The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive, and pay for that lie, is proof the Apple propaganda is working exactly as intended.
> The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive, and pay for that lie, is proof the Apple propaganda is working exactly as intended.
My Aunt Millie's iPhone is secure against herself because she can't install random garbage off the Internet and is in a walled garden.
As someone who works in IT: users are often their (and their organization's) own worst enemy. We've tried training and blacklisting (with anti-virus) for decades, and it appears that whitelisting and locking things down is what actually works.
I'd be happy with a 'compromise' where there's a factory reset where you can install your own code but it blows an e-fuse to indicate that device is no longer 'OEM certified secure' state.
> I'd be happy with a 'compromise' where there's a factory reset where you can install your own code but it blows an e-fuse to indicate that device is no longer 'OEM certified secure' state.
You just described what Samsung does with their phones. You can unlock them, but even if you later switch back to the normal OS, some features are permanently disabled by that fuse.
Except “my Mac’s very secure and I can install whatever I want” is a complete fallacy. It isn’t secure - case in point Muse recently trawling through people’s messages. Or Mac cleaner like apps that trick users into installing them and giving liberal access.
I think if you don’t get the point of protecting a device against the user, you’ve not had to help un-tech savvy relatives get out of situations where dark or confusing UI practices have got themselves into a mess.
Security and freedom are mutually exclusive for the vast majority of non-technical people who will happily infect themselves over and over with malware.
In my case, it is the fact that a secure and free (as in speech) alternative does not exist that leads me to believe that. And not in the sense that it’s theoretically secure, I mean in the practical sense that I cannot trust my parents to use any currently available “free” device and not immediately load it up with malware.
> In my case, it is the fact that a secure and free (as in speech) alternative does not exist that leads me to believe that.
I don't think that is a logical statement.
Just something doesn't exist, does not prove that it can't exist.
You need a stronger proof than that to show that in my opinion.
At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.
>I don't think that is a logical statement. Just something doesn't exist, does not prove that it can't exist.
Let me expand the claim to include the caveats:
>The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive [under current technological/financial/political constraints]
>At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.
All I know is, my and my parents’ quality of life is far better after switching them to devices where they are not empowered.
You need to have a stronger argument than "it has never existed and doesn't exist now, but it MIGHT exist IN THEORY". That's an enormously weak argument. Borderline dishonest really.
By definition, it could be more secure if people actually would be able to inspect it. Is it regardless the most secure? Hard to say. GrapheneOS is quite secure, probably more.
GrapeheneOS are both operating systems where a single party has the signing keys to run any software they want on your device at any time, and even remotely brick it.
I for one am not comfortable with anyone having that much power over something that is supposed to be mine, so they are the same to me. Untrustable black boxes.
The difference between GrapheneOS and iOS is that it is 100% open source, replicable, able to self-sign, and only <1% of the part has dynamic code loading, which is incredibly low compared to any major OS.
The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive, and pay for that lie, is proof the Apple propaganda is working exactly as intended.
> The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive, and pay for that lie, is proof the Apple propaganda is working exactly as intended.
My Aunt Millie's iPhone is secure against herself because she can't install random garbage off the Internet and is in a walled garden.
As someone who works in IT: users are often their (and their organization's) own worst enemy. We've tried training and blacklisting (with anti-virus) for decades, and it appears that whitelisting and locking things down is what actually works.
I'd be happy with a 'compromise' where there's a factory reset where you can install your own code but it blows an e-fuse to indicate that device is no longer 'OEM certified secure' state.
> I'd be happy with a 'compromise' where there's a factory reset where you can install your own code but it blows an e-fuse to indicate that device is no longer 'OEM certified secure' state.
You just described what Samsung does with their phones. You can unlock them, but even if you later switch back to the normal OS, some features are permanently disabled by that fuse.
My Mac's very secure and I can install whatever I want. But it wouldn't be secure or private to do that on iPhone, because profit.
Except “my Mac’s very secure and I can install whatever I want” is a complete fallacy. It isn’t secure - case in point Muse recently trawling through people’s messages. Or Mac cleaner like apps that trick users into installing them and giving liberal access.
I think if you don’t get the point of protecting a device against the user, you’ve not had to help un-tech savvy relatives get out of situations where dark or confusing UI practices have got themselves into a mess.
Security and freedom are mutually exclusive for the vast majority of non-technical people who will happily infect themselves over and over with malware.
In my case, it is the fact that a secure and free (as in speech) alternative does not exist that leads me to believe that. And not in the sense that it’s theoretically secure, I mean in the practical sense that I cannot trust my parents to use any currently available “free” device and not immediately load it up with malware.
> In my case, it is the fact that a secure and free (as in speech) alternative does not exist that leads me to believe that.
I don't think that is a logical statement. Just something doesn't exist, does not prove that it can't exist. You need a stronger proof than that to show that in my opinion. At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.
>I don't think that is a logical statement. Just something doesn't exist, does not prove that it can't exist.
Let me expand the claim to include the caveats:
>The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive [under current technological/financial/political constraints]
>At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.
All I know is, my and my parents’ quality of life is far better after switching them to devices where they are not empowered.
You need to have a stronger argument than "it has never existed and doesn't exist now, but it MIGHT exist IN THEORY". That's an enormously weak argument. Borderline dishonest really.
How do we know it is, besides apple marketing?
Given how many high profile politicians, journalists and businessmen have gotten their phones hacked, the iPhone is not unhackable.
It's not that secure anyway, as evidenced by the multiple 1-click exploits going around on X this week.
Compared to what, all the open source projects having exploits this week?
This is a silly argument to make. By pretty much any standard, the iPhone has really good security.
> It's not that secure anyway, as evidenced by the multiple 1-click exploits going around on X this week.
Anyone know if those exploit(s) worked on iPhones with Lockdown Mode enabled?
* https://support.apple.com/en-ca/105120
* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/fbi-stymied-by-a...
"Lockdown Mode" is something the user enables. If the user wants to trade functionality for security, it can happen. Good.
The "no root access, no bootloader unlock, no installing your own Apple-unapproved software" bullshit is mandated by Apple, with no opt-out.
It would be. You would have more eyeballs if you had an open bootloader instead of this program they're offering.
Why not? In the default locked state it's just as secure as before, and unlocking it would require both physical access and your Apple ID.
That’s exactly what NSO group and governments worldwide want you to keep believing.
It isn't, the most secure phone is GrapheneOS.
And if you only take into account stock phones, stock Pixels are still above it as per exploit costs.
So they are basically 3rd or 4th place if you add some other Android flagships into the list.
By definition, it could be more secure if people actually would be able to inspect it. Is it regardless the most secure? Hard to say. GrapheneOS is quite secure, probably more.
GrapeheneOS are both operating systems where a single party has the signing keys to run any software they want on your device at any time, and even remotely brick it.
I for one am not comfortable with anyone having that much power over something that is supposed to be mine, so they are the same to me. Untrustable black boxes.
The difference between GrapheneOS and iOS is that it is 100% open source, replicable, able to self-sign, and only <1% of the part has dynamic code loading, which is incredibly low compared to any major OS.
[dead]