3 ms·
What exactly does it accomplish, though, in this instance? Since it's not real it can't actually authorize anything the site can't already do. It's a dubious ap
by hlandau 10y ago
What exactly does it accomplish, though, in this instance? Since it's not real it can't actually authorize anything the site can't already do. It's a dubious approach, but it seems more misguided than actively malicious.
- owenversteeg 10y agoIf they say no to the real thing, the site can't ask again. But of course they can present the fake one on every page as many times as they want until the user acquiesces. So once they click "yes" on the mini dialog, the page opens the real permissions dialog, because you can be much more certain that they'll allow it. Good TC article on the practice: https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/04/the-right-way-to-ask-users-for-ios-permissions/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/04/the-right-way-to-ask-users...
- eriknstr 10y agoOn iOS I think it is correct to first ask in app and then trigger the real thing if the user agrees because in an app there is a context that the app usually needs the permission so it makes sense and I feel it's nicer to ask me first inside the app and usually to explain why they need it at the same time than to take me straight to the real thing without warning because that puts me outside of the app. On websites it might have been ok if they asked in a proper way but presenting something that is pretending to be part of the browser UI when it isn't -- that is, as parent commenter said, a dark pattern.
- gefh 10y agoPhishing, mainly.