this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
66 points (91.2% liked)

Apple

17539 readers
114 users here now

Welcome

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!

Rules:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

Communities of Interest:

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@TwilightKiddy @prousername bro really said hashing is a privacy violation??

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

I meant a pretty well-known case, not hashing in general. Thought that was obvious.