6 ms·

a privacy catastrophe Much less so than a native application. Native applications can access the web in less restricted ways than websites. Native applicatio

by TekMol 7y ago

a privacy catastrophe Much less so than a native application. Native applications can access the web in less restricted ways than websites. Native applications have more access to your local machine than websites. Websites for the win! What we need is a user friendly browser.

taneq 7y ago
No, what we need is a proper permissions model for desktop applications. The idea of permissions being per-user is almost useless in this day and age where most desktop machines have one user (or a small number of users sharing files) and where most applications are downloaded from untrusted sources. We need proper automatic sandboxing of native apps, restricting file, network and resource access without prior permission from the user.
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  Like iOS then? Oh, evil golden cages, right?
  - taneq 7y ago
    False dichotomy. A cage restricting the rightful owner of a computer is not the same as a cage that the rightful owner can use to restrict untrusted software.
  - socceroos 7y ago
    How do you think Apple are allowed to exist in China? Who gave you the impression that they're the exception to the rule for independence from the government's "oversight"?
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    There is no reason why sandboxing needs to be evil. In fact this is already proven by the sandboxing efforts on linux where there is no mandatory repository and the user is always in control, its the applications that are not.
- TekMol 7y ago
  That is being worked on. On many fronts. Linux containers are getting better. iOS is sandboxing applications to some extend. Android too and is slowly adding finer and finer sandboxing settings. ChromeOS also does sandboxing. I don't know about Windows, but I guess something similar is happening over there. My money is on the Browser. Because it has proven (via survival of the fittest) that it is the best platform for the modern age. It has what, 100% market share? Everybody I know can use websites. Even if one of the desktop or mobile operating systems adds sufficient sandboxing in the future, I would not want to develop applications for it. Because it would restrict my creation to the people who use that one platform. And it would give the power to censor it or mingle with it to the platform operator.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Windows has been on the sandbox path since Windows 8. Every release gets a bit more of that, regardless how many feel about the store or UWP API in general.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      I don't want to only use trusted sources from any software store. If UWP had provided sensible deployment options, it wouldn't be as dead as it is. Hell, personal firewalls provide a better sandbox solution, at least for network access, even if that is not really their intended function. Be that as it may, I think good privacy laws and holding software manufacturers accountable is part of a solution. That software more and more behaves like worms regarding to user data is a more recent development.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        UWP is not dead, every Windows release adds more API space, React Native for Windows uses UWP, Windows 10 drivers now use UWP APIs as well (Universal drivers), WinUI uses UWP, XAML Islands use UWP, ... WinUI is also the official replacement for MFC, which triggered the rewritte of some UWP components into C++/WinRT from .NET Native. Windows store supports side loading since Windows 8.1, and MSIX packages have replaced APPX and MSI as the future of Windows package formats. Win32 APIs are frozen in amber since Windows 7.
- kitsunesoba 7y ago
  macOS Catalina is actually much more aggressive about this. Even in unsigned unsandboxed apps, the OS will pause the app and ask the user for permission when the app tried to access any directory it doesn’t have permission for, and this behavior is replicated across many other parts of the system too (webcam, mic, etc). It’s a bit annoying initially but it’s nice knowing that the system will put control back into my hands whenever apps try to do something shady.
  - paulcarroty 7y ago
    Good feature, kinda sad macOS isn't popular like Windows. Linux apps supports permission management in flatpak, but the packaging can be a big headache.
einhverfr 7y ago
But then the browser is able to collect history across app usage though, which makes it more dangerous, not less.
- TekMol 7y ago
  We have to differentiate between platform (OS/Browser) and applicaion (native app/website) The browser is the OS. The website is the application. Browser and os can both track your history. An application / a website can not. You might think websites can via tracking scripts connecting to third parties. But applications can connect to third parties even easier. As a user, you have even less power to prevent that.
  - einhverfr 7y ago
    That's why I want to be able to trust my OS privacy-wise. A native app might be able to violate my privacy. But an OS that can do so is much more dangerous. The reason is the volume of data that can be collected by the gatekeeper.
    - TekMol 7y ago
      That's why I wrote What we need is a user friendly browser A browser we can trust. That is built to serve the user and hands all power to the user.
      - tannhaeuser 7y ago
        Yeah except TFA shows this is exactly not what browsers are doing (with the possible exception of Safari)
        TekMol 7y ago
        That's why I wrote What we need is a user friendly browser Firefox is a step in the right direction. The next step would be for some open source initiative to do the work and de-google Firefox completely. If that fork of Firefox gains traction, it might bring Mozilla on the right track so they drop their ties with Google to survive.
pjmlp 7y ago
The native applications I use are tamed in sandboxes, while offering much higher performance and better usage of hardware resources.
RawChicken 7y ago
* Than * Than * Than
BurnGpuBurn 7y ago
Funny, but I can trust most of my locally installed apps. I trust Photoshop not to share my photos with Adobe, and so far it hasn't. It also doesn't share telemetry or any of that. Same actually goes for most programs I use. It's the browsers that have the habit of sharing sensitive information with the outside world, not other apps. I'm talking desktop software. Mobile seems to have a lot more privacy invading apps.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  https://www.organizingcreativity.com/2017/01/adobe-creatively-spying-from-the-cloud/ https://www.organizingcreativity.com/2017/01/adobe-creativel...

by TekMol 7y ago

taneq 7y ago

No, what we need is a proper permissions model for desktop applications. The idea of permissions being per-user is almost useless in this day and age where most desktop machines have one user (or a small number of users sharing files) and where most applications are downloaded from untrusted sources. We need proper automatic sandboxing of native apps, restricting file, network and resource access without prior permission from the user.

jasonvorhe 7y ago
Like iOS then? Oh, evil golden cages, right?
- taneq 7y ago
  False dichotomy. A cage restricting the rightful owner of a computer is not the same as a cage that the rightful owner can use to restrict untrusted software.
- socceroos 7y ago
  How do you think Apple are allowed to exist in China? Who gave you the impression that they're the exception to the rule for independence from the government's "oversight"?
- baroffoos 7y ago
  There is no reason why sandboxing needs to be evil. In fact this is already proven by the sandboxing efforts on linux where there is no mandatory repository and the user is always in control, its the applications that are not.
TekMol 7y ago
That is being worked on. On many fronts. Linux containers are getting better. iOS is sandboxing applications to some extend. Android too and is slowly adding finer and finer sandboxing settings. ChromeOS also does sandboxing. I don't know about Windows, but I guess something similar is happening over there. My money is on the Browser. Because it has proven (via survival of the fittest) that it is the best platform for the modern age. It has what, 100% market share? Everybody I know can use websites. Even if one of the desktop or mobile operating systems adds sufficient sandboxing in the future, I would not want to develop applications for it. Because it would restrict my creation to the people who use that one platform. And it would give the power to censor it or mingle with it to the platform operator.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Windows has been on the sandbox path since Windows 8. Every release gets a bit more of that, regardless how many feel about the store or UWP API in general.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I don't want to only use trusted sources from any software store. If UWP had provided sensible deployment options, it wouldn't be as dead as it is. Hell, personal firewalls provide a better sandbox solution, at least for network access, even if that is not really their intended function. Be that as it may, I think good privacy laws and holding software manufacturers accountable is part of a solution. That software more and more behaves like worms regarding to user data is a more recent development.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      UWP is not dead, every Windows release adds more API space, React Native for Windows uses UWP, Windows 10 drivers now use UWP APIs as well (Universal drivers), WinUI uses UWP, XAML Islands use UWP, ... WinUI is also the official replacement for MFC, which triggered the rewritte of some UWP components into C++/WinRT from .NET Native. Windows store supports side loading since Windows 8.1, and MSIX packages have replaced APPX and MSI as the future of Windows package formats. Win32 APIs are frozen in amber since Windows 7.
kitsunesoba 7y ago
macOS Catalina is actually much more aggressive about this. Even in unsigned unsandboxed apps, the OS will pause the app and ask the user for permission when the app tried to access any directory it doesn’t have permission for, and this behavior is replicated across many other parts of the system too (webcam, mic, etc). It’s a bit annoying initially but it’s nice knowing that the system will put control back into my hands whenever apps try to do something shady.
- paulcarroty 7y ago
  Good feature, kinda sad macOS isn't popular like Windows. Linux apps supports permission management in flatpak, but the packaging can be a big headache.

einhverfr 7y ago

But then the browser is able to collect history across app usage though, which makes it more dangerous, not less.

TekMol 7y ago
We have to differentiate between platform (OS/Browser) and applicaion (native app/website) The browser is the OS. The website is the application. Browser and os can both track your history. An application / a website can not. You might think websites can via tracking scripts connecting to third parties. But applications can connect to third parties even easier. As a user, you have even less power to prevent that.
- einhverfr 7y ago
  That's why I want to be able to trust my OS privacy-wise. A native app might be able to violate my privacy. But an OS that can do so is much more dangerous. The reason is the volume of data that can be collected by the gatekeeper.
  - TekMol 7y ago
    That's why I wrote What we need is a user friendly browser A browser we can trust. That is built to serve the user and hands all power to the user.
    - tannhaeuser 7y ago
      Yeah except TFA shows this is exactly not what browsers are doing (with the possible exception of Safari)
      - TekMol 7y ago
        That's why I wrote What we need is a user friendly browser Firefox is a step in the right direction. The next step would be for some open source initiative to do the work and de-google Firefox completely. If that fork of Firefox gains traction, it might bring Mozilla on the right track so they drop their ties with Google to survive.

pjmlp 7y ago

The native applications I use are tamed in sandboxes, while offering much higher performance and better usage of hardware resources.

RawChicken 7y ago

* Than * Than * Than

BurnGpuBurn 7y ago

Funny, but I can trust most of my locally installed apps. I trust Photoshop not to share my photos with Adobe, and so far it hasn't. It also doesn't share telemetry or any of that. Same actually goes for most programs I use. It's the browsers that have the habit of sharing sensitive information with the outside world, not other apps. I'm talking desktop software. Mobile seems to have a lot more privacy invading apps.

pritambaral 7y ago
https://www.organizingcreativity.com/2017/01/adobe-creatively-spying-from-the-cloud/ https://www.organizingcreativity.com/2017/01/adobe-creativel...