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?
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.
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?
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.