6 ms·
Is it unreasonable to believe that companies will block disposable Apple email addresses, just as they do, e.g., mailinator.com emails - often for authwalls int
by vngzs 7y ago
Is it unreasonable to believe that companies will block disposable Apple email addresses, just as they do, e.g., mailinator.com emails - often for authwalls intended purely for tracking users?
- olliej 7y agoI'm sure they will, but I'd take that as evidence that they do intend to sell it or spam me. Which would be even more reason not to sign in at all. That said I'm sure that whenever the official guidelines come out there will be something explicit about not doing so (although of course that would only apply to apps)
- mithr 7y agoI think it's somewhat unreasonable to believe that, in the sense that Apple is pretty explicitly using their clout to make it much harder for companies to do this. When a company blocks Mailinator, they're giving up a pretty small number of users -- those who know about Mailinator, use it, and refuse to sign up for a service that blocks it. Since Sign In with Apple is required for any iOS app that supports 3rd-party login, any company (with an app, which is mostly what this is all about anyway) that decides to block this new type of authentication will be forced to either give up all 3rd-party login options (costing them existing users who sign in this way and increasing the cost to acquire new ones), or give up their iOS app -- in either case, this probably means giving up a large number of users.
- sjwright 7y agoIf Apple doesn’t place some guarantees around the emails, then yes, I’ll be blocking the relay domain. I don’t care to know a user’s true identity, I just want to ensure that the same person can’t use the system to trivially create unlimited new anonymous accounts on my system. I’d like to see these: 1. Restricted to people who have associated a physical Apple device, and 2. No ability for the user to re-scramble the anonymous identifier once it is assigned to a service. If these two criteria are met, I won’t consider it a throwaway email service.
- scarface74 7y agoWhat makes you think people would bother with your service rather than using Apple’s service?
- Wintereise 7y agoPresumably because they'll most likely provide additional login mechanisms that are at least just as convenient (Google / Facebook Sign-in to start?) User privacy is a great thing, and most of us smaller developers have nothing against it. However, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't threaten our business continuity.
- scarface74 7y agoI’m saying if you refuse to support Apple’s sign in because you want more user info, your company is not that special that users are going to hate quit Apple in outrage. If your business is dependent on giving away user privacy to Facebook or Google unless you are doing something that integrates with them - it deserves to fail.
- sjwright 7y agoI don't know what any of you are talking about. You are taking my observations and making wildly incorrect assumptions about my motivations. I don't want to know who someone really is. I don't care how little information I get through these systems. I don't want it. What I do want to know is that I can exclude throw-away Google/FB/Apple accounts made five minutes ago specifically to establish a new whitewashed identity on my site. Right now I don't offer Facebook or Google login at all—specifically because I think the consequences (both privacy and the further entanglement of powerful entities) are not worth it.
- scarface74 7y agoYou can make a throwaway email account anywhere in five minutes.