
Is Apple About to Accidentally Kill Government as Platform? - rmason
https://medium.com/code-for-america/is-apple-about-to-accidentally-kill-government-as-platform-f68eef001d37
======
grzm
I appreciate that the author is calling this out and takes the time to
understand what Apple is trying to accomplish. I wish there were more
discussion of details as to what's going on in specific cases.

I hope that there's more to the story, that these government orgs are reaching
out to Apple and that there's some dialog going on to try to remedy the
situation. I understand that dealing with the App Store can be frustrating,
but it's still a course of action. And it wouldn't be the first time that the
App Store policies have changed. The author makes a similar call at the end of
the piece. I find it a little surprising that someone who happens to know
enough about the situation to write a post would also not know details of at
least one case. It seems feasible that Apple could put in place a policy to,
say, whitelist specific vetted accounts. I would be disappointed to find out
that there _isn 't_ some ongoing dialog going on. However, neither this post
nor the referenced June 22 Fortune article provide any additional information.

If anyone knows more about this, I'd appreciate it.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Maybe this will inspire cities to create a web page that anyone can use
whether or not they have an iPhone instead of making apps that are simply a
wrapper for a website.

~~~
saurik
There are lots of great uses for push notifications with users and government
that are not possible without having a standalone app. FWIW, _I agree with
you_ , but due to this other annoying and selfish decision by Apple to not
support the Web Push API, this isn't really a viable alternative.

------
Isamu
How to read this headline:

Apple -> a change in the app store guidelines

kill -> make more difficult

Government as Platform -> development of municipal apps

------
anigbrowl
_An effort by Apple to prevent spam may unintentionally undue years of digital
government app development_

Please undo this transcription error.

The trust problem is among the most basic in society, and it seems that today
we're faced with competing and to some extent conflicting approaches:

Government restricts the use of official symbols such as seals so that
citizens have some token of authenticity they can rely on

Corporations find it easiest to do business by requiring everyone to adhere to
a single standard, and leverage a monopoly or strong market positions

Technologists offer blockchain methods as an objective method of establishing
authenticity - but consumers are confused by the proliferation

~~~
Fej
The digital method of proving identity is a digital signature, not blockchain.

~~~
anigbrowl
When I write 'authenticity' I do not mean 'identity'.

~~~
wahern

      token of authenticity they can rely on
    

Rely on for what? In cryptography, authenticity refers to the source or origin
of some data; in other words, the identity of the creator.[1] Likewise for
official seals--the seal attests to the identity of one of the parties (either
one of the principles, or an attester).

Your usage regarding seals seems correct. It's the analogy with the blockchain
that is confusing. It's difficult to tell without more detail. If you broke
things down you'd probably end up also using terms like integrity and non-
repudiation, which are quite distinct.

[1] For example, an excerpt from the Handbook of Applied Cryptography
([http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/chap1.pdf](http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/chap1.pdf)):

    
    
      Once the TTP creates a certificate for a party, the
      trust that all other entities have in the authenticity of
      the TTP’s public key can be used transitively
      to gain trust in the authenticity of that party’s public
      key, through acquisition and verification of the
      certificate.
    
      -- Chapter 1, Section 1.11.3.

------
saurik
I agree 100% with everything in this article... at which point I just can't
bring myself to not call them out for using Medium--a centralized hosted
platform--when there were numerous available white-labeled options that would
have allowed them to both maintain control over their branding and viewer's
information as well as allow for future upgrades without lock-in. They didn't
even set up a custom domain name, even though Medium supports that option.
(And to the extent to which this is "just Jennifer Pahlka" and not "Code for
America", the same arguments apply.)

