I mean, Apple's PCC audits require them to individually vet each auditor before they're allowed to see the PCC nodes.

If Apple extended that philosophy to other vendors then yeah, it would be deliberately unfair and anticompetitive.

It sounds like they are whitelisting the hashes of all the Google software and OSes and stuff to ensure nothing is changed out from under them without them knowing.

Even if you could make all the other possible vendors run private cloud compute style stuff that would be a lot to manage.

And I can’t imagine the EU would like, and as a user I would certainly hate, the “OK you can use Grok but you lose all privacy too bad“ dialogue box they could make.

▲

bigyabai 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't even think it offers a meaningful degree of security. It's a form of theater, you have to be hand-selected to perform the audit that Apple promised.

Most sysadmins know that hash matching only mitigates a small subset of rare upstream attacks. Apple could still be MITMing the whole thing (SSL added and removed here :)) and no auditor would get the chance to check. The offered audit is so weak that I would not trust any FAANG business to administrate it.

Apple is once again demanding arbitrary centralization to give them an undeserved veto power. None of this is for security.

	▲	theshrike79 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If they're not "hand-selected", what would be the way to select the auditors? Just have an open house for anyone interested to come poke the hardware and software?