4 ms·
Revoking the certificate _after_ an app developer already gathered and sold PI is a good action. But it is reactive. The user damage is already done. But tryin
by gls2ro 3y ago
Revoking the certificate _after_ an app developer already gathered and sold PI is a good action. But it is reactive. The user damage is already done.
But trying to deter such app developer to gather as much PI as possible is even better as it is preventive.
- asow92 3y agoHonestly, I’d prefer if we didn’t need the paste prompt all together. I just want a way to universal link into my app on the very first launch. The pasteboard and fingerprinting gave us that, but apple has given us no feasible alternative. This is like chrome saying you can’t go to anything other than the root path of a site the first time you go there.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agothe same goes for punishing criminals, but the idea of pre-crime is worse
- eropple 3y agoPunishing criminals before they offend and setting clear boundaries beyond which you need user permission to act? Totally the same thing.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agorequiring people to prove their innocence or requiring people to prove their innocence? totally different things.
- eropple 3y agoRequiring a user to agree to what an application wants to do isn't a requirement to prove innocence. It's a requirement to obtain consent that is verifiable by the operating system in which the user has placed trust. Why is the open and clear obtaining of consent so clearly anathema throughout this thread?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]