Comment

Comment on Apple already shipped attestation on the web, and we barely noticed

I’m getting here too late for this to be visible, but fuck it.

The difference is Apple doesn’t pass any information on to the website. It just tells the website whether or not the device is Apple approved or not.

Googles shit is going pass actual information about the device to the site so they can restrict access based on any criteria.

source

Sort:hotnew top

grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It’s hardly OK for Apple to be doing even that either, you know. Who the fuck does Apple think it is, to be entitled to “attest” to a goddamn thing?!

source
realharo@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Can you post any source at all that would back your claims? Or any technical details at all?

Neither the actual proposal github.com/RupertBenWiser/…/explainer.md#what-inf…, nor the article itself seem to show that there would be a difference when it comes to privacy.

The entire problem with this proposal is that it limits client choice, similar to how Google Play integrity API on Android restricts some apps from running on rooted/unlocked phones.

That same problem obviously also exists in Apple’s implementation.

source
Rentlar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Your comment was on the top for me, Lemmy’s default “hot” sorting brings fresh takes to the front, so don’t worry too much about your answers always getting buried.

source
Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Transmitting that info to Apple is still a problem. Why do you trust Apple, but not Google?

Google’s version will likely ask you first, and you’ll know which sites are asking for it. Apple’s won’t.

source
1984@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Big tech tries hard to act like the Internet Government, don’t they…

source
- sekhethsis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  We did by giving them billions and billions of consumer dollars.
  
  source