Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Apple

Inside Safari 3.2's Anti-Phishing Feature 135

MacWorld is running a piece from MacJournals.com's for-pay publication detailing how the Safari browser's anti-phishing works. The article takes Apple to task for not thinking enough of its users to bother telling them when Safari sends data off to a third party on their behalf. For it seems that Safari uses the same Google-based anti-phishing technology that Firefox has incorporated since version 2.0, but, unlike Mozilla, tells its users nothing about it. "Even when phrased as friendly to Apple as we can manage, the fact remains that after installing Safari 3.2, your computer is by default downloading lots of information from Google and sending information related to sites you visit back to Google — without telling you, without Apple disclosing the methods, and without any privacy statement from Apple."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inside Safari 3.2's Anti-Phishing Feature

Comments Filter:
  • Haven't upgraded... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by davidangel ( 1337281 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @02:34PM (#25889203)
    Every time apple upgrades Safari, they disable my brilliant adblocker, Pithhelmet, and so I wait for the developer to hack it out again... Maybe I won't upgrade. Maybe my next mac will be running on mixed pc hardware. I'm strongly considering that...
  • by RaceProUK ( 1137575 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @03:09PM (#25889663)
    Don't all Google ad-blocks have 'ads by Google' on them? And I do believe all YouTube videos viewed off-site have the YouTube watermark. Plus, Google Maps mashups tend to have 'Google Maps' in the bottom right corner.
  • by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot.2 ... m ['.ta' in gap]> on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @09:39PM (#25894589) Homepage Journal

    Webkit's really not Cocoa, but I guess it's not politically correct to say that it's Carbon. :)

    Integration with OS X is a lot easier for Cocoa applications, of course. It's harder if you're using code not written in Objective C, as Safari and Camino both do (Webkit and Gecko), but it's certainly possible... as both Safari and Camino demonstrate.

    Safari and Camino use the keychain for passwords. Firefox doesn't.
    Safari and Camino use the OS X proxy settings. Firefox doesn't.
    Safari and Camino integrate with Services fully. Firefox doesn't.

    Safari and Camino are well integrated with OS X. Firefox isn't.

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...