[flagged]
They're probably sending a hash of the password, not the password itself, but, no opt-out isn't great.
Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
51–60 of 761 posts
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#52We face a number of challenges simply letting our paying customers change their search engine: 1. On iOS the list of allowed search engines is simply baked into OS, we have a fiddly extension that hooks outbound calls to /search and redirects them but I wish we didn't need to. 2. On Chrome, we use an extension to change the default search engine and enable search auto-complete etc, but Google has a policy that such a…
> On iOS the list of allowed search engines is simply baked into OS, we have a fiddly extension that hooks outbound calls to /search and redirects them but I wish we didn't need to. Wouldn't this be the fault of Apple as it is Apple that controls the list?
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#53> Google’s payments to make its search engine the default option on smartphone web browsers violate US antitrust law, a federal judge ruled Monday, handing a key victory to the Justice Department. I still find it hard to understand why this makes sense. Don't companies make exclusive deals all the time, and whoever bids higher will get such deals? Why is it different for Google this time?
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#54> Google’s payments to make its search engine the default option on smartphone web browsers violate US antitrust law, a federal judge ruled Monday, handing a key victory to the Justice Department. I still find it hard to understand why this makes sense. Don't companies make exclusive deals all the time, and whoever bids higher will get such deals? Why is it different for Google this time?
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On iOS the list of allowed search engines is simply baked into OS, we have a fiddly extension that hooks outbound calls to /search and redirects them but I wish we didn't need to. Wouldn't this be the fault of Apple as it is Apple that controls the list?
Apple could be getting paid off by google to keep this aspect of search difficult to change.
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#56Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#57We face a number of challenges simply letting our paying customers change their search engine: 1. On iOS the list of allowed search engines is simply baked into OS, we have a fiddly extension that hooks outbound calls to /search and redirects them but I wish we didn't need to. 2. On Chrome, we use an extension to change the default search engine and enable search auto-complete etc, but Google has a policy that such a…
I use Kagi's extensions to maintain Kagi as default search across many devices and browsers. It's been seamless across Firefox/Waterfox/etc instances.
IIRC, Kiwi and Brave were fairly agreeable (I avoid Chrome, Edge). Opera was a pain because Opera is a pain about everything.
I appreciate the effort you+team have put into this.
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#58[flagged]
When they do is hash your password, then take something like the first 20 bits and send that to a site that keeps a list of hashes of known leaked passwords. That site returns all the hashes that start with that 20 bits. Chrome than checks that list to see ifthe full hash of your password is on it.
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#59[flagged]
I’d assume Google do the same. Do you have any evidence they have access to your data?
Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
On iOS it’s only from a pre approved list. Want to use a less censored search like Brave? Nope, unless you use something other than Safari.
What browser allows you to specify a custom search engine? I just checked Chrome and it doesn’t on desktop.