I do not know what is really worse, me being uncomfortable with Apple doing everything China tells them to do, or people like you blindly defending Apple on everything.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Clarifies Tencent's Role in Fraudulent Website Warnings, Says No URL Data is Shared and Checks are Limited to Mainland China
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do not know what is really worse, me being uncomfortable with Apple doing everything China tells them to do, or people like you blindly defending Apple on everything.
So the whole of China has zero fraudulent website security, just because you don't think they should work with a Chinese company?
Glad you're not in control lol.
Librem phone is about to get released. It sucks, it is 5 years behind in design, but if it turns out that it is only option in the end, then, well. I will be sorry to switch, but you got to do what is necessary.
If you can't explain how this is a privacy concern then your obligation is to not be freaked out about it. And if you are freaked out about I can confidently state that you can't explain how this is a privacy concern.
People who understand how this system works are unconcerned. That's the opposite of "flippant disregard."
How is it blindly? The wording is right there. This is only an issue because people misinterpreted the wording. What we HAVE is someone (you) assuming the worst with literally zero evidence. But okay.
Unless you also take issue with Safari downloading this list of malicious sites from Google outside China in order to implement this exact same feature, this is a non-issue.
I'm glad that you're not either. Otherwise, we'd have a police state that caters to a communist government's every need. Apple proved on multiple occasions that money trumps morality and that siding with the CCP is in their best interest.
I am more comfortable with Google telling me that something is "fraudulent" than China telling me that some website is "fraudulent".
We know what Chinese criteria for "fraudulent" can be.
Last edited:
If you are still concerned about this feature, you can stop buying apple products.
I love how the posts in this thread, complaining that people are overreacting and not reading critically, are just as spastic as the posts they are complaining about. It doesn't help your argument if you load your replies with condescension. But, here I am assuming you're trying to educate when you might be seeking to be rude with this topic as a pretense.
And for everyone else the data is sent to Google servers, the same google apple constantly tries to scare apple users of
Think about it. If the checks are done locally, why does a second check have to be done on chinese/Google servers? Was the first check some how not done correctly?
If you aren't in china, the data is sent to Google servers, the same google apple says doesn't respect privacy. The same google apple says we should be afraid of.
The usr notes specifically state they send your data to Google and Tencent, as well as your IP. It is only Apple's subsequent press release which states anything different.
You may be happy with that but it surely opens up more questions - why does the terms state something explicit and the press release states another process actually occurs. Whatever way you slice it, it doesn't look good for Apple (unless of course you hold Apple stock or think pro-Apple posts on social media will somehow get you a financial reward).
Why doesn't safari check with apples' servers instead and then apples servers can check with google/chinese servers. Then those servers only have apples IP, not the users.
In February 2019, a $300 million funding round led by Tencent brought the company's valuation to $3 billion.
That's not ownership.
The local database only contains truncated hashes of the URLs, not the entire URLs themselves (presumably to save space and make lookups quicker, as Safari has to access this database whenever a new URL is being loaded). The extended lookup (“second check”) is only needed if the truncated hash matches one of the URLs that Google/Tencent has in their database, in which case Safari needs to check whether the complete URL is blacklisted or not.
So you are just conveniently ignoring Google's collection of safari users data that apple sends directly to Google's servers? The same google that apple has trained their users to be afraid of?
As someone who works in tech: probably because the technical docs writer or legal team (or both) that wrote the copy didnt completely get a full answer back as to how well their language matched what the engineers on the safari team responsible for this were doing. With the recent controversy their PR team probably pinged the engineers and said "OK, what are we *actually* doing, specifically" and clarified, I'd bet the terms will get updated at some point in that case to be more specific.
Alternate option: they intentionally left the door open to more permissive use of data in the future, erring on the side of larger scope so that engineers didnt accidentally violate what you were agreeing to. I'd also expect the terms to get updated to be more narrow after a PR incident like this in that case.
I get that (I'm a programmer) but what I don't get is how regularly this mishap occurs to Apple and how they never seem to see it coming, especially as their entire PR machine is directed at privacy and transparency. At best it shows an incompetent process.