Incompetence is not a “privacy implication”. You think Apple servers are beyond reach of US warrants?
Comment on ICEBlock climbs to the top of the App Store charts after officials slam it
belouve@infosec.pub 2 months ago[deleted]
Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 months ago
dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
This is not true. bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/…/3lt2prfb2vk2r
Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Which part? Are you saying they have made an android version?
Zak@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The link in the comment you’re replying to says which part is not true, but since you seem more willing to comment than to click a link and read, I’ll summarize:
The part about the Apple Push Notification service requiring less information that can identify an individual user than Google’s Firebase Cloud Messaging is not true. Both use a similar token system. Furthermore, it is possible to build android apps with notifications that do not use FCM.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
they probably want to also make it as easy as possible for those who aren't technologically savvy or whose native language isn't english, though
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
No, they are saying that Android and Apple both have a privacy issue on the same level.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 months ago
It’s not on the same level. Android at least provides the option of using an alternative notification system, and also supports downloading apps from anywhere.
Enkimaru@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Well, who knows what is true and what not. I never knew that Push Notifications go via Apple, and not via the network operator. Definitely wrong is GraphenOS’s claim that Android does not allow access to the device id. Of course it does. For what reason would the ID exist if it does not? No idea if you need it for a FB message/notification though.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 months ago
Lots of people do.
That’s not what it says.
There has to be a way for Google/Apple to know which device to send the notif to.