upvote
> despite an insignificant fraction of customers using such a feature?

Isn't that the exact same argument against Lockdown mode? The point isn't that the number of users is small it's that it can significantly help that small set of users, something that Apple clearly does care about.

reply
Lockdown mode costs ~nothing for devices that don't have it enabled. GP is pointing out that the straightforward way to implement this feature would not have that same property.
reply
Lockdown mode doesn’t require everyone else to lose large amounts of usable space on their own devices in order for you to have plausible deniability.
reply
now I want to know what dirty laundry are their upper management hiding on their devices...
reply
The 'extra users" method may not work in the face of a network investigation or typical file forensics.

Where CAs are concerned, not having the phone image 'cracked' still does not make it safe to use.

reply
Android phones are multi-user, so if they can do it then Apple should be able to.
reply
And how do you explain your 1TB phone that has 2GB of data, but only 700GB free?
reply
deleted
reply
The "fake" user/profile should work like a duress pin with addition of deniability. So as soon as you log in to the second profile all the space becomes free. Just by logging in you would delete the encryption key of the other profile. The actual metadata that show what is free or not were encrypted in the locked profile. Now gone.
reply
Good idea, but this is why you image devices.
reply
Sorry I explained it poorly and emphasized the wrong thing.

The way it would work is not active destruction of data just a different view of data that doesn’t include any metadata that is encrypted in second profile.

Data would get overwritten only if you actually start using the fallback profile and populating the "free" space because to that profile all the data blocks are simply unreserved and look like random data.

The profiles basically overlap on the device. If you would try to use them concurrently that would be catastrophic but that is intended because you know not to use the fallback profile, but that information is only in your head and doesn’t get left on the device to be discovered by forensic analysis.

Your main profile knows to avoid overwriting the fallback profile’s data but not the other way around.

But also the point is you can actually log in to the duress profile and use it normally and it wouldn’t look like destruction of evidence which is what current GrapheneOS’s duress pin does.

reply
The same way when you buy a brand new phone with 200GB of storage that only has 50GB free on it haha
reply
"Idunno copper, I'm a journalist not a geek"
reply
System files officer ;)
reply
That is about one fiftieth of the work that needs to go into the feature the OP casually “why can’t they just”-ed.
reply
This is called whataboutism. This particular feature aside, sometimes there are very good reasons not to throw the kitchen sink of features at users.
reply
Truecrypt had that a decade+ ago.
reply
Not sure if you know the history behind it, but look up Paul Le Roux

Also would recommend the book called The Mastermind by Evan Ratliff

reply
imo Paul Le Roux has nothing to do with TrueCrypt
reply
He wrote the code base that it is based on in combination with code he stole. The name is also based on an early name he chose for the software.

Whether he was involved in the organization and participated in it, is certainly up for debate, but it's not like he would admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E4M

reply
Maybe one PIN could cause the device to crash. Devices crash all the time. Maybe the storage is corrupted. It might have even been damaged when it was taken.

This could even be a developer feature accidentally left enabled.

reply
It doesn't seem fundamentally different from a PC having multiple logins that are accessed from different passwords. Hasn't this been a solved problem for decades?
reply
Apple's hardware business model incentivizes only supporting one user per device.

Android has supported multiple users per device for years now.

reply
You can have a multiuser system but that doesn't solve this particular issue. If they log in to what you claim to be your primary account and see browser history that shows you went to msn.com 3 months ago, they aren't going to believe it's the primary account.
reply
My browser history is cleared every time I close it.

It's actually annoying because every site wants to "remember" the browser information, and so I end up with hundreds of browsers "logged in". Or maybe my account was hacked and that's why there's hundreds of browsers logged in.

reply
Multi-user has been solved for decades.

Multi-user that plausibly looks like single-user to three letter agencies?

Not even close.

reply
Doesn't having standard multi-user functionality automatically create the plausible deniability? If they tried so hard to create an artificial plausible deniability that would be more suspicious than normal functionality that just gets used sometimes.
reply
What needs to be plausibly denied is the existence of a second user account, because you're not going to be able to plausibly deny that the account belongs to you when it resides on the phone found in your pocket.
reply
Android has work profiles, so that could be done in Android. iPhone still does not.
reply
Police ask: give me pass for work profile. If you don’t: prison.
reply
Android has work profiles

Never ever use your personal phone for work things, and vice versa. It's bad for you and bad for the company you work for in dozens of ways.

Even when I owned my own company, I had separate phones. There's just too much legal liability and chances for things to go wrong when you do that. I'm surprised any company with more than five employees would even allow it.

reply
What's the risk? On Android, the company can remotely nuke the work profile. The work profile has its own file system and apps. You can turn it off when to don't want work notifications.
reply
you're surprise corporations are cheap
reply
iPhone and macOS are basically the same product technically. The reason iPhone is a single user product is UX decisions and business/product philosophy, not technical reasons.

While plausible deniability may be hard to develop, it’s not some particularly arcane thing. The primary reasons against it are the political balancing act Apple has to balance (remember San Bernardino and the trouble the US government tried to create for Apple?). Secondary reasons are cost to develop vs addressable market, but they did introduce Lockdown mode so it’s not unprecedented to improve the security for those particularly sensitive to such issues.

reply
> iPhone and macOS are basically the same product technically

This seems hard to justify. They share a lot of code yes, but many many things are different (meaningfully so, from the perspective of both app developers and users)

reply
You think iPhones aren’t multi-user for technical reasons? You sure it’s not to sell more phones and iPads? Should we ask Tim “buy your mom an iPhone” Cook?
reply