means the freedom to write software that slurps up whole address books.
And it's the user's responsibility to read the source code to ensure it's not doing that. Because obviously most people are capable to do that and also have the time to do that for every piece of software they install, right?
At the end of the day, I'd rather Apple and the NSA have my data than some random hacker in russia.
I know what "Free Software" means. Your definition has no connection to what you assert here: "Apple could still have audited free software into its appstore as it does for nonfree software currently."
So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source. Furthermore, expecting normal users to examine source code for security holes is an unreasonable burden. The security of iPhone apps is based on how much we trust Apple to maintain that security, and to review the apps. Not in our personal freedom to examine the source code, which we can do already, for many apps.
You confuse developer control/freedom with user control/freedom. They are very different things. A user doesn't have programming skills, and their personal interests are in freedom from malware- freedom from developers that have the ability to do whatever they feel like with the user's data. They have no interest in being able to compile their own apps and run them on their own hardware.
On the other hand, developers are interested in having the freedom of not being in a sandbox. not having to go through an app review/approval process. The freedom from security restrictions. The freedom to slurp address books. The freedom to override any hardware button, use any API, without limit.
Do you not see how developer freedom and user freedom are in conflict?
That's simply not true. If Apple opened its distribution process, and everything was cross compiled (which is already the case) none of what I quoted above would be true. This is nothing for or against free software, it is about correctness.
You would have to mean something else by "open its distribution process"
Or just blindly trust that Apple knows what they're doing and that it has its customer's interests bound to its own commercial interests.
Sheesh, does everyone on HN need everything spelled out for them?
I'm running swype (a keyboard) without access to the network (it crashes if it tries to update) and it works just fine for its intended purpose.
And 2.3 is OLD!
oh, and no, google android and operator/major brand abused android sucks and should be left out of this discussion. Buying locked phones (and by locked i mean the boot loader being blocked) is the same as buying an iphone. sadly.