> In fact, this is the PRIMARY reason that people think that Apple is strict in what it will let in the App Store. EFF is misrepresenting what the agreement says here, putting spin on it.
Please cite your sources for the part quoted above. I have seen many reports of unjust rejections. The ones that led me to believe Apple was being overly strict were those where I thought Apple's rules were ridiculous. I would hold the same opinion of the rules (and Apple) regardless of the app. I don't use, and therefore do not care, about any of the rejected apps themselves.
I disagree that jailbreaking (letting users have control of their own devices) is bad or in any way unjustified due to malware.
I disagree with your statement that the no tinkering clause has anything to do with malware. How do you think that actually works? The only way I can imagine is if malware authors, unabashed at the thought of breaking federal laws like the CFAA that can lead to long sentences in federal prison, were somehow cowed into submission by Apple's mighty developer agreement and the torts that violating it might lead to. While that thought is amusing, I hope you have a better reason I haven't considered.
I do like Apple giving people encryption options and I think that governor is silly. However, you are raising a side issue that has nothing to do with the claim made in the article. The ability to 'tinker' and discover how things work is critical both for security research and being able to independently fix issues if Apple cannot or will not. You can find many researchers who had vendors ignore security defects for years (including that site recently posted to HN and their terrible API that leaked digits of people's credit card numbers), so security-minded people have a very deep mistrust of anyone who refuses to allow them to investigate issues.
I don't care why Apple can kill an app on my machine, the fact that they can do so unilaterally is inherently disagreeable. I note that you do not dispute the fact of it, only the reasoning. Contrast that with antivirus where I can, in fact, tell it to allow a virus, such as the EICAR test file, which I need to test that antivirus systems are working.
Your own characterizations are far more hyperbolic than anything the EFF said.
Please cite your sources for the part quoted above. I have seen many reports of unjust rejections. The ones that led me to believe Apple was being overly strict were those where I thought Apple's rules were ridiculous. I would hold the same opinion of the rules (and Apple) regardless of the app. I don't use, and therefore do not care, about any of the rejected apps themselves.
I disagree that jailbreaking (letting users have control of their own devices) is bad or in any way unjustified due to malware.
I disagree with your statement that the no tinkering clause has anything to do with malware. How do you think that actually works? The only way I can imagine is if malware authors, unabashed at the thought of breaking federal laws like the CFAA that can lead to long sentences in federal prison, were somehow cowed into submission by Apple's mighty developer agreement and the torts that violating it might lead to. While that thought is amusing, I hope you have a better reason I haven't considered.
I do like Apple giving people encryption options and I think that governor is silly. However, you are raising a side issue that has nothing to do with the claim made in the article. The ability to 'tinker' and discover how things work is critical both for security research and being able to independently fix issues if Apple cannot or will not. You can find many researchers who had vendors ignore security defects for years (including that site recently posted to HN and their terrible API that leaked digits of people's credit card numbers), so security-minded people have a very deep mistrust of anyone who refuses to allow them to investigate issues.
I don't care why Apple can kill an app on my machine, the fact that they can do so unilaterally is inherently disagreeable. I note that you do not dispute the fact of it, only the reasoning. Contrast that with antivirus where I can, in fact, tell it to allow a virus, such as the EICAR test file, which I need to test that antivirus systems are working.
Your own characterizations are far more hyperbolic than anything the EFF said.