3 ms·
No it wouldn't. If, as an example, google.com and piracy.com both resolved to the same hash prefix, how would that help you at all? The whole point is that the
by dpkonofa 7y ago
No it wouldn't. If, as an example, google.com and piracy.com both resolved to the same hash prefix, how would that help you at all? The whole point is that the server sending the blacklist doesn't get the details of the page that's being visited. piracy.com/info, google.com/searchingstuff, and whatthefuck.com/isthis might all have the exact same hash prefix. They don't because I just pulled that out of my rear to use as an example but there's no way for someone to ascertain the content of a website just form the prefixes of these hashes. The browser doesn't even send the details.
- yyyk 7y agoYes it would. All China needs is a correlation. Most users don't input URLs manually, they follow links. So if a user starts from 'taiwan.gov' and goes from there to 'freetibet.org' and 'IhateXi.com'* the firewall would eventually detect from enough matches - even matches with partial hashes - that the user is a 'bad-thinker' and deduct social credit accordingly. Apple could have tried to avoid helping the Great Firewall (e.g. a proxy could hide times and anonymize IPs) but chose not to. * fictional names inserted only for example's sake.