macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

Post by ClumsyPilot » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #86

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying to the customer about what your product does, or having secret functionality, should be a criminal offence in the same way as breaking and entering or stalking are. Then, we would find out very quickly what people value. I firmly believe this ecosystem (as in privacy violating ad and data selling business model) is only dominant because companies are able to mislead with impunity, so it's basically a form of fr…

The act of breaching privacy is technically difficult to prohibit in a way many of us would find palatable. What should be targeted is the product of said breaches. Something like the blood diamond approach. If your company has PII, then you by law must be able to produce a consented attestation chain all the way back to the source. If you do not, then you're charged a fine for every piece of unattested PII on every…

Post by kortilla » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #141

zepto wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income inequality and stagnant wages etc are not the consequences of Apple and Google.

No one suggested they are. But they still make it much less likely for the average Joe to put money and effort to protect their privacy, and this is known to those that make major pricing decisions.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

oarsinsync wrote: post #93

_puk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it does occur to me just how many kindles I see with ads. Is there any data released on ads Vs no ads versions? That's the closest comparator I can think of.

> Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it does occur to me just how many kindles I see with ads. > Is there any data released on ads Vs no ads versions? Do they offer a tracking vs no tracking option too? The absence of adverts does not mean the absence of tracking.

Post by acdha » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

skuthus wrote: post #147

rednum wrote: post #17

Another fun fact about this system: something changed in how the binaries are evaluated and one VST plugins I've downloaded months ago was marked as malware. The plugin is quite popular in community so I think it's unlikely it contains actual malicious code (in fact I've contacted the developer and he said he has done some fixes for Apple's security policies recently). Imagine my shock when I open an old project in A…

>I don't want to worry about whether my music will work five or ten years from now This is exactly what Apple has already done to the iTunes world, music you had a decade ago is suddenly inaccessible

Post by iso1631 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #151

nullc wrote: post #2

A common refrain in arguments that we don't need laws to protect privacy is that the market will take care of it. The market can't act against what it can't see. Privacy loss is often irreversible. A common refrain in arguments that we don't need to reject closed source software to protect privacy is that being closed source doesn't hide the behaviour, and people will still notice backdoors and privacy leaks. Sometim…

> A common refrain in arguments that we don't need to reject closed source software to protect privacy is that being closed source doesn't hide the behaviour, and people will still notice backdoors and privacy leaks. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And there are cases where it's not practical for "people to notice." For instance: a privacy leak that only uses the cell network connection of a phone, which wou…