81–90 of 156 posts
I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1 issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.
The author falsely claims Chrome is killing off ad blockers too with manifest v3 since manifest v3 protects the privacy and security of users better. This guy isn't consistent about being pro privacy. He simply hates Google. Manifest v3 doesn't even kill off ad blockers, nor does the Chrome team intend to as they have been improving the APIs to enable them to function. The strongest argument is that chrome extension store will reject manifest v3 extensions that want overly broad permission to access the content of any site you visit.
I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1 issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.
Just yesterday I actually had time to read that new Apple "Privacy" Statement that pops up on a Mac for some reason since a few weeks and they put a blunt lie on top about how "private" their service is and just a few lines later they tell you that they grab actually all your private data.
Every EU website now pops up a "privacy statement" where they actually tell you that they DO NOT respect your privacy.
I am sure there is a technical term for that, I would simply describe it as "producing cognitive dissonance in the most obvious way and make it look fine".
It took already an enormous effort to get all these companies to actually have to report about their abuse of your private data, in EU even make users agree.
However, it did not change anything - most companies still break your privacy even with more fun doing it, as you agreed.
A terrible and wasteful development of modern primitive capitalism.
Nonsense like this makes me happy to be on GrapheneOS.
I just tried GrapheneOS yesterday. Installation on my new phone was a breeze, but once I was in, there was... Nothing. The "Apps" app, which I assumed was an alternative to the Google Play store, had literally nothing except a link to install Google Play services. So I installed that and the Play store, which, due to GrapheneOS's sandboxing, was probably better than the stock Android. But it didn't even work well. Pl…
Either way, you don't have to use Sandboxed Google Play or Play Store on GrapheneOS. You can install whatever third-party store you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With hardware remote attestation there will no longer be any point in even owning an android phone anyway. Android is obviously inferior to iOS in every way but the whole point was you could have control over the machine and do whatever you wanted. Now apps will be able to verify that you "tampered" with the phone and will refuse to run, and since it's hardware cryptography it cannot be faked without massive effort.…
>With hardware remote attestation there will no longer be any point in even owning an android phone anyway. Android is obviously inferior to iOS in every way but the whole point was you could have control over the machine and do whatever you wanted. Now apps will be able to verify that you "tampered" with the phone and will refuse to run, and since it's hardware cryptography it cannot be faked without massive effort.…
Google has been doing this for quite some time to prevent unlocked devices from accessing the Play Store. The solution is to avoid Google Play --- along with all other Googly things.
I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1 issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.
After all the crap that Google put in Android, I still don't understand why some other alternative ecosystems like Ubuntu Phone or GrapheneOS or Mankato (PinePhone) aren't attractive for users and developers. What's holding everyone back? I understand that without users there won't be apps, but also without apps there won't be users, since they offer just the basics. Imagine if TikTok or WhatsApp have had an app for…
Its possible to add Android auto stubs to it to give privileged access, compile your own build, sign it, flash it, and install the apks yourself as a DIY middle ground. I did it for a pixel 6 and was happy with it but bootlooped the phone applying my first compiled OTA update so this scared me off trying it again and I went back to stock. I understand why the team is against it but unfortunate.
Maybe another take on your question is why did windows phone and bbm fail?
The whole point is this will replace more intrusive tracking. It is trying to make it viable for businesses to switch to something that protects people's privacy more without killing off companies that depend on effective advertising. Apple took a poor approch in not having viable replacement before their changes and this resulted in many companies being negatively effected and many companies going out of business. W…
I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1 issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.
This is an industry standard brain wash technique that is used in many products. Just yesterday I actually had time to read that new Apple "Privacy" Statement that pops up on a Mac for some reason since a few weeks and they put a blunt lie on top about how "private" their service is and just a few lines later they tell you that they grab actually all your private data. Every EU website now pops up a "privacy statemen…
I don't know why the Ars Google guy is so hostile toward the company but good grief! Every other outlet "google releasing their version of Apple's ATT" Ars Technica guy "Google will watch you while you sleep"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With hardware remote attestation there will no longer be any point in even owning an android phone anyway. Android is obviously inferior to iOS in every way but the whole point was you could have control over the machine and do whatever you wanted. Now apps will be able to verify that you "tampered" with the phone and will refuse to run, and since it's hardware cryptography it cannot be faked without massive effort.…
>With hardware remote attestation there will no longer be any point in even owning an android phone anyway. Android is obviously inferior to iOS in every way but the whole point was you could have control over the machine and do whatever you wanted. Now apps will be able to verify that you "tampered" with the phone and will refuse to run, and since it's hardware cryptography it cannot be faked without massive effort.…
Why wouldn't an app require this? Banks want it because "fraud", streaming services want it because "piracy"... You can come up with pretty much any reason for any "rightsholders" to want control over our computers. If WhatsApp starts requiring this, it's either accept Google control or my phone turns into a paperweight.