Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You can call it DRM but what it really is, is security. Apps are signed, preventing the running of unauthorized code, which keeps malware off the platform.

If google really doesn't have this, then it's a shame, but it would explain why there's so much malware on android.

EFF's position across this article is supporting malware, and preventing malware is the clear cause and reasons for all the things the EFF opposes.



Android encourages users to stick to the Play Store, but has an escape hatch for users who don't want to. If Apple had such a policy, it might increase the presence of malware, but only for users who explicitly decided to circumvent the normal distribution process.

Most Android malware is distributed on the Play Store; the reasons it is prevalent include the lack of review process and the Android permission system, both of which are orthogonal to the ability to circumvent the store.


I think Apple's policy is mainly aimed at preventing competing app stores. You see them having a conniption every time someone submits an app that includes an alternate app store. And while I don't particularly like their policy, they have every right to implement it in order to protect their revenue.


> I think Apple's policy is mainly aimed at preventing competing app stores.

Yes. Malware is the boogey man which apple uses to justify this.


You're implying that "preventing malware" is important enough that it overrides all other rights of the user, including some very important freedoms? And that somehow, supporting these freedoms means "supporting malware"? What the actual fuck!? This is as horrible an argument as "only terrorists have something to hide, therefore anyone who wants privacy is supporting terrorism." (Replace "terrorism" with your choice of anything the government is fighting against.)

How about we put everyone in prison, because some percentage of them will become criminals anyway? I don't even...

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."


> preventing the running of unauthorized code, which keeps malware off the platform.

This is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for controlling malware, yet you speak as if it is both.


Signing doesn't require encryption that inhibits visibility into the app internals.


Right; Apple submission doesn't doesn't require encryption that inhibits visibility into the app internals.

It does require signing, and Apple prevents unsigned apps from running on non-jailbroken phones.


codesign also encrypts the binary, it is not just signed. https://github.com/jevinskie/Clutch is a utility that decrypts apps for you.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: