Certainly not mine. This just makes Apple that much larger a target, or perhaps, more conveniently, provides a centralized location against which government agencies can direct their effort.
Must we learn the same lesson again and again, that centralized services provide neither safety nor security?
Basically this is Apple expecting Google to do all the actual work and not get paid for it, while Apple just reaps the benefits. Hopefully Google will just block Apple from using the service.
Basically this is Apple expecting Google to do all the actual work and not get paid for it, while Apple just reaps the benefits. Hopefully Google will just block Apple from using the service.
You mean the commercial service Google charges for?
The Safe Browsing API has the browser send a partial hash which returns a list for full matching in private on the client-side. Google doesn't get any useful info to monetise here. Also, since dynamic IPs are a thing on IPv4 residential lines and IPv6 randomises addresses on a regular basis anyway through Privacy Extensions, home users are fine anyway.
This looks like a PR move and nothing more. Who wants to bet the Apple-owned proxy server is hosted using Google Cloud?
I love what Apple is doing to stand up for the rights of ordinary users who know no better but I'm not sure what they gain from this?
IP addresses don’t necessarily change as often as you might think. Without even paying for an IP address, I’ve seen my home address retain the same WAN IPv4 address for years at a time.
Moreover, even if they were changing each night, you can easily link IP address back to device identifiers like cookies or IDFAs, including doing so retroactively, at which point they know who you are. And while you are correct about the final hash resolution being done client-side, if your address isn’t cha
So instead of Google monetizing you, you get apl monetizing you. How is this any better?
Oh? Did you not expect them to use the advertising id with their advertising service?
Also, since dynamic IPs are a thing on IPv4 residential lines and IPv6 randomises addresses on a regular basis anyway through Privacy Extensions, home users are fine anyway.
The IPv6 Privacy Extensions only randomizes the part of the IP address which would otherwise be determined by the Ethernet MAC, so it is no more private than using IPv4 NAT. What this does accomplish is hide which IPv6 addresses on the subnet are populated preventing searches.
Instead of "safe browsing", maybe Apple could just harden their browser against security vulnerabilities. It would be a bit less effort than playing whack-a-mole with every possible piece of malware out there. I know, I know, they'd have to disable Flash (the horror!) and JavaScript (which apparently no website can live without these days... but that's a different rant).
The fact that Apple is doing this is significant: they've effectively given up on the security of their platform, and have outsourced i
Don't know under which rock you've been living for the past 14 years, but iOS has *never* supported Flash, and it's never been available on Safari for iOS since the iPhone introduction.
That alone makes all you rant completely worthless.
Oh, by the way, did anyone told you that javascript is enabled by default by *every* single browser out there, on *every* single platform ?
Whose privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly not mine. This just makes Apple that much larger a target, or perhaps, more conveniently, provides a centralized location against which government agencies can direct their effort.
Must we learn the same lesson again and again, that centralized services provide neither safety nor security?
Re: Whose privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which centralized service do you prefer - Google which monetizes your activity or Apple which does not? Or do you have some other alternative?
Re: (Score:2)
Basically this is Apple expecting Google to do all the actual work and not get paid for it, while Apple just reaps the benefits. Hopefully Google will just block Apple from using the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically this is Apple expecting Google to do all the actual work and not get paid for it, while Apple just reaps the benefits. Hopefully Google will just block Apple from using the service.
You mean the commercial service Google charges for?
https://cloud.google.com/web-r... [google.com]
Re: Whose privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
This looks like a PR move and nothing more. Who wants to bet the Apple-owned proxy server is hosted using Google Cloud?
I love what Apple is doing to stand up for the rights of ordinary users who know no better but I'm not sure what they gain from this?
Re: (Score:2)
IP addresses don’t necessarily change as often as you might think. Without even paying for an IP address, I’ve seen my home address retain the same WAN IPv4 address for years at a time.
Moreover, even if they were changing each night, you can easily link IP address back to device identifiers like cookies or IDFAs, including doing so retroactively, at which point they know who you are. And while you are correct about the final hash resolution being done client-side, if your address isn’t cha
Re: Who cares? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, since dynamic IPs are a thing on IPv4 residential lines and IPv6 randomises addresses on a regular basis anyway through Privacy Extensions, home users are fine anyway.
The IPv6 Privacy Extensions only randomizes the part of the IP address which would otherwise be determined by the Ethernet MAC, so it is no more private than using IPv4 NAT. What this does accomplish is hide which IPv6 addresses on the subnet are populated preventing searches.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of "safe browsing", maybe Apple could just harden their browser against security vulnerabilities. It would be a bit less effort than playing whack-a-mole with every possible piece of malware out there. I know, I know, they'd have to disable Flash (the horror!) and JavaScript (which apparently no website can live without these days... but that's a different rant).
The fact that Apple is doing this is significant: they've effectively given up on the security of their platform, and have outsourced i
Re: (Score:1)
Don't know under which rock you've been living for the past 14 years, but iOS has *never* supported Flash, and it's never been available on Safari for iOS since the iPhone introduction.
That alone makes all you rant completely worthless.
Oh, by the way, did anyone told you that javascript is enabled by default by *every* single browser out there, on *every* single platform ?