3 ms·

Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work.

by nuker 1y ago

input_sh 1y ago
Are they doing that on Android right now?
- GeoAtreides 1y ago
  OP, nuker, please answer, i'm genuinely curious what you think about this
  - nuker 1y ago
    "Former Facebook insiders explain why the company is making such a big fuss over Apple's upcoming privacy change" https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset-about-apple-idfa-change-insiders-spill.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset... I have not heard similar tantrum from FB over Android. Makes sense as it is made by an Ad company.
    - GeoAtreides 1y ago
      that was not the question the question was: You: >Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work. input_sh: > Are they doing that on Android right now? So is Facebook granting its app all permission entitlements, and directing all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work on Android?
      - nuker 1y ago
        They don't, no need, Android works for them. They don't on iOS too, iOS alt app stores did not hit US yet. They will, if iOS alt stores will become global thing, or the hypothetical "lockdown opt-out", that started the whole thread.
  - mvdtnz 1y ago
    They never answer this one.
close04 1y ago
Fair enough, and then your iOS should just report the list of permissions the app demanded, maybe even compare to the AppStore version, and then let people make their choice. It doesn't have to be a "one click" easy way to make mistakes. Most users won't bother to go through 3 extra steps to install the "alternative" app if they aren't missing anything in the regular one. The OS should anyway sandbox everything, and be as isolated as possible from any app running on top of it. That's the real security, everything else is mostly privacy - as in it's not really a security issue that the FB app siphons all the data I allowed it to access.
- nuker 1y ago
  > and then let people make their choice. Some apps are de-facto unavoidable, like Facebook, Whatsapp and X.
  - Hamuko 1y ago
    The only one of those on my phone is X and it's definitely avoidable.
  - q3k 1y ago
    I have, in fact, none of these on my phone.
  - Zak 1y ago
    That seems like a bit of a stretch. Whatsapp is probably the hardest to avoid for most people in parts of the world where it's dominant. The number of people who need to use Facebook or Twitter is likely much smaller, and very few of those need to install a native app instead of using the website.
  - close04 1y ago
    They absolutely are not. No more than alcohol or tobacco addiction are de-facto unavoidable. And the people who are absolutely addicted to those platforms will always have the option of the web page no matter what you do to the app.
Hamuko 1y ago
You should probably not use Facebook then. How is it that the answer to an American megacorp trying to hoover all of your personal data is to try to get another American megacorp to add universal barricades to your device?
- HWR_14 1y ago
  > How is it that the answer to an American megacorp trying to hoover all of your personal data is to try to get another American megacorp to add universal barricades to your device? Because only Apple has the power to stop Chrome from being the only browser (like IE) or to stop Meta from insisting you give up all privacy. A government may be able to do it within their own borders for a period of time, but Meta, Google and Apple are all larger and more powerful than the majority of countries out there.
  - tpmoney 1y ago
    > A government may be able to do it within their own borders for a period of time Part of the problem is the governments are proving they aren’t interested in doing it. Aside from the fact that law enforcement agencies are happy to have easily legally compelled data like this, the governments are actively fighting e2e encryption and strong on device encryption. And then on top of that, if they really were interested in solving that problem, you’d think they’d be spending legislative power on solving that before solving forcing the 2nd place market competitor to open their OS up.
  - trinsic2 1y ago
    In regards to browser lock down Apple wants to be the only game in town. Safari allows plug-in's but Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to provide plugins themselves. They do this to create an unequal advantage.

Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work.

by nuker 1y ago

Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work.

input_sh 1y ago

Are they doing that on Android right now?

GeoAtreides 1y ago
OP, nuker, please answer, i'm genuinely curious what you think about this
- nuker 1y ago
  "Former Facebook insiders explain why the company is making such a big fuss over Apple's upcoming privacy change" https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset-about-apple-idfa-change-insiders-spill.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset... I have not heard similar tantrum from FB over Android. Makes sense as it is made by an Ad company.
  - GeoAtreides 1y ago
    that was not the question the question was: You: >Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work. input_sh: > Are they doing that on Android right now? So is Facebook granting its app all permission entitlements, and directing all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work on Android?
    - nuker 1y ago
      They don't, no need, Android works for them. They don't on iOS too, iOS alt app stores did not hit US yet. They will, if iOS alt stores will become global thing, or the hypothetical "lockdown opt-out", that started the whole thread.
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  They never answer this one.

close04 1y ago

Fair enough, and then your iOS should just report the list of permissions the app demanded, maybe even compare to the AppStore version, and then let people make their choice. It doesn't have to be a "one click" easy way to make mistakes. Most users won't bother to go through 3 extra steps to install the "alternative" app if they aren't missing anything in the regular one. The OS should anyway sandbox everything, and be as isolated as possible from any app running on top of it. That's the real security, everything else is mostly privacy - as in it's not really a security issue that the FB app siphons all the data I allowed it to access.

nuker 1y ago
> and then let people make their choice. Some apps are de-facto unavoidable, like Facebook, Whatsapp and X.
- Hamuko 1y ago
  The only one of those on my phone is X and it's definitely avoidable.
- q3k 1y ago
  I have, in fact, none of these on my phone.
- Zak 1y ago
  That seems like a bit of a stretch. Whatsapp is probably the hardest to avoid for most people in parts of the world where it's dominant. The number of people who need to use Facebook or Twitter is likely much smaller, and very few of those need to install a native app instead of using the website.
- close04 1y ago
  They absolutely are not. No more than alcohol or tobacco addiction are de-facto unavoidable. And the people who are absolutely addicted to those platforms will always have the option of the web page no matter what you do to the app.

Hamuko 1y ago

You should probably not use Facebook then. How is it that the answer to an American megacorp trying to hoover all of your personal data is to try to get another American megacorp to add universal barricades to your device?

HWR_14 1y ago
> How is it that the answer to an American megacorp trying to hoover all of your personal data is to try to get another American megacorp to add universal barricades to your device? Because only Apple has the power to stop Chrome from being the only browser (like IE) or to stop Meta from insisting you give up all privacy. A government may be able to do it within their own borders for a period of time, but Meta, Google and Apple are all larger and more powerful than the majority of countries out there.
- tpmoney 1y ago
  > A government may be able to do it within their own borders for a period of time Part of the problem is the governments are proving they aren’t interested in doing it. Aside from the fact that law enforcement agencies are happy to have easily legally compelled data like this, the governments are actively fighting e2e encryption and strong on device encryption. And then on top of that, if they really were interested in solving that problem, you’d think they’d be spending legislative power on solving that before solving forcing the 2nd place market competitor to open their OS up.
- trinsic2 1y ago
  In regards to browser lock down Apple wants to be the only game in town. Safari allows plug-in's but Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to provide plugins themselves. They do this to create an unequal advantage.