Chrome for iOS Adds Data Compression and Translation Tools [Updated]

[ArtOfWarfare]

And thus they made Blink, an Open Source project. Must be a bunch of people just twiddling their thumbs. I'm told that Open Source prevents these backdoors. Or are people, the community that is looking over the code and so forth, just being nice to Google and giving them a pass?

To the contrary, no, open source projects are extremely vulnerable to these problems. Problems in open source projects get solved when they cause usability issues for the users that happen to be capable of patching them (or report them to people who can patch them.) If the code seems to work alright though, then nobody will look at it very closely.

This was how the NSA was able to hack everything around the world: they have backdoors into several popular open source projects (especially security frameworks). Google is capable of doing the exact thing. Apple, being a company that cares a great deal about not shipping crap, reviews an abnormal amount of the open source code they use. Thus prompting Google to branch away from Apple, so that they could put more backdoors in without Apple serving as a whistleblower.

http://sandeen.net/wordpress/computers/linux/who-reviews-linux-kernel-commits/

Edit: And for the record, no computer is immune from hacking, but Google's servers are quite secure.

Correct, no computer is immune to hacking. You make the red statement as if a server is something other than a computer. It's like saying "A rectangle has 4 right angles. A square does not." Not only does a square have 4 right angles, it's in fact a rectangle.

 

[Michael Goff]

To the contrary, no, open source projects are extremely vulnerable to these problems. Problems in open source projects get solved when they cause usability issues for the users that happen to be capable of patching them (or report them to people who can patch them.) If the code seems to work alright though, then nobody will look at it very closely.

This was how the NSA was able to hack everything around the world: they have backdoors into several popular open source projects (especially security frameworks). Google is capable of doing the exact thing. Apple, being a company that cares a great deal about not shipping crap, reviews an abnormal amount of the open source code they use. Thus prompting Google to branch away from Apple, so that they could put more backdoors in without Apple serving as a whistleblower.

I had a better source article that actually went into the code review statistics for Linux but I can't find it now... I'll have to bookmark it if I come across it again... for now, be content with this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...oid-os-bugging-three-quarters-all-smartphones



Correct, no computer is immune to hacking. You make the red statement as if a server is something other than a computer. It's like saying "A rectangle has 4 right angles. A square does not." Not only does a square have 4 right angles, it's in fact a rectangle.

Their computers ate more secure than yours, that was my biggest point. Also, apparently the NSA can put their code into anything. I'm guessing iOS has NSA backdoors. Windows might too. Better not use Linux, it might have it too.

Quick, stop using computers or the NSA will hack your device!

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Their computers ate more secure than yours, that was my biggest point. Also, apparently the NSA can put their code into anything. I'm guessing iOS has NSA backdoors. Windows might too. Better not use Linux, it might have it too.

Quick, stop using computers or the NSA will hack your device!

Apple is careful about the open source code that they use. Apple has publicly stated that they do not blindly trust any patches submitted to them for open source projects, including those from .gov accounts (which contrasts to other companies which have said that they do trust patches from some organizations more than others.)

 

[Michael Goff]

Apple is careful about the open source code that they use. Apple has publicly stated that they do not blindly trust any patches submitted to them for open source projects, including those from .gov accounts (which contrasts to other companies which have said that they do trust patches from some organizations more than others.)

And you blindly trust that they wouldn't accept a patch that is a backdoor? It must be nice to believe that a corporation can flaunt the law like that for your benefit.

 

[bozzykid]

That's not a concern, but what is a concern is that Google is acting as a proxy for *all* of your web traffic.

Simply not true. The data compression server is not used for encrypted (HTTPS) traffic. The protocols would break if Google tried to change the data since that is pretty much the point of using HTTPS to begin with (can't be hacked by a man in the middle attack).

----------

Google is trying to outdo the NSA on privacy invasion. The NSA put back doors into Linux that have never been code reviewed - I bet Google did the same with WebKit. Apple probably kept removing them, thus prompting Google to branch away.

Wow! That is some major nonsense. I guess when you are on the internet you can just make up anything.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

And you blindly trust that they wouldn't accept a patch that is a backdoor?

I hope they wouldn't, but I accept the possibility that they may (and do nothing about it... what could I do? I see no OS that I can trust more than OS X right now.) When I get around to it I'll build my own OS from the ground up and make sure it doesn't have backdoors - somehow I'll find a way to demonstrate that it doesn't to my users.

It must be nice to believe that a corporation can flaunt the law like that for your benefit.

What law are you suggesting that Apple would be flaunting?

 

[X38]

As secure as their servers are, which is actually quite secure.

Or we could run around paranoid...

Of course Google's servers are secure. No way do they want any body else to be able to steal the data they've mined from you. They want to sell it themselves.

 

[Michael Goff]

I hope they wouldn't, but I accept the possibility that they may (and do nothing about it... what could I do? I see no OS that I can trust more than OS X right now.) When I get around to it I'll build my own OS from the ground up and make sure it doesn't have backdoors - somehow I'll find a way to demonstrate that it doesn't to my users.



What law are you suggesting that Apple would be flaunting?

If they didn't allow the NSA access to the information that the NSA wants, they'd be doing something illegal.

Of course Google's servers are secure. No way do they want any body else to be able to steal the data they've mined from you. They want to sell it themselves.

I am failing to see the relevance of that. The point I was making was that the idea of data mining and how secure the browser is are two separate issues.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

If they didn't allow the NSA access to the information that the NSA wants, they'd be doing something illegal.

Er, no. The NSA is clearly violating the Constitution, so don't try pinning Apple as doing something illegal. But never minding that, the NSA attempting to insert backdoors into open source projects is not the same as requesting information. If they obtained a warrant and requested the information from Apple, and Apple had the information but didn't give it, then Apple would be doing something illegal. They didn't. Inserting a backdoor into a communication protocol would be akin to requiring all vaults to be produced without a back wall, so that anyone could bypass the lock on the front and get in through the back.

 

[Michael Goff]

Er, no. The NSA is clearly violating the Constitution, so don't try pinning Apple as doing something illegal. But never minding that, the NSA attempting to insert backdoors into open source projects is not the same as requesting information. If they obtained a warrant and requested the information from Apple, and Apple had the information but didn't give it, then Apple would be doing something illegal. They didn't. Inserting a backdoor into a communication protocol would be akin to requiring all vaults to be produced without a back wall, so that anyone could bypass the lock on the front and get in through the back.

They clearly are, but what they're doing is considered legal at this point. A lot of unconstitutional things are being done these days and have the backings of courts. You seem to be misconstruing the idea of legal and constitutional being the same thing. They should be, but anyone paying attention these days would know a lot of unconstitutional things happen and only later get shut down.

The NSA hasn't quite been shut down yet.

The NSA likely went up to Apple, and had a backdoor put in. And why wouldn't Apple say yes? Because they're a caring company? Do they care more about their customers than following what the current law of the land is?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

They clearly are, but what they're doing is considered legal at this point. A lot of unconstitutional things are being done these days and have the backings of courts. You seem to be misconstruing the idea of legal and constitutional being the same thing. They should be, but anyone paying attention these days would know a lot of unconstitutional things happen and only later get shut down.

The NSA hasn't quite been shut down yet.

The NSA likely went up to Apple, and had a backdoor put in. And why wouldn't Apple say yes? Because they're a caring company? Do they care more about their customers than following what the current law of the land is?

The constitution is above the law. If the NSA wants to try pushing Apple around using an unconstitutional law, Apple can take them to court over it. Apple has demonstrated that they're willing to go to court over much more minor things - I don't doubt that if the NSA tried doing such a thing, Apple would take them to court and the NSA would lose (eventually. It might take several years for the case to work its way through the legal system.)

 

[Michael Goff]

The constitution is above the law. If the NSA wants to try pushing Apple around using an unconstitutional law, Apple can take them to court over it. Apple has demonstrated that they're willing to go to court over much more minor things - I don't doubt that if the NSA tried doing such a thing, Apple would take them to court and the NSA would lose (eventually. It might take several years for the case to work its way through the legal system.)

The NSA has been taken to court several times, they have won some and they have lost some. And who is to say Apple really cares enough to actually sue? Does this hurt their bottom line as long as they come out and say they're against it?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

The NSA has been taken to court several times, they have won some and they have lost some. And who is to say Apple really cares enough to actually sue? Does this hurt their bottom line as long as they come out and say they're against it?

I could see it boosting their sales tremendously if they go to court over it. Every company that wants their information kept within the company with throw out their other computers and phones in favor of Macs and iPhones, the only ones which don't have back doors in place.

 

[C DM]

So...where is this supposed update?

 

[C DM]

Well, it took a while, but looks like the update is finally rolling out.