- cross-posted to:
- technology
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- technology
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
‘security’ concerns, in quotes… Like they’re crazy. They’re not.
It’s kinda make sense that the military would want to use homegrown product (in this case, samsung) so they can fully control what’s running. They seem to want a fully locked down device, with wifi, usb, tethering, mic and camera disabled while in premise.
The reason is purportedly because iPhones do not fully comply with the restrictions outlined by the National Defence Mobile Security, a mobile device management application operated by the military authorities.
For instance, when activating the security app, it begins to restrict several smartphone functions, including the camera, Wi-Fi, tethering, USB functions and the microphone.
However, Apple does not allow third-party apps to control iPhones’ inherent features, except for the camera.
stratistimes.com isn’t korean. The journalists used scare quotes, like the koreans are crazy, they’re not crazy. But I personally don’t trust samsung either, usa favours them too much. Something doesn’t smell right.
I don’t know too much about the relative security chops of different smartphones, however in terms of what’s actually in this article it seems reasonable for the government department to consider the iphone a security issue within the context where it presents this particular problem and for the reason why it presents that problem for them. However, it does also seem like the very reason this is a security concern in this more narrow context is arguably a better security option in almost every other context so I wonder if that’s what they were getting at with the scare quotes.
In the case of defence personnel entering secure locations they say the iphone represents a threat because it doesn’t allow 3rd party apps to control inherent functions of the device, so the defence force cannot use an app they developed which would presumably do things like disable all voice recording abilities so they can be sure that people walking around secure locations aren’t unknowingly or deliberately transmitting or recording conversations and sensitive information. I can see why this would be a problem for them, however if you don’t work in defence and are an average consumer, the fact that random 3rd party developers can not do exactly what such an app would be designed to prevent sounds like a more secure way to operate. In that scenario, apps are incapable of controlling inherent functions of the phone unless they’re developed by Apple. Obviously this leaves the door just as open for untrustworthy behaviour from Apple themselves, but if you’ve chosen to trust them, you can at least be sure that no one else is controlling your device in ways you wouldn’t want, unless the device is somehow hacked but in that case, well it really doesn’t matter which phone it is because somehow it’s security has been circumvented and at that point all bets are off.
scare quotes
They’re quotes, and they mean someone said it. Ya know, the basic purpose of those punctuation marks.
Yes, but in the context of the comment to which I’m replying, I say scare quotes because the commenter has interpreted editorial intent behind the choice of how and where the punctuation has been used beyond simply establishing that the word is a direct quote.
While I kind of disagree with what that intent is, hence my reply to them, I agree with the original commenter that there is reason to believe the quotation marks served more purpose in that headline than simple punctuation. As a quote, it’s an odd choice, given it’s a single word long, conveys nothing that the sentence without the marks couldn’t have said and used to complete a sentence that is otherwise entirely constructed by the author.
I and the person to which I replied have interpreted this choice as a form of editorial commentary upon the reasoning behind the policy being discussed in the article. In the original commenter’s case they’re taking it to mean that the article’s author thinks the premise of iphones having security problems is so absurd that the people claiming such must be crazy (which the commenter obviously does not agree with). I don’t take from it such an extreme implication, although I do read some kind of implied commentary and given that this security concern has nuance to it that a headline would struggle to convey, I have suggested perhaps that that punctuation is serving to subvert or undermine the supposed security concern in some way. When that writing technique is employed, the punctuation is referred to as scare quotes.
Or you know, we’re just reading tea leaves and it’s just a one word quote, but there’s the rationale for you at least so you know why I chose that term specifically.
sure, but usually when used in this way for a single word or a couple they’re implying someone else said this; we don’t believe it so we aren’t saying it
That’s not what the quotation marks mean in journalism. It just means that it was said by someone.
Single word quotation is called scare quotes; https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks-around-a-single-word/
Makes perfect sense to switch all Korean military to the in-house built ruggerized Samsung Galaxy S24.
Doubles as an IED! (I know that’s a different phone, just wanted to make that joke.)
All phones double as an IED if you puncture the battery
The issue is probably that they don’t have thier own backdoor on iPhones like they probably do with Samsungs.
An iED?
The sources, a group of ranking officers who wished to speak on condition of anonymity, said that the Air Force headquarters released an internal announcement on the military’s intranet server on April 11, instructing a complete prohibition on any device capable of voice recording and which does not permit third-party apps to control inherent functions, effective June 1, with iPhones cited as items subject to the ban.
Also
The devices set to be prohibited include all types of smartwatches and wearable devices as well.
I’m surprised they weren’t already restricting most personal electronics in sensitive spaces. That’s pretty basic stuff
Shitty headline. Their concern is that there’s no way for a 3rd party app to disable the mic on iPhones. They’re not worried about iOS being insecure, just that if someone wanted to use one to record sensitive conversations, there’s no way they can stop that happening.
The headline is technically correct. They are worried over iPhones being used in a manner that affects the security of the military base.
It’s clickbait. People will be clicking to see if there’s been a new vulnerability discovered. The writer knew exactly what they were doing.
That’s also possible, considering the quotes around the word security.
I’m surprised microphone and camera privileges aren’t part of any device management software.
Funnily enough, it’s because of Apple’s approach to security. There’s no API available for 3rd party software to use because if there was, some asshole would find a way to abuse it.
but also informal communications such as private phone calls (within military buildings).
They are worried about iOS being insecure as it’s been shown time and time again that iOS devices keep getting hacked and this kind of thing happens. Here is the latest issue with it from 12 days ago.
When dealing with the military, you need to make sure your devices are secure, not “well basic users most likely couldn’t break into it.”
Now, the title is terrible because it does point out later in the article that many devices will be banned, so it’s most likely not just iPhones, but also off the shelf Samsung phones as well. They will most likely want a secure smartphone like a Samsung Tactical Edition smartphone, as those are secure and have military designs.
This sounds a lot like security concerns to me.
Removed by mod
IIRC they added the album to everyone’s iTunes accounts without asking, I guess if a user had automatic downloads enabled they would’ve downloaded it without giving permission. It was a dick move.
They can’t “push whatever they want” though.
Except the “ownership” of a U2 album I guess. Was it an “opt-in” situation, or did people just suddenly own a U2 album?
I didn’t think you understand how the military views security. It is not the same way you or I do.
The issue isn’t with the military, it’s with the clickbaity journalism.
Removed by mod
