Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#301

Post by littlestymaar » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

sbuk wrote: post #296

littlestymaar wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In French[1] (2014) linking to a Bloomberg link behind a paywall[2]. There's no evidence that they have done anything like this yet, but they at least considered it and their privacy policies allows it as soon as they decide it's worth it. And you wouldn't necessarily know it. Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can. [1…

So your first source (from 2014) is based on Withings working with AXA and is also speculation based on your second source, who's reporting it must be pointed out is of an extremely dubious nature (cf. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... ) which has been debunked and vehemently refuted by all parties, including the very sources Bloomberg cite in the article . Sorry, no. Did Apple consider…

> You still haven't shown us where it says they can. I'll take your word for it...

Yes I did a few comments above, but no problem I'll repeat it :

> (in the the Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data section):

> Apple may share personal data with […] Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#302

Post by oji0hub » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #271

melq wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to understand what "I don’t want websites to be able to send notifications to my phone." means.

You'd rather install the website as a native app so that it has even more device access and then allow it to send notifications to your phone? Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for you then it would be to have an easily ignorable button next to a website's address bar that would allow you to turn notifications on or off for each website with maybe three or four clicks at max?

> You'd rather install the website as a native app so that it has even more device access and then allow it to send notifications to your phone?

I can always chose not to install an app.

> Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for...

Imho it's a security question. I don't care if it's clean or less intrusive, the browser should be a sandbox.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#303

Post by oji0hub » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

egeozcan wrote: post #293

melq wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP didn't say "I want to prevent chrome from sending notifications". If he did, then sure, having an option toggle would solve his problem. But that's not what he said. He said he doesn't want chrome to be able to push notifications to his phone. Having an option to disable that feature means it is has to be possible in the first place. Maybe I am being overly pedantic, but to me the distinction matters.

Then it should be said "I don't want Chrome pushing notifications on anyone's phone, ever". If you want it for yourself, you can make it happen. If you change a setting that disables ALL notifications for Chrome in your Android phone, your condition is satisfied. Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :) I want selected websites to be pushing notifications to me through Fire…

That's not the same thing..........

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#304

Post by sbuk » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #301

sbuk wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your first source (from 2014) is based on Withings working with AXA and is also speculation based on your second source, who's reporting it must be pointed out is of an extremely dubious nature (cf. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... ) which has been debunked and vehemently refuted by all parties, including the very sources Bloomberg cite in the article . Sorry, no. Did Apple consider…

> You still haven't shown us where it says they can. I'll take your word for it... Yes I did a few comments above, but no problem I'll repeat it : > (in the the Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data section): > Apple may share personal data with […] Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings.

Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes.

Service Providers. Apple may engage third parties to act as our service providers and perform certain tasks on our behalf, such as delivering products to customers. Apple service providers are obligated to handle personal data consistent with this Privacy Policy and according to our instructions. They cannot use the personal data we share for their own purposes and must delete or return the personal data once they've fulfilled our request.

Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data.

Others. Apple may share personal data with others at your direction or with your consent, such as when we share information with your carrier to activate your account. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate. We may also disclose information about you where there is a lawful basis for doing so, if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or to protect our operations or users, or in the event of a reorganization, merger, or sale.

I think you are clutching at straws, based on shoddy information. The above seems unambiguous to me.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#305

Post by nexuist » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

wruza wrote: post #206

nexuist wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t want your notifications. Your app is not important enough that I’m willing to be interrupted by you. The lack of notifications is a desired feature. Please stop using notifications. I don't want your phone calls. Your conversation is not important enough that I'm willing to be interrupted by you. The lack of phone calls is a desired feature. Please stop using phone calls. If I want to talk to you I will wri…

As someone who gets marketing calls every fine day, I agree with your every word. And with gp too. The problem with not implementing notifications is that when they are useful (instant dispatch software), they are not implemented. But honestly I’d just spin up a telegram or email bot, if clients were not brainwashed with tekhnology . Messages and email are notifications. It is also a matter of minutes, opposed to cre…

Odd argument. SMS is a hellscape to DIY (especially financially), email even more so with DKIM. If by SMS/email you mean "Twilio" or "Mailchimp," well, that's no different than using a third party push service.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#306

Post by africanboy » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

tobr wrote: post #228

enumjorge wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment didn’t say their PWA stops working on Safari, only that it doesn’t have a full set of features on it. For some applications, features like push notifications are essential.

They said Safari is > the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps I.e. implying that progressive web apps are only possible if a specific set of features are supported everywhere. It’s like saying that accessibility is only possible if no users have disabilities.

I think OP is implying that if Safari is the only one lacking a feature that is part of the W3C standard[1], Safari is at fault.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/push-api/

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#307

Post by danShumway » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

oji0hub wrote: post #302

danShumway wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd rather install the website as a native app so that it has even more device access and then allow it to send notifications to your phone? Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for you then it would be to have an easily ignorable button next to a website's address bar that would allow you to turn notifications on or off for each website with maybe three or four clicks at max?

> You'd rather install the website as a native app so that it has even more device access and then allow it to send notifications to your phone? I can always chose not to install an app. > Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for... Imho it's a security question. I don't care if it's clean or less intrusive, the browser should be a sandbox.

> I can always chose not to install an app.

Sure, but I can also choose not to use a website or service. If a set of features is only available in a specific medium (whether that's a website or an app) your choice is the same -- you either use it in that medium or you don't.

> the browser should be a sandbox.

This is an interesting point, because I do get where you're coming from, but I almost draw the opposite conclusion from the same data. The browser is a sandbox, so I want to put things in it. I refuse to install a native app to check my bank balance or post on social media, I don't trust those companies with that level of access to my phone.

The browser is a better sandbox than my native device, and notifications don't really break the browser sandbox in any significant way. So if (as heavyset_go suggests) notifications are the difference between having an app built in the sandbox or out of it, then I want notifications, because I want the app to be built in the sandbox.

If having notifications could make it feasible to use Twitter without installing an app, then great, we should do that. Or if notifications are enough that I don't need to have an email app or Matrix client installed... it's a pretty substantial win for security if I can get rid of those apps on my phone and use them as mobile progressive websites instead. Having email notifications on my phone is mandatory for me, I can't drop that feature. But is that alone a good reason to install a completely separate application that's requesting filesystem access or contact access?

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#308

Post by busymom0 » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #17

> (Conversely, if Safari refuses to implement some alleged 'feature', it becomes much less useful even if Chrome does implement it.) The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps. I recently worked on a heal…

> and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps.

Is that against the App Store guidelines? Or is that a programming limitation? I am aware all the iOS browsers are just a wrapper around WKWebView but am curious why another engine can't be implemented.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#309

Post by Volt » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

natchy wrote: post #257

paulmd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web browsers are essentially an inner platform now. Instead of taking the time to develop native apps, or even to write using cross-platform frameworks, developers prefer to trade performance/security/privacy for developer time. It's really just an acceleration of a trend that has been going on for decades (Wirth's Law) but Web 2.0 is hip and cool. You're not writing some lumbering dog of a Java application (write on…

> the web makes it far easier to invade privacy and deploy dark patterns, while that behavior typically is checked by the app store Disagree. One reason sites want me to use their app is because I can’t block trackers. I wont use native apps if there is a web alternative BECAUSE i value privacy.

What trackers? Apps are sandboxed, so they shouldn't be able to track you.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#310

Post by dybber » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #47

adrr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People choose to install chrome it doesn't come with Windows Machines or Macs yet is a very popular CHOICE of browser. IOS we have no choice and forced to to use Safari.

I don’t know about you, but I installed Chrome because it’s apparently what developers optimize for and occasionally I’m forced to use it because of bugs.

I chose not to install Chrome and use Firefox, to ensure the web is not optimized for one company’s desire.

Chrome is sprinting ahead with new feature at a high pace, however, we should make sure the web only uses features that are widely available in all major browsers.