Comments

1
My understanding is the problem is only with 3rd party fingerprint scanners, which of course introduce a security risk to the user. Installing an Apple brand scanner if needed shouldn't cause the problem.
2
@1: Perhaps, but the issue is, why exactly is Apple able to pretty much still "own" a device and dictate what one can do with it after one has purchased the item?

And yes, I know the answer is "consumers agreed to the arrangement by clicking "yes" on a 2,865,722 page document," but that is not really the issue.

Imagine if you bought a car, took it in for repairs, and the mechanic said they had to destroy the engine because you put a certain type of "unauthorized" gasoline in the tank.

Or if a rep from Panasonic came to your door to smash your TV because you watched some porn on it that Panasonic executives do not find appropriate.

If it was anything but an iPhone, everyone would see how amazingly ridiculous this type of practice is.
3
The price of an Apple device is simply a recurring toll you pay to keep your data in the Apple ecosystem.
4
Does this unauthorized repair policy apply to Apple computers as well?
5
Oh, if only there was some explanation... oh wait, there is:

"We protect fingerprint data using a Secure Enclave, which is uniquely paired to the Touch ID sensor," said an Apple spokesperson in response to complaints from users. "When [an] iPhone is serviced by an authorized Apple service provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the Touch ID sensor, the pairing is re-validated. This check ensures the device and the iOS features related to Touch ID remain secure. Without this unique pairing, a malicious Touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the secure enclave. When iOS detects that the pairing fails, Touch ID, including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure."

I tracked down this information, but I didn't have to, because I already knew the answer because I actually read about the new features of my phone when they added it two years ago. It was obvious immediately when I read the first Error 53 story what was going on.

This is not Apple punishing third party vendors or being underhanded. Even iFixIt, a site infamous (and very disliked by Apple Corporate) for putting up detailed instructions on how to fix things yourself without going to Apple says that Apple is right on this one.

I do agree with the suggestions some have made that what the phone should do is simply disable Apple Pay and the TouchID features when this mismatch is detected, rather than disable to whole phone. But otherwise this is a reasonable policy to protect the customer's security.
6
Please don't write articles about stuff you know nothing about. The error wasn't "installed", it has to do with the Secure Enclave that ensures your fingerprint is NOT accessible to any 3rd party software. Rather the chip stores your fingerprint and tells the operating system or software that uses "Yes, he passed the fingerprint screening" or "No, he didn't, don't let him in!", rather than letting anyone else see your fingerprint. It's tied to the hardware because anything less could be compromised by 3rd party software. It exists for a very real reason not just to maximize profits. By your standard no company is allowed to change and customize it's hardware to make it more secure or work better if some dude in the back of the mall can't mess with it without breaking it.
7
@1: Come on, you're ruining a good consipiracy theory!
8
@6 Your infinite and most excellent wisdom misses the point: the whole phone is shutdown.
9
Don't tell Charles the only place you can go when you lose your car keys, he'll have a cow.
10
Hey cool, Charles is yet again writing about a science or technology topic that he doesn't understand.

You shut the phone down because otherwise a 3rd party sensor would be open to all sorts of malware (purposefully or accidentally). Given that many bank applications use touch ID to sign on, you could easily have someone drain your bank account. If Apple didn't do this and folks started having their bank accounts drained, you'd be writing about how Apple doesn't care about keeping customers protected.

Either way, you get to complain about stuff you refuse to educate yourself about.
11
@10, the opening insult is old. but fine. the worst of it all is you said utterly nothing. and this is sad because you are proudly (even gloudly) under the impression that you are saying something. those talking in their sleep are more sensible than you. for what you say is stone-fast asleep but you are awake. i honestly want you to reread the nonsense you wrote and apply some thought to this matter. this recommendation also applies to @6.
12
So let me get this straight. In order to protect your data Apple thinks it is a good idea to PERMANENTLY brick your phone. Sounds reasonable. I guess since I want to protect my home from burglars I should burn it down then.
13
@12, this is what i do not get about @10 and @6. they completely miss this the point. the error bricks the phone. no warning. no nothing but a killed phone. that's how they are protecting your info! this crucial fact is actually researched and explained in the Guardian post, but somehow completely ignored by @10 and @6. they think it's normal or something.

California-based tech expert Kyle Wiens, who runs the iFixit website, says this is a major issue. ā€œThe ā€˜error 53ā€™ page on our website has had more than 183,000 hits, suggesting this is a big problem for Apple users,ā€ he told Guardian Money. ā€œThe problem occurs if the repairer changes the home button or the cable. Following the software upgrade the phone in effect checks to make sure it is still using the original components, and if it isnā€™t, it simply locks out the phone. There is no warning, and thereā€™s no way that I know of to bring it back to life.ā€
14
face it apple users you are in a dysfunctional relationship and will put up with any shit they dish out
15
So... it's a good thing if the police or your abusive ex confiscate/steal your iphone and attempt to circumvent the fingerprint scanner on it by replacing it with one that always said "yes" and the phone just says "fine"?

The obtuse error code is embarrassing for Apple, but the actual behavior is 100% correct and I would be horrified it it were anything else.
16
Also please note that iFixit is far from a neutral party here: they are a for-profit business that makes their money from selling DIY repair kits. They are voting their own portfolio, and your security and privacy interests are of no matter to them.
17
BTW, Charles, you live in Seattle: a city with more than a few experts on computer security. You're a smart man on political topics but your articles on technology are generally a train wreck: would it kill you to develop a few local sources who you could run this stuff by?
18
Simple solution: don't get an iPhone. There are plenty of less-expensive and better smart phones out there; all the iPhone has going for it is cachet. (And, to be fair, the hardware is pretty good, even though the software ranges from meh (the OS) to horrible (iTunes; good GOD what a clusterfuck).)
19
@5, so other than Apple's whole response to the issue, Apple's response to the issue is a reasonable policy. Is that right?

Seriously, now. You're saying they had to do something, and they did the wrong thing, but that's okay.. because... fanboy reasons.
20
Sigh. Clueless outrage is fun. But if you want to read and consider why this might be a good idea, feel free to read Apple's white paper on their security model for their iOS devices:
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_…

I'd explain why this is not as outrageous as it seems, but I already did my bit to educate on the Interweb comment threads elsewhere today, and I'm tired of dealing with the mounds of dumb and lickspittle outrage. Suffice it to say, the wonderful car part analogies here are oversimplified apples to oranges comparisons, and none of you who are outraged are really thinking through the security model and implementation details Apple is dealing with here.

Also, Charles, iFixit is sort of the Reason Magazine of the tech world, where child-like certainty in the ability and desire of everyone to do everything themselves, reality be damned, abounds. Of course they are going to see this as a 'major issue'. But has a bone fide security expert said so yet? Not that I know of.
21
While I agree that disabling the fingerprint scanner-related features would be less heavy-handed than disabling the whole phone, the fact that this ONLY happens with this very specific change to a very specific part of the security features of the phone makes it clear this has nothing to do with Apple trying to hurt the third-party repair businesses. They could easily do this when any number of other components are changed, but they don't.

So yes, their response to this tampering is extreme, but so is Apple's stance on the privacy of their users' information. They went to great lengths to develop a security system that can't be compromised, and this is part of that.

Maybe we should be pointing out that Apple is the ONLY major technology company to be taking a hard stance against the government when it comes to installing "back doors" in encryption algorithms? I mean, come on. Knocking them for the way they deal with privacy and security is crazy. I know they're a fun company to hate, and there's plenty to dislike, but on this issueā€”the privacy of their usersā€”they stand heads and shoulders above everyone else.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/appl…
22
@11 It's an old complaint because you refuse to educate yourself on these issues.

Also, you don't get to say shit like this:

@12, this is what i do not get about @10 and @6. they completely miss this the point. the error bricks the phone.

when I posted this:

You shut the phone down because otherwise a 3rd party sensor would be open to all sorts of malware (purposefully or accidentally). Given that many bank applications use touch ID to sign on, you could easily have someone drain your bank account. If Apple didn't do this and folks started having their bank accounts drained, you'd be writing about how Apple doesn't care about keeping customers protected.

How can you not fucking see that the first sentence of that paragraph deals directly with the issue of bricking the phone? You don't have to like what I said nor do you have to agree with it, but you can't go around and say I never addressed the issue when I did so right there.

We can all scroll up and see what was written so do you think we're just stupid?

23
Error 53 has been an issue starting with the 6 model, IIRC (this is not new to IOS 9 at all). This has been in the software since roughly September of 2014. If this was an actual case of Apple being "EEEEVILLLLL!", wouldn't this issue have been brought up in its first year of existence?
24
So Apple fanboys support this because it's the only possible way for a phone to work. Bricking the phone is the only option.

1.4 billion android users beg to differ.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.