221–230 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know that Apple makes mobile devices, right? And so it would make sense that Apple is part of the group the supports hardware standards in the mobile device industry, they're not just a lobbying group.
You mean the Walkman, right? Why yes, I heard of it, but thanks for double checking. Anyway, If they're pro-privacy, it would also make sense for them to raise hell about the group they're part of for some other reason is arguing that browsing data shouldn't be considered private, of all things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple may be a member of CTIA, and CTIA may have argued for a particular anti-privacy stance, but that doesn't mean Apple supports that stance. There are a lot of members of CTIA, and CTIA presumably lobbies for a lot of things, not just ISP privacy rules.
May be a member? They are. And I tried looking for an statement by Apple on that issue, couldn't find one. So until I see one, I'll say the lobby group speaks for them. Is the money that lobby groups works with organized in such a way that Apple's money doesn't go towards this particular thing? If not, what does "not supporting that stance" even mean? That they outsourced their fight for it, so that they can have the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quick Wikipedia search turns up more fields [1]. Although some of these fields are not 100% accurate due to historical reasons (I'm looking at you IE). I'd bet there are a couple other data points they gather via JS to finger print. Example: Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 3_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.21.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/7B405 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent
I compared 2 chrome versions and it seems that most of the version numbers there are static. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2979.0 Safari/537.36 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.10 Safari/537.36 As for iOS 10 it's pretty sparse as well. Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 10_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebK…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying that privacy is impossible? If that's true, then I'd rather go down fighting (no matter how futile that is) than willingly give up any more private information to Google. I think the time for pragmatism when it comes to privacy is long over.
I'm saying what I said: if your browser isn't adequately secure, all the anti-tracking features don't much matter, because the people you really need to worry about will be able to own up your entire machine and quietly persist themselves into it.
But do Chrome's protections also protect you equally from intercession by Google? I just want to clarify this point in my mind.
This is great, but unfortunately, until Apple ups its browser security game, Safari is a non-starter. On macOS, switching from any other browser to Chrome is in the top 3 things you can do to materially improve your security in ways that actually matter in the real world.
The big question to me is whether it's enabled by default, and whether it blocks requests to Google Analytics. If so, that's an interesting shot across the bow.
This is actually really concerning to me. If they blocked Google Analytics, it would severely damage that data. It'd be bad news for site owners who just want to quantify their traffic.
Do you want crappy ads? Then go ahead, make tracking more difficult. Tracking helps you see ads for things you actually want to see. It's not some kind of grand conspiracy.