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

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

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 329 posts

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

#311

Post by littlestymaar »

sbuk wrote: post #304
littlestymaar wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're right, it is pretty unambiguous: they can share with any partner they like, for any reason other than marketing with the only condition being that the partner “protects personal data”.

That's it. No other limits or restrictions.

So yes, partnering with a insurance company is allowed by their privacy policies.

If you want to have faith that Apple will never do evil things with your data and that their is nothing to worry about, that's up to you. I have plenty of friends who thinks the same about Facebook or Google you know…

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

#312

Post by sbuk »

littlestymaar wrote: post #311
sbuk wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right, it is pretty unambiguous: they can share with any partner they like, for any reason other than marketing with the only condition being that the partner “protects personal data”. That's it. No other limits or restrictions. So yes, partnering with a insurance company is allowed by their privacy policies. If you want to have faith that Apple will never do evil things with your data and that their is nothin…

> * littlestymaar 1 day ago [–]

Too bad this is only available on a operating system that spies on its users. (Sorry Apple fans, it does and while their marketing tries to hide it as much as possible, their privacy policies don't lie : https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/)*

You were asked for evidence and failed to provide any. You have now moved the goal posts, first by saying they’ve considered ‘selling’ health data to insurance companies, now it’s they might do it, so therefore they are. Apple aren’t perfect in any way, but what you are asserting is bullshit. To your point on Google and Facebook - it can be demonstrated that they are doing shitty things with peoples data, something you have utterly failed to do in Apples case. As the Romans said, shit or get off the pot.

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

#313

Post by littlestymaar »

sbuk wrote: post #312
littlestymaar wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it is pretty unambiguous: they can share with any partner they like, for any reason other than marketing with the only condition being that the partner “protects personal data”. That's it. No other limits or restrictions. So yes, partnering with a insurance company is allowed by their privacy policies. If you want to have faith that Apple will never do evil things with your data and that their is nothin…

> * littlestymaar 1 day ago [–] Too bad this is only available on a operating system that spies on its users. (Sorry Apple fans, it does and while their marketing tries to hide it as much as possible, their privacy policies don't lie : https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ )* You were asked for evidence and failed to provide any. You have now moved the goal posts, first by saying they’ve considered ‘selling’ hea…

I did not move goal posts, the conversation did.

If you want to go back to Apple's OS spying the users, it's another section of the privacy policy:

> Usage Data. Data about your activity on and use of our offerings, such as app launches within our services, including browsing history; search history; product interaction; crash data, performance and other diagnostic data; and other usage data

From “Personal Data Apple Collects from You”

That being said, since you've moved from just a bit narrow-minded to openly rude, I'm not interesting in pursuing further.

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

#314

Post by sbuk »

littlestymaar wrote: post #313
sbuk wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * littlestymaar 1 day ago [–] Too bad this is only available on a operating system that spies on its users. (Sorry Apple fans, it does and while their marketing tries to hide it as much as possible, their privacy policies don't lie : https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ )* You were asked for evidence and failed to provide any. You have now moved the goal posts, first by saying they’ve considered ‘selling’ hea…

I did not move goal posts, the conversation did. If you want to go back to Apple's OS spying the users, it's another section of the privacy policy: > Usage Data. Data about your activity on and use of our offerings, such as app launches within our services, including browsing history; search history; product interaction; crash data, performance and other diagnostic data; and other usage data From “Personal Data Apple…

Provide the rest for context!

You have been disingenuous from the outset, clearly arguing in bad faith to unsuccessfully prove your own bias. The facts are that Apple are indeed one of the more trustworthy companies with personal data, and arguably one of the few that get it. So what if it’s ‘marketing’ that drives them to do right by their users data, at least they are doing right.

All you have illustrated is a potential to misuse personal data. Google and Facebook (brought up by you) actually do privacy invasive things, largely without plainly written privacy policies, or worse still, without consent.

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

#315

Post by manuelmoreale »

lloeki wrote: post #188
paulmd wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will definitely give 1blocker a try. I hadn't thought of going with the route of tampering with DNS but that's a good idea, same basic idea as pihole.

Was a 1blocker user, but I recall there was some discrepancy between iOS and macOS that broke it. Moved to AdGuard, seems good for now. Also, try Hush on iOS, I don’t know the magic behind it but it seems to be much more potent at killing nagging questions.

I think they fixed those issue with the latest version. I just checked and I'm running 3.14.1 on iOS and 3.13 on Mac and they're both getting updates regularly.

Hush looks excellent. Thanks for the tip.

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

#316

Post by prepend »

onion2k wrote: post #265
prepend wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that few want this and Chrome make a default behavior that inconveniences lots of users. Chrome should default not to prompt. Safari estimates that no one wants this, and I suspect they’re right.

Chrome should default not to prompt. It absolutely should. Making the default "never prompt" would lead to websites prompting users to modify their preferences and change security settings. We do not want to normalize that behaviour. It would be a security nightmare. The defaults might be a little annoying for users (who can switch it to never prompt if they want to) but keeping average users who do want email or cha…

I don’t think average users want email or chat notifications.

And I don’t think web sites would prompt this as they don’t on Safari and that works out ok.

I think Chrome defaults stuff that Google thinks makes advertisers more money and Google more money. Safari defaults stuff that Apple thinks users want.

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

#317

Post by jdauriemma »

chrisseaton wrote: post #29
jdauriemma wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progressive Web Apps

But what exactly? Wikipedia says it does support it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application : And I know I’ve written Progressive apps for iOS myself - manifests etc. So I know it’s not as simple as you’re saying. What do you really mean?

Safari absolutely does not support PWAs in a meaningful way when compared with other platforms. Service Worker support is fine, but one of its main features is its use in combination with the Push API, which is not supported in Safari. This omitted feature alone alone makes web apps on iOS far less valuable than native apps. There are other omissions as well, but this one in the most glaring.

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

#318

Post by Google234 »

rpdillon wrote: post #280
Google234 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that 99% of people wouldn’t be happy with a service that is 99% spam.

Email _is_ 99% spam. That doesn't mean that email isn't useful, though.

Somehow, by the time it reaches any of my multiple inboxes it’s not 99% spam

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

#319

Post by hakfoo »

danShumway wrote: post #291
mrtksn wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some barrier of entry(buy an account and create documents describing your app) to have a mobile app, with PWA it will be removed and you will have every single website trying to make you "install" their web app, just like every single website is trying to take your e-mail address or make you create an account. The app experience is almost always better because you always have more screen real estate, higher p…

What barrier of entry? We've already had notifications on the web for 6 years, and the experience isn't what you describe. It's far more common for me to run into a website asking me to install a native app than it is for me to see websites asking to display notifications. Nobody wants to be forced to install a native app to order a pizza or check their bank balance. It's better if we can do those things on a website…

It's interesting that the sites that you'd expect to use notifications tend to not be the ones actually offering them. Webmail? Reddit? HN? Obvious notification cases. Legitimate ecommerce? I could see prompting for "let us send order update notifications after purchase." Don't see it there though.

Instead, I see a lot of "enable notifications to prove you're not a robot" scam fake-CAPTCHAs and a lot of newspaper/TV/media sites asking for it. Just because I want to read one article doesn't mean I'm naturally after an update every time you post anything else.

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

#320

Post by hakfoo »

ryandrake wrote: post #136
ArchOversight wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, having to click no all the time on desktop Safari is terrible. Also websites have realized that I am going to click No in the browser, so now they popup first asking if I want to allow push notifications in JavaScript so when I click no, they can ask me again later, vs if they popped up the browser and got a "No" there they could never ask me again.

I wish developers could get it through their skulls. 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. It is almost always a pathetic attempt to try to “drive engagement” to your app. If I want to run your app I will run it. You don’t have to nudge me into it. The world would be…

The mistake was the presentation UI for notifications. Instead of making it an active question for users to dismiss, it should been presented as a subtle toggle somewhere in the UI chrome-- sort of like the star icon to add to favourites.

This would have made it possible to offer notifications without being in-your-face about it, which would have made them more amenable for sites that were concerned about brand image and user feedback. The paradigm might not have become unavoidably tainted, and we'd just name-and-shame the bad actors.

It also makes it clear that the notification consent shouldn't be a one-way street-- you should be able to discontinue notifications through the same UI and in an obvious manner, rather than treating it as a consent you can easily offer, but not easily retract.

Post reply on HN