3 ms·

> This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy. I mi

by akalsz 6y ago

> This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy. I might be misunderstanding you, but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place".

coldtea 6y ago
>but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Yep. Like "speed limiters" in cars. We could also trust car drivers "when it comes to observing the speed limit", but in many cases we don't, do we? And that's a mechanical limit imposed on top of fines for speeding and so on... "But here they only hurt themselves" is not necessarily true. If you have family private data and they're stolen because you've installed a malicious extension, doesn't it also hurt your family? If your own data are then used to phish your friends, doesn't it also hurts them? >Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". Not really since: (a) you can run many kinds of code (JS, etc) still in your web browser, can you not? Just not extensions with extra capabilities for sniffing, etc. So "only thinks Apple sold you" is not really accurate. (b) the core reason is not profit, as the "Apple didn't sell you" part implies.
- rasz 6y ago
  But thats the whole point. Neither Google V3 nor Safari prevents you from sniffing users traffic and exfiltrating data, all they do is hobble ability to successfully block most ads.

by akalsz 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"? Yep. Like "speed limiters" in cars. We could also trust car drivers "when it comes to observing the speed limit", but in many cases we don't, do we? And that's a mechanical limit imposed on top of fines for speeding and so on... "But here they only hurt themselves" is not necessarily true. If you have family private data and they're stolen because you've installed a malicious extension, doesn't it also hurt your family? If your own data are then used to phish your friends, doesn't it also hurts them? >Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". Not really since: (a) you can run many kinds of code (JS, etc) still in your web browser, can you not? Just not extensions with extra capabilities for sniffing, etc. So "only thinks Apple sold you" is not really accurate. (b) the core reason is not profit, as the "Apple didn't sell you" part implies.

rasz 6y ago
But thats the whole point. Neither Google V3 nor Safari prevents you from sniffing users traffic and exfiltrating data, all they do is hobble ability to successfully block most ads.