3 ms·

> and in all browsers on iOS and iPadOS 15 Wow. I wonder what Brave thinks of this?

streptomycin 5y ago
All browser vendors are very unhappy that Apple only allows their browser engine on iOS. For security and many other reasons.
- kyriakos 5y ago
  Security in this case is broken by actually forcing the browser engine monopoly on ios.
  - jmull 5y ago
    Well, only if the alternatives are, overall, more secure and private than Safari. I tend to doubt that's true, mainly because, by far, the most likely alternative is Chrome, and Chrome is specifically designed to leak its users' personal information to Google's customers (the ones that generate the bulk of their revenue, that is).
    - kyriakos 5y ago
      The problem is when a zero day is found on safari engine there's no alternative one can use till it gets patched.
      - jmull 5y ago
        Do you think there is a browser available with no zero-days on any platform?
        kyriakos 5y ago
        of course not. all software is buggy and browsers are no exception but having multiple options available allows you to navigate around the minefield; when one of them gets openly compromised just use another, apple forbids that at the moment.
    - tata71 5y ago
      Security ≠ privacy. This is well-tread, mistaken path. Chromium > all, for security. But for privacy, sacrificed by all of them out of the box (yes, Firefox is a noisy SOB too, no I won't dig up the articles people have written on the traffic captured for you). Your settings are very, very important to your browser privacy, regardless of which.
      - jmull 5y ago
        Well, don’t get caught up in unimportant distinctions. Security vs. privacy depends on the relationships between the subject of data, the holder of data and those seeking to use the data. Consider the relationships between browser end users, Google, and the parties who provide Google’s revenue. If we want to distinguish privacy from security here, we have to argue about how to characterize these relationships and hash through the details of the flow of data. It’s pointless and unhelpful.
        tata71 5y ago
        I would trust Chrome to flash GrapheneOS to my Pixel — that's security. I do not trust it not to report back that I use GrapheneOS, or which internet communities I visit, back to Google for use in who knows what data correlation research — that's privacy.
        jmull 5y ago
        But I wonder what your definitional difference is. I think a security issue is one that allows another party to take information or property you have without your consent, and use it for their gain without regard for the harm it may do to you or others. It's arguable, but I believe that's at the core of Google's business model with regard to Chrome users.
        tata71 5y ago
        You can, theoretically, have security without privacy, but no privacy without first having security!

All browser vendors are very unhappy that Apple only allows their browser engine on iOS. For security and many other reasons.

kyriakos 5y ago
Security in this case is broken by actually forcing the browser engine monopoly on ios.
- jmull 5y ago
  Well, only if the alternatives are, overall, more secure and private than Safari. I tend to doubt that's true, mainly because, by far, the most likely alternative is Chrome, and Chrome is specifically designed to leak its users' personal information to Google's customers (the ones that generate the bulk of their revenue, that is).
  - kyriakos 5y ago
    The problem is when a zero day is found on safari engine there's no alternative one can use till it gets patched.
    - jmull 5y ago
      Do you think there is a browser available with no zero-days on any platform?
      - kyriakos 5y ago
        of course not. all software is buggy and browsers are no exception but having multiple options available allows you to navigate around the minefield; when one of them gets openly compromised just use another, apple forbids that at the moment.
  - tata71 5y ago
    Security ≠ privacy. This is well-tread, mistaken path. Chromium > all, for security. But for privacy, sacrificed by all of them out of the box (yes, Firefox is a noisy SOB too, no I won't dig up the articles people have written on the traffic captured for you). Your settings are very, very important to your browser privacy, regardless of which.
    - jmull 5y ago
      Well, don’t get caught up in unimportant distinctions. Security vs. privacy depends on the relationships between the subject of data, the holder of data and those seeking to use the data. Consider the relationships between browser end users, Google, and the parties who provide Google’s revenue. If we want to distinguish privacy from security here, we have to argue about how to characterize these relationships and hash through the details of the flow of data. It’s pointless and unhelpful.
      - tata71 5y ago
        I would trust Chrome to flash GrapheneOS to my Pixel — that's security. I do not trust it not to report back that I use GrapheneOS, or which internet communities I visit, back to Google for use in who knows what data correlation research — that's privacy.
        jmull 5y ago
        But I wonder what your definitional difference is. I think a security issue is one that allows another party to take information or property you have without your consent, and use it for their gain without regard for the harm it may do to you or others. It's arguable, but I believe that's at the core of Google's business model with regard to Chrome users.
        tata71 5y ago
        You can, theoretically, have security without privacy, but no privacy without first having security!