Apple and sabotage blessed by the user


These days we learned the philosophy railway Apple could have negative effects for many users again. If you’ve had to repair the Home button on your iPhone 6 and 6S and you did an unofficial service, you’ll end up with a phone brick to upgrade to the new version of iOS in September.

Those responsible for Apple gave a coherent argument about an unofficial service that button repaired compromised the security of Touch ID sensor. For many users, however, the problem is not that the official Apple service can charge more than one unofficial for repair: the problem is that for many people there is no official Apple center nearby and have to go to these alternative services.

Image Source: Google Image

Apple should just touch your phone

Spokesmen for Apple explained the reason for the appearance of it and now famous ‘Error 53’ to upgrade iPhones that appeared in those who had made those informal repairs:

We protect the fingerprint data using a secure key, which is uniquely paired with Touch ID sensor.When the iPhone is serviced by an authorized service or an Apple Store and you have to make changes in the sensor, the pairing is revalidated. This check ensures that the device and all functions related to the Touch ID sensor remain safe. Without this unique pairing one Touch ID sensor could be replaced by other malicious sensor, you would gain access to secure key. When iOS detects that the pairing fails the sensor and Apple Pay they are completely disabled for security reasons.

When an iPhone is repaired in an unauthorized service, there are defective components such as screens that affect Touch ID sensor that can cause a mismatch of the key with the sensor. If it happens, the next update of the system appears Error 53. If a customer encounters therefore recommend that you contact Apple support.

In essence, as our fellow Applesfera commented in Cupertino hide behind that performance and safety provided by Touch ID to dejártelo clear: anyone touching your phone . We should only touch us, says Apple, who are the ones who can guarantee the security of your data.

The problem is not just that Apple makes that decision may be moot. The problem is also in the update no notice of that fact. For users like journalist Antonio Olmos, one of those who blew the whistle on the ‘Error 53’ at Apple should, at least, be notified by a message such as “If you have repaired your phone into an unofficial Apple service, you should not apply this update“.

Who to trust?

This argument has a strong delegation of trust. We trust Apple enough to cede the management of something as sensitive as the sensor Touch ID and our fingerprint? According to data, we have, even Apple can actually decipher the information that fingerprint, so the only thing they can do is to try to ensure that the repair is official sensors used “not malicious” in store thirds If they could sneak.

Here, of course, must decide who we trust. Do we provide sufficient trust the service, “the corner”, albeit an unofficial solution provider? Theoretically, Apple’s argument makes sense, especially when Tim Cook has been a leading voice when it comes to defending the privacy of users and to criticize the government internecine US to put backdoors in your software.

You may also like to read another article on TheKindle3Books: How long have you being the worst possible password 123456 and why never get delete it?

But there is also another argument: that Apple takes advantage of that fact and that privacy advocacy to promote the use of its technical services, subscription to Apple Care plans and total dependence, once again, of an ecosystem that is the perfect example of the walled garden. You stay with us that everything will work as it should (more or less, of antenna gate, cough), and if you have any problems do not worry we will fix you always, yes, to follow in the little garden.

Sabotage blessed by the user

In this debate, there is another critical factor on which depends on the whole conversation. Who want to have control over your device? With these measures can ensure that our Apple device and data are only accessible or by us or trusted staff (trusted Apple, of course), but what if the user wants to have more control over your device?

It is the debate on resistance to what we might call sabotage blessed by the user and clear consequence: the safety of the device. Not the first time that Apple counter this, and for years that jailbreaks which are volunteers-sabotage are something against the firm Cupertino fight tooth and nail.

If the user wants more control or more options, or simply more savings on their devices and their management, I should be entitled to it? According to Apple, no. If you want it, buy an Android device. As indicated Cory Doctorow on BoingBoing, this debate is not new and already in 2002, for example, talking about the Palladium platform of Microsoft and how that same approach was also retractable.

The user may want to enjoy the security offered those platforms. Maybe she meets and makes the side effects. But it can also at some point, for whatever reason, wants to sacrifice the safety (or rather, the hope of safety) to gain benefits or, in this case, to save money on repair.

The question is: Does the user should have the power to turn off those platforms? In my opinion and certainly in that of many of you, yes. It is my iPhone – or my tractor – and I can do with it what you want: even risk anyone install me a committed Touch ID sensor. The responsibility and the error will be mine, of course, but it’s my decision.