Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Sign In

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 544 posts

Re: Apple Sign In

#141

Post by hobofan »

TomVDB wrote: post #119
y4mi wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither would be the only sane choice. Multinational corporations will always screw individual customers for profit. And the issue with trusting any entity with data isn't really what it will do with it today. The bigger problem is what the entity will do with it tomorrow - under new leadership. It might also be interesting to know that Apple is also in the business of selling "relevant adds". Its a tiny amount if co…

The question was not "who do you trust", but "who do you trust more ". Given that Google's business model depends on data sharing whereas Apple has made privacy one of their core features, I think the answer has to be Apple, even if you don't trust them entirely.

> The question was not "who do you trust", but "who do you trust more".

The question doesn't _need_ to be "who do you trust more". (I know that I'm mostly repeating the parents points).

I don't want a Google login.

I don't want a Apple login.

I don't want a Facebok login.

I want a good old email/username login!

Re: Apple Sign In

#142

Post by mrtksn »

dyarosla wrote: post #19

Can’t services just disallow/block this address? Fun thing is, Apple themselves block name+addon@gmail.com addresses when using their dev console. You can bet that some companies will disallow Apple’s signature private passwords similarly if they can, in the name of ‘security’ or what have you. Or am I being too cynical? Feel free to CMV. EDIT: best response addressing this seems to be ‘The addresses are only generat…

They surely can do whatever they want, they can definitely choose to deny service to users that are traditionally high spenders and limit the fake accounts to professional scammers that use account farms from Asia.

Re: Apple Sign In

#143

Post by w3rhn2j34oh5o »

golergka wrote: post #135
w3rhn2j34oh5o wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram is unencrypted by default. All standard messages are stored on the server. Telegrams secret chat mode (end-to-end encryption) uses home made cryptography, and has been panned by experts in past. All group chat is in the clear and stored on the server. This is not the case with imessage. Comparing Telegram to iMessage, telegram is not in the same league as Apple. I don't trust either from TLA's or well funded…

> All standard messages are stored on the server. It's a feature: history synchronization between different devices and fast search through hundreds of thousands of messages is, for most uses and users, more important than concerns that Telegram or nation-state level attackers (one capable of silently breaching Telegram infrastructure) would choose to read your chats.

Signal also does historical synchronization between devices. It bootstraps the history from another device. It also has search which can be done locally. Telegram is, by design, capable of being accessed by 3rd parties (beyond governments). iMessage is capable of being accessed by 3rd parties via iCloud backups, which is an opt-in situation.

Be aware, wechat sends every message with geolocation to the authorities in real time. It is more critical than ever that we be aware of the mechanisms in the systems we build and use -- else dystopia awaits.

Re: Apple Sign In

#144

Post by nwsm »

nihonde wrote: post #80
nwsm wrote: post #15

What's the incentive for apps to offer it? Now they don't get user data.

They still get user data. They just can’t tie it to a real person outside the scope of their app.

That is what I meant by user data.

Re: Apple Sign In

#145

Post by Justsignedup »

While I like this for privacy purpose this is pretty nafarious.

There is no mechanism by which you can use this sign-on without Apple. That means you are stuck with these specialized accounts you would need to re-setup once you leave apple. Just another lock-in.

This is definitely not the first time apple does anything like this. If apple really cared they would make a tool for any device or operating system to enable this. But they will not.

Re: Apple Sign In

#146

Post by Aaronn »

Justsignedup wrote: post #145

While I like this for privacy purpose this is pretty nafarious. There is no mechanism by which you can use this sign-on without Apple. That means you are stuck with these specialized accounts you would need to re-setup once you leave apple. Just another lock-in. This is definitely not the first time apple does anything like this. If apple really cared they would make a tool for any device or operating system to enabl…

... if you looked at the screenshot of the app they showed it also had sign up without using Apple Sign in and just using a email address.

Re: Apple Sign In

#147

Post by nwsm »

the_watcher wrote: post #52
nwsm wrote: post #15

What's the incentive for apps to offer it? Now they don't get user data.

There are plenty of applications that don't actually care about the additional data they could arguably get from a Google/Facebook login, and only offer it because one click sign-up/login drives more signups.

In cases of a trustworthy third party, what is the concern of linking to Google/Facebook account compared to an Apple account that doesn't offer any data? I don't think I've seen any instances of Facebook integration credentials being hacked/stolen.

Re: Apple Sign In

#148

Post by throaway5533 »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #115
mjlee wrote: post #3

Disposable, anonymous email forwarding is a massive step forward for privacy. I know we've all been doing it for a while, but this on a consumer level is fantastic.

In case anyone needs something similar today: Outlook already allows you to create ephemeral top-level aliases, i.e. XXXX@outlook.com. You can use this to sign up, then delete the alias. It can't be traced back to your account and nobody blocks @outlook.com. https://account.live.com/names/Manage (not to take away from this announcement at all; just to provide some context. it's an often overlooked feature which peopl…

I switched to Outlook because of this.

I also like how you can set it so only a specific email can login. That way if your alias is compromised, your account won’t be.

Re: Apple Sign In

#149

Post by masnick »

For a while now I’ve been using “someservice.com@account.mydomain.me” when signing up for accounts.

I use FastMail for my email hosting, and they allow you to turn on wildcards for any custom domain. I don’t get any spam because it’s at a subdomain — never enable *@mydomain.me because you will get a mountain of spam to admin@, webmaster@, etc.

Re: Apple Sign In

#150

Post by prepend »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #111
golem14 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the web page, I cannot tell what pricing is going to be - looks like you go out of your way to not scare off potential users. I can't find pricing information at all via Google searches, either. That's something I really dislike. Perhaps it's a necessary evil.

It’s at the bottom of the landing page: https://idbloc.co/#pricing The goal is to explain the concept ahead of the pricing as I think it’s quite novel to most users.

I pay $30/year for a cpanel host that includes unlimited mail forwarding for any address on any domain. This is a byproduct of what I really do which is host a bunch of sites. $48/year for email scrubbing seems like a high price.

I think it’s great, and use it a lot. Just wonder how you got to that price vs like $10/year.

Post reply on HN