Might I suggest that Apple has a sealed off part of the system because they need something they can trust completely and they don't feel like they can trust Intel?
it's interesting that a default argument vs Intel is very unpopular vs Apple. i don't see any reason what that should be; if anything, both should be under the same scrutiny for doing basically the same thing.
> Considering the number of times US security agencies go to court to force Apple to give them locked up information, fail, and then go to third-parties to extract the information, I'd say we're safe. For now.
Your comment highlights that there are very different types of security/insecurity to be concerned about.
Hacker OSS types who advocate for the security of OSS based on the fact that the code is reviewable, are implicitly prioritizing security as being an issue of being free of government based attacks on freedom, or perhaps corporate attacks.
The model of security that Apple has pioneered with their “walled garden “ approach is concerned primarily with attacks by criminals and black hat hackers.
In terms of practical concern, this type of security model is far more impactful to most users.
Apple’s resistance to government inquiries is of a piece with its commitment to a walled garden approach.
The resistance to acknowledging the success of this model by OSS advocates indicates a profound myopia, that in my view makes their views on security almost worthless, as they do not include an accurate understanding of what the real world threat landscape actually looks like.
It also fails to account for the game theoretical issues that differentiate different companies approach to security.
Considering the number of times US security agencies go to court to force Apple to give them locked up information, fail, and then go to third-parties to extract the information, I'd say we're safe. For now.
