top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 3 months ago*

This seems like it would be a sizable target for ransomware. Why include an encryption program if you can have the OS do it?

All the ransomware needs to do is make iOS think it's a payment provider.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    The article is a week old. Apple has since announced a leasing program and told The Verge the restricted mode isn't for it. They didn't say what it is for though.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They are probably expecting a recession and people to mess up their credit but keep the phone.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm assuming American carriers demanded feature parity with Android where they install system apps that do exactly this.

    Doubt it would fly in the US.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Duress profile code?

  • source
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Fair. Like the boot on a vehicle.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The difference is, this is a boot built into every single vehicle, leased or sold, that can be remotely activated at any time and we have to trust the mega corp not to abuse the power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I'm usually very pro consumer but I'm less bothered by this one because apple has 0 incentive to abuse that power. People would riot. Although thinking about it a government demanding its use could be a concern too...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    A government could use it.

    It could be very targeted (not enough to cause a riot but enough to silence the right people.)

    It’s also a nice exploit for the bad guys, like ransomware gangs, Israeli “security” companies, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • They don't need to do it. It's the possibility of doing it what is already wrong. What happens if pedohitler decides that he needs to shutdown the phones for some bullshit reason before the midterms? You think apple won't bow and do as daddy trump says?

    This is a major concern because it's written in the OS directly. It's not just something they install in your phone if it's a lease meaning that even if your phone is not leased, they can do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -23 points 3 months ago (29 children)
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    I think the discrepancy here is if leasing devices at which I is agree fair.

    What I take umbridge with is the way ownership is being removed, for something that we know can be produced plentifully. And the push to give everything as a service or lease.

    As a sociaty We are allowing tiered privileges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 3 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    I think you will find that systems of ownership and being reduced or removed and systems of leasing or renting are being pushed. So its becoming less of an option...surprising to the benefit of the rich...not the user paying

    Faff around with the language and message all you like, but rent/lease/asa a service etc are all being touted against a 'option' at a time where we are seeing destruction of ownership. This is not good for the average person and I am always surprised by the amount of people who are happy to take this or bootlick on the matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Plus we’ve had contract phones for decades without the manufacturer putting yet more dead switches in our devices… Do we really want more of this shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Agreed, but I don't see anything to suggest that the leased phones are getting a special edition of iOS 27 that has the locks. I think what they're saying is that every iPhone running iOS 27 will have the locks, and they will be able to be triggered by third parties. That is worrying.

    If you own the device outright, it should not have kill switches. I absolutely understand the point of them on the leased phone. They should not be on the phone that is paid for outright.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (16 children)

    We’ve seen how big tech bends the knee to Trump. What if he told Apple to disable every iPhone due to some made up bullshit state of emergency. This affects everyone’s iPhone not just the leased ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Which is something they already can do, just push an update and they are done. And after they simply go out of the market: nobody will buy their phone anymore.

    But this is something different, here we are talking about something that is not different than reposessing a car if you don't pay the loan you used to buy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    I don't want my car manufacturer sending an update to disable my push to start either. My car is paid off it's mine, I should not have that on my car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Here we are talking about things not completely paid off. If you use a loan to buy something (a car, a phone, a house, whatever) until you paid off all the loan the thing is not yours.

    If you don't pay your car loan, they can reposses it, if you don't pay your phone loan they block it, if you don't pay your data plan they close it. I don't see anything strange here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    I think to remember to have read something about the possibility for a car manufacturer to remotely disable the car if requested or defaulted, something like once you park the car and turn off the engine it will not start again so no security problem, but I cannot pinpoing when/where i read it or if it ever went beyond the stage of an idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    If requested by who?

    IIRC by the seller, if you did not pay the montly check for your loan they were able to disable the car and then recollect it

    That would actually be a fantastic security feature for owners to be able to do if their car is stolen.

    Yep, it was a fantastic security feature for the owners but also a way to disable the car if you do not pay the loan.

    In some way yes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)