4 ms·

I’m not placing any burden of proof on anything? I’m saying I don’t have any problem with the privacy implications of my computer making requests to a link I ex

I’m not placing any burden of proof on anything? I’m saying I don’t have any problem with the privacy implications of my computer making requests to a link I explicitly take action to share with others, and I think objections to it on principle require disregarding the vast majority of legitimate use. If “share” isn’t a sufficiently explicit user interaction to perform a request to the thing being shared, I can think of very few if any reasonable justifications for going through with sharing it either. What is the legitimate use case for “I don’t want to access this network resource but I do want to distribute it to another recipient”?

lapcat 3y ago
> I’m not placing any burden of proof on anything? And yet... > What is the legitimate use case for “I don’t want to access this network resource but I do want to distribute it to another recipient”? Let me ask this question: Do you want the operating system to load the URL every time you simply copy and paste a URL? If not, then how is this case any different? There's some discussion of use cases in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 However, in general, I consider the term "legitimate" to be user-hostile. Who decides which use cases are legitimate or not? We shouldn't need to prove that our usage is "legitimate", by your standard. Some people claim, "You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide", and that's fundamentally wrongheaded. The right to privacy should be assumed, unless there's a serious, overriding counterpoint.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > Do you want the operating system to load the URL every time you simply copy and paste a URL? Honestly, I wouldn't mind at all. Link previews are becoming super common everywhere in the OS and apps. If somebody texts me a URL, it shows up as a link preview. Certain websites show link previews when you hover over a link. Not to mention browsers precache tons of URLs you never explicitly visit. Visiting copied URL's to generate link previews, even if I never use the clipboard viewer to see it, seems entirely in line with expected behavior of using URLs in an OS. The last thing I need is a complicated mental model of which OS behaviors will load URL previews and which won't. Easier to just assume they all will. So yes, if I'm dealing with a URL in any GUI context, I expect it might be accessed at any time for preview/precache purposes. If it's vitally important that it not be, I'll disconnect from the internet entirely.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Honestly, I wouldn't mind at all. That's great for you, but Apple claims that "privacy is a fundamental human right". So I'm going to hold Apple to that principle.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Well, you're the one who asked. And reasonable people disagree as to whether practices like link previews and precaching invade privacy or not. Obviously, I'm someone who doesn't think it does.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > Well, you're the one who asked. No, I asked eyelidlessness, whose answer was the opposite of yours.
        crazygringo 3y ago
        Welcome to forums, where all questions are asked for anyone to answer! :)
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  > Let me ask this question: Do you want the operating system to load the URL every time you simply copy and paste a URL? If not, then how is this case any different? No, and here I think there is some burden of proof to suggest that they’re the same. Copying a URL does not imply that anyone will access it. Sharing it to another recipient has no purpose other than to prompt accessing it. > There's some discussion of use cases in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 Of those, the most compelling is the abortion pills site. It shares with the piracy example the possibility of being implicated in visiting a site when one hasn’t, and undue repercussions for that implication. Both are a stretch in terms of the likelihood of legal success (because neither actually produces a visit to the actual web page), but the abortion pills example is more compelling because political realities make injustice in that case more likely. I’ll admit this does give me some pause, but I’m not convinced it’s any more a threat than sharing the unvisited link. > However, in general, I consider the term "legitimate" to be user-hostile. Who decides which use cases are legitimate or not? We shouldn't need to prove that our usage is "legitimate", by your standard. I chose the term carefully, specifically because the most obvious use case I could think of is categorically not legitimate: sending known-harmful resources to unwitting others for malicious purposes. > Some people claim, "You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide", and that's fundamentally wrongheaded. The right to privacy should be assumed, unless there's a serious, overriding counterpoint. I’m not sure why you feel this is necessary to point out as a response here. It’s possible to agree with this principle and still determine that certain applications of it are impertinent.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > No, and here I think there is some burden of proof to suggest that they’re the same. That's exactly the way sharing worked for many years, until Ventura. > Sharing it to another recipient has no purpose other than to prompt accessing it. Says you, but that's not universally true. And when you talk about another "recipient", it's important to clarify that sharing is between apps on your own system. Sharing between people may or may not occur as a result of that, which is another reason why I liken it to copy and paste. > I’m not sure why you feel this is necessary to point out as a response here. The point is that privacy is the default. It doesn't need to be justified. As Apple says repeatedly and vehemently, "We believe privacy is a fundamental human right."

lapcat 3y ago

> I’m not placing any burden of proof on anything? And yet... > What is the legitimate use case for “I don’t want to access this network resource but I do want to distribute it to another recipient”? Let me ask this question: Do you want the operating system to load the URL every time you simply copy and paste a URL? If not, then how is this case any different? There's some discussion of use cases in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 However, in general, I consider the term "legitimate" to be user-hostile. Who decides which use cases are legitimate or not? We shouldn't need to prove that our usage is "legitimate", by your standard. Some people claim, "You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide", and that's fundamentally wrongheaded. The right to privacy should be assumed, unless there's a serious, overriding counterpoint.

crazygringo 3y ago
> Do you want the operating system to load the URL every time you simply copy and paste a URL? Honestly, I wouldn't mind at all. Link previews are becoming super common everywhere in the OS and apps. If somebody texts me a URL, it shows up as a link preview. Certain websites show link previews when you hover over a link. Not to mention browsers precache tons of URLs you never explicitly visit. Visiting copied URL's to generate link previews, even if I never use the clipboard viewer to see it, seems entirely in line with expected behavior of using URLs in an OS. The last thing I need is a complicated mental model of which OS behaviors will load URL previews and which won't. Easier to just assume they all will. So yes, if I'm dealing with a URL in any GUI context, I expect it might be accessed at any time for preview/precache purposes. If it's vitally important that it not be, I'll disconnect from the internet entirely.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Honestly, I wouldn't mind at all. That's great for you, but Apple claims that "privacy is a fundamental human right". So I'm going to hold Apple to that principle.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Well, you're the one who asked. And reasonable people disagree as to whether practices like link previews and precaching invade privacy or not. Obviously, I'm someone who doesn't think it does.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Well, you're the one who asked. No, I asked eyelidlessness, whose answer was the opposite of yours.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        Welcome to forums, where all questions are asked for anyone to answer! :)
eyelidlessness 3y ago
> Let me ask this question: Do you want the operating system to load the URL every time you simply copy and paste a URL? If not, then how is this case any different? No, and here I think there is some burden of proof to suggest that they’re the same. Copying a URL does not imply that anyone will access it. Sharing it to another recipient has no purpose other than to prompt accessing it. > There's some discussion of use cases in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38031177 Of those, the most compelling is the abortion pills site. It shares with the piracy example the possibility of being implicated in visiting a site when one hasn’t, and undue repercussions for that implication. Both are a stretch in terms of the likelihood of legal success (because neither actually produces a visit to the actual web page), but the abortion pills example is more compelling because political realities make injustice in that case more likely. I’ll admit this does give me some pause, but I’m not convinced it’s any more a threat than sharing the unvisited link. > However, in general, I consider the term "legitimate" to be user-hostile. Who decides which use cases are legitimate or not? We shouldn't need to prove that our usage is "legitimate", by your standard. I chose the term carefully, specifically because the most obvious use case I could think of is categorically not legitimate: sending known-harmful resources to unwitting others for malicious purposes. > Some people claim, "You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide", and that's fundamentally wrongheaded. The right to privacy should be assumed, unless there's a serious, overriding counterpoint. I’m not sure why you feel this is necessary to point out as a response here. It’s possible to agree with this principle and still determine that certain applications of it are impertinent.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > No, and here I think there is some burden of proof to suggest that they’re the same. That's exactly the way sharing worked for many years, until Ventura. > Sharing it to another recipient has no purpose other than to prompt accessing it. Says you, but that's not universally true. And when you talk about another "recipient", it's important to clarify that sharing is between apps on your own system. Sharing between people may or may not occur as a result of that, which is another reason why I liken it to copy and paste. > I’m not sure why you feel this is necessary to point out as a response here. The point is that privacy is the default. It doesn't need to be justified. As Apple says repeatedly and vehemently, "We believe privacy is a fundamental human right."