Trusted computing means trusted by the vendor and content providers, not trusted by the user. In that sense I consider it very evil.

▲ charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it. The operating system can steal sensitive information. Trusted computing is trusted by the user to the extent that they use the device. For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it.

▲

mzajc 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it.

Because in the case of smartphones, there is realistically no other option.

> For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it.

Except when the bank trusts the system that I don't (smartphone with Google Services or equivalent Apple junk installed), and doesn't trust the system that I do (desktop computer or degoogled smartphone), which is a very common scenario.

▲

LoganDark 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To trust an Android device, I need to have ultimate authority over it. That means freedom to remove functionality I don't like and make changes apps don't like. Otherwise, there are parts of practically every Android that I don't approve of, like the carrier app installer, any tracking/telemetry, most preinstalled apps, etc.

I recently moved to Apple devices because they use trusted computing differently; namely, to protect against platform abuse, but mostly not to protect corporate interests. They also publish detailed first-party documentation on how their platforms work and how certain features are implemented.

Apple jailbreaking has historically also had a better UX than Android rooting, because Apple platforms are more trusted than Android platforms, meaning that DRM protection, banking apps and such will often still work with a jailbroken iOS device, unlike most rooted Android devices. With that said though, I don't particularly expect to ever have a jailbroken iOS device again, unfortunately.

Apple implements many more protections than Android at the OS level to prevent abuse of trusted computing by third-party apps, and give the user control. (Though some Androids like, say, GrapheneOS, implement lots that Apple does not.)

But of course all this only matters if you trust Apple. I trust them less than I did, but to me they are still the most trustworthy.

	▲	charcircuit 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>to protect against platform abuse, but mostly not to protect corporate interests What do you mean by this? On both Android and iOS app developers can have a backend that checks the status of app attestation.

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you actually, bottom-of-your-heart believe that ordinary consumers think like this? They use TikTok and WhatsApp and Facebook and the Wal-Mart coupon app as a product of deep consideration on the web of trust they're building?

Users don't have a choice, and they don't care. Bitlocker is cracked by the feds, iOS and Android devices can get unlocked or hacked with commercially-available grey-market exploits. Push Notifications are bugged, apparently. Your logic hinges on an idyllic philosophy that doesn't even exist in security focused communities.

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I do believe from the bottom of my heart the users trust the operating systems they use. Apple and Google have done a great job at security and privacy which is why it seems like users don't care. It's like complaining why you have a system administrator if the servers are never down. When things are run well the average person seems ignorant of the problems.

▲

wolvoleo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google certainly hasn't done a great job on privacy. Android devices leak so much information.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/10/phone...

https://peabee.substack.com/p/everyone-knows-what-apps-you-u...

About Apple I just don't know enough because I haven't seriously used them for years

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yet, in the big picture Google is doing a good enough job that those information leaks have not caused them harm. When you really zoom in you can find some issues, but the real world impact of them is not big enough to influence most consumers.

▲

fc417fc802 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

What sort of hypothetical harm are you imagining here? Suppose the information leaks were a serious issue to me - what are my options? Switch to Apple? I doubt most consumers are going to consider something like postmarketos.

The carriers in the US were caught selling e911 location data to pretty much whoever was willing to pay. Did that hurt them? Not as far as I can tell, largely because there is no alternative and (bizarrely) such behavior isn't considered by our current legislation to be a criminal act. Consumers are forced to accept that they are simply along for the ride.

▲

charcircuit 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Lets say that Google let anyone visit google.com/photos?u=username to see all of the images from their camera roll and left this online not caring about the privacy implications.

People would stop taking photos with their camera that they didn't want to be public.

	▲	fc417fc802 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		People would presumably switch away from gcam and the associated gallery app. Or they would simply remove their google account from the phone. They have realistic options in that case (albeit somewhat downgraded in most cases). If Google did something egregious enough legislation might actually get passed because realistically, if public outcry doesn't convince them to change direction, what other option is available? At present it's that or switch to the only other major player in town.

▲

michaelmrose an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They used Windows XP when it was a security nightmare and many used it long after EOL. I just talked to someone whose had 4 bank cards compromised in as many months who is almost certainly doing something wrong.

	▲	charcircuit an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm talking about people's feelings. People can feel like a Masterlock padlock is secure even if it may be trivial to get past.

▲

bigyabai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> which is why it seems like users don't care.

...and not because, in truth, they don't care?

How would we even know if people distrusted a company like Microsoft or Meta? Both companies are so deeply-entrenched that you can't avoid them no matter how you feel about their privacy stance. The same goes for Apple and Google, there is no "greener grass" alternative to protest the surveillance of Push Notifications or vulnerability to Pegasus malware.

	▲	charcircuit 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They would stop using them, or reduce what kinds of things they do on them if they didn't trust them. No one is forcing you to document your life on these palatforms.

▲ UltraSane 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pre-TC mobile/embedded security was catastrophic:

  Persistent bootkits trivial to install
  No verified boot chain
  Firmware implants survived OS reinstalls
  No hardware-backed key storage
  Encryption keys extractable via JTAG/flash dump

Modern Secure Boot + hardware-backed keystore + eFuse anti-rollback eliminated entire attack classes. The median user's security posture improved by orders of magnitude.

▲

michaelmrose an hour ago | parent [-]

Did this ever effect real users?

	▲	fc417fc802 35 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Arguably yes. By preventing entire classes of attack real users are never exposed to certain risks in the first place. If it were possible it would be abused at some rate (even if that rate were low). It's not that trusted computing is inherently bad. I actually think it's a very good thing. The problem is that the manufacturer maintains control of the keys when they sell you a device. Imagine selling someone a house that had smart locks but not turning over control of the locks to the new "owner". And every time the "owner" wants to add a new guest to the lock you insist on "reviewing" the guest before agreeing to add him. You insist that this is important for "security" because otherwise the "owner" might throw a party or invite a drug dealer over or something else you don't approve of. But don't worry, you are protecting the "owner" from malicious third parties hiding in plain sight. You run thorough background checks on all applicants after all!
	▲	QuiEgo 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes. See attacks like Pegasus.