3 ms·

The probability that a user's identity would be linked up with browsing HTTP sites and an attempt to use that in an adverserial manner is higher when it's Apple

The probability that a user's identity would be linked up with browsing HTTP sites and an attempt to use that in an adverserial manner is higher when it's Apple than when using my ISP. Of course, you may think differently regarding your ISP, but that's for each one of us to decide about our own service providers.

radicaldreamer 2y ago
I don't understand, why is using 10 sites with a cloudflare layer linking directly to your static home IP less likely to identify you across those sites than a double hop via apple's servers where the sites (and cloudflare) don't know which sites are being visited by which end user static ip?
- yupyupyups 2y ago
  Browsing an HTTP site that would otherwise have nothing to do with Cloudflare could end up becoming associated with you. That can happen if the data that CF has is matched with the data at Apple, either by Apple and CF themselves or the US government. The sites that already are MITM'd by Cloudflare are a different story. Cloudflare is going to know what IP address visited them at what time, and if you login with your personal email address, or if your personal phone number is shown in your account settings, then your identity is linked with some probability to that IP address+time. If you then browse a non-CF HTTP site, using Apple's proposed proxy, there would be the risk that your identity+IP address that CF knows become associated with using the HTTP site as well. If you don't use Apple's proxy at all, you connecting to a non-CF HTTP site would only be known by your ISP.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    Your ISP and every single network between you and the server your connected too. Better hope that your connection does go via any major internet exchanges or data centres, because we know full well they’re all tapped by various three letter agencies hoovering up endless amounts of metadata
avianlyric 2y ago
Apple own the browser, if they want to link up your identity with your browsing habits, they can just have Safari phone home all the data. There’s no need for this ridiculous game of charades with private relay. Why on earth would Apple bother spending so much money setting up this infrastructure to spy on a browser they own, running on an OS they also own. It would be like arguing that your bank is secretly in cahoots with shops to spy on your transaction history, because of some reason they can’t do the obvious thing of just spying on your transaction history, which they already have by virtue of being your bank. Your claim is ridiculous and doesn’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Unless you know of reason for believing that Apple is secretly spy on their customers, but only doing in the most convoluted way possible?
- yupyupyups 2y ago
  >Your claim is ridiculous and doesn’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Unless you know of reason for believing that Apple is secretly spy on their customers, but only doing in the most convoluted way possible? Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? It is an easely exploitable system, and that's worth discussing and be conserned about. But still, you bring up a good point. This is relatively convoluted to other ways Apple could harvest data if they wanted to. In fact, they already are harvesting much more data than unencrypted HTTP content by pushing iCloud onto its users. Even if this was an attampt by Apple to gain good will, it has serious flaws, and Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company, and the jurestiction it operates under is not trustworthy either. This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    > Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company Could you provide some evidence for this claim, beyond the fact that all companies are profit motivated, and thus can only be trusted to protect their bottom line. > This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation. Not really, all security and privacy is relative. You can discuss any security or privacy tool in isolation and find fault. But that’s not actually useful, because the only conclusion you could possibly derive from such an approach is that only truly secure and private way to exist is inside a small box disconnected from the rest of the world. > Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? That’s a rather silly question. It only makes sense to worry about this hypothetical if you already have strong argument for why Apple et.al. wouldn’t just compromise the browser or OS instead. The more parties needed to assemble a complete data flow, the more people that are needed, and more likely some will leak the fact this activity occurring. That the whole point of making a big song and dance about both Apple and 3rd parties being involved in Private Relay. Both parties have to be compromised to get valuable data, that’s much harder than compromising a single organisation. Talking about all this silly hypotheticals deliberately ignores the simple fact that people will always choose the simplest, easier route to solving a problem. Putting forward the argument that a nation state or a private organisation is gonna bother attacking Private Relay, but not your ISP and unencrypted HTTP connections (which we know are already tapped at major internet exchanges) is ridiculous, bordering on paranoid.

radicaldreamer 2y ago

I don't understand, why is using 10 sites with a cloudflare layer linking directly to your static home IP less likely to identify you across those sites than a double hop via apple's servers where the sites (and cloudflare) don't know which sites are being visited by which end user static ip?

yupyupyups 2y ago
Browsing an HTTP site that would otherwise have nothing to do with Cloudflare could end up becoming associated with you. That can happen if the data that CF has is matched with the data at Apple, either by Apple and CF themselves or the US government. The sites that already are MITM'd by Cloudflare are a different story. Cloudflare is going to know what IP address visited them at what time, and if you login with your personal email address, or if your personal phone number is shown in your account settings, then your identity is linked with some probability to that IP address+time. If you then browse a non-CF HTTP site, using Apple's proposed proxy, there would be the risk that your identity+IP address that CF knows become associated with using the HTTP site as well. If you don't use Apple's proxy at all, you connecting to a non-CF HTTP site would only be known by your ISP.
- avianlyric 2y ago
  Your ISP and every single network between you and the server your connected too. Better hope that your connection does go via any major internet exchanges or data centres, because we know full well they’re all tapped by various three letter agencies hoovering up endless amounts of metadata

avianlyric 2y ago

Apple own the browser, if they want to link up your identity with your browsing habits, they can just have Safari phone home all the data. There’s no need for this ridiculous game of charades with private relay. Why on earth would Apple bother spending so much money setting up this infrastructure to spy on a browser they own, running on an OS they also own. It would be like arguing that your bank is secretly in cahoots with shops to spy on your transaction history, because of some reason they can’t do the obvious thing of just spying on your transaction history, which they already have by virtue of being your bank. Your claim is ridiculous and doesn’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Unless you know of reason for believing that Apple is secretly spy on their customers, but only doing in the most convoluted way possible?

yupyupyups 2y ago
>Your claim is ridiculous and doesn’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Unless you know of reason for believing that Apple is secretly spy on their customers, but only doing in the most convoluted way possible? Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? It is an easely exploitable system, and that's worth discussing and be conserned about. But still, you bring up a good point. This is relatively convoluted to other ways Apple could harvest data if they wanted to. In fact, they already are harvesting much more data than unencrypted HTTP content by pushing iCloud onto its users. Even if this was an attampt by Apple to gain good will, it has serious flaws, and Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company, and the jurestiction it operates under is not trustworthy either. This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation.
- avianlyric 2y ago
  > Apple isn't generally a trustworthy company Could you provide some evidence for this claim, beyond the fact that all companies are profit motivated, and thus can only be trusted to protect their bottom line. > This feature is being sold as a strong privacy tool, and it's beneficial to discuss its flaws in isolation. Not really, all security and privacy is relative. You can discuss any security or privacy tool in isolation and find fault. But that’s not actually useful, because the only conclusion you could possibly derive from such an approach is that only truly secure and private way to exist is inside a small box disconnected from the rest of the world. > Even if it doesn't happen today, there is a realistic, technical possibility that the data flow could be exploited tomorrow. If the infrastructure is already there, and future incentives are found, what prevents the infrastructure from being exploited in the backend? That’s a rather silly question. It only makes sense to worry about this hypothetical if you already have strong argument for why Apple et.al. wouldn’t just compromise the browser or OS instead. The more parties needed to assemble a complete data flow, the more people that are needed, and more likely some will leak the fact this activity occurring. That the whole point of making a big song and dance about both Apple and 3rd parties being involved in Private Relay. Both parties have to be compromised to get valuable data, that’s much harder than compromising a single organisation. Talking about all this silly hypotheticals deliberately ignores the simple fact that people will always choose the simplest, easier route to solving a problem. Putting forward the argument that a nation state or a private organisation is gonna bother attacking Private Relay, but not your ISP and unencrypted HTTP connections (which we know are already tapped at major internet exchanges) is ridiculous, bordering on paranoid.