to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
So as you may know, i am a guy mostly focused on privacy. Basically, insead of google i use SearXNG. (Privacy focused search engine) However, when i went to change the default search engine in safari, there was no option to add a custom search engine.
This really pissed me off. So how come Apple allows changing default browsers in the EU, but not search engines?
Apple isn't any good for privacy. Just as Google, it's a single big company that gets full control over your device. There are many examples of them exploiting it, by hashing your launched apps on Mac to check for malware, for example. Their systems are also known for being a lot more locked down than the rest, meaning getting rid of telemetry is not an easy task. Big companies are not interested in your privacy, they are interested in profit. And the profit they can get by building your profile is a lot more valuable for them than you as a user. That being said, the guy is right, but he is out of line.
@TwilightKiddy @prousername bro really said hashing is a privacy violation??
I mean, they where hashing any lauched programs and sending the hashes unencryped to their servers to compare against their database. So, they literally knew every program you launched, when you did it, but also your ISP knew it and anyone smart enough to MITM your connection. Sounds like a privacy violation to me.
@TwilightKiddy I can see how you can get there, but the MITM would need to know the hashing algo, you can’t *really* just un-hash something, at least not reliably
But your original statement was that the hashing was the privacy violation, and that’s the part I took issue with, hashing is a generally accepted security measure, it is not inherently a privacy violation
I meant a pretty well-known case, not hashing in general. Thought that was obvious.