News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web.

Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by segmondy on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @06:49PM (#16972469)
Yeah, the play store of websites. Where we need to get permissions and approvals and can get banned. No thanks, Google is trying to bring their walled garden idea for websites. Don't trust Google on this. They just turned off their service rather than support signal, what if signal was signal.app would they block em? Don't trust Google on this. It's a decent idea but no.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by therealmarv on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @08:04AM (#16976109)
Actually I was searching for Terms of Service and Acceptable usage policy for .app domains and could find NOTHING specific. Not even on official site https://get.app/

I could only find Google Terms of Services, so they also apply to .app ??? So what if I host e.g. adult related material on .app will they ban me? The usage policy is totally in the dark for this domain.

UPDATE: Found something here https://v4.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/app/pdf/special_con... and here https://portal.icann.org/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=0...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by CydeWeys on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @10:17AM (#16977080)
Good sleuthing. ICANN's site can be arcane to navigate at times (like Dell's or Microsoft's).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by ganeshkrishnan on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @05:22PM (#16981263)
It's weird how Facebook is getting all the heat but Google is the real snake in the grass.

When Google bans you, they delete your drive, Gmail, photos and everything associated with it including the ability to search. Also they are associative; if one of your accounts are banned then any account, even business accounts, are all purged.

One of a startup in my previous cohort was completely deleted after one of it's employees who had a banned Google account logged into Google for business

Don't risk. Avoid

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by Can_Not on Thursday May 03, 2018 @09:53AM (#16986018)
Are you saying that Google banned the whole organization based on the association of one employee with a banned account? And they withheld your data with no recourse? Did you consult a lawyer?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by ganeshkrishnan on Thursday May 03, 2018 @10:09AM (#16986167)
It's a widespread issue:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/0...

https://www.perrymarshall.com/2270/google-bans-your-account/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/7nrx07/google_...

Just curious, how can you even get a lawyer for issues like this? And in US it would all be a sham show (like the Zuckerberg senate hearing)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by Can_Not on Thursday May 03, 2018 @05:01PM (#16989938)
I was specifically asking about the business's organization being shut down because of an employee's unrelated banning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by ganeshkrishnan on Thursday May 03, 2018 @05:52PM (#16990323)
It was a startup. I don't think they could afford it
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by amelius on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @03:41AM (#16974911)
> No thanks, Google is trying to bring their walled garden idea for websites.

It might affect your app's search rank if you don't comply ...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by letsgetphysITal on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @05:13AM (#16975203)
I've used DuckDuckGo for months. Only the very most esoteric of terms brings me back to Google, and I can count those times in the past months on one hand.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by amelius on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @05:17AM (#16975229)
Yes, but good luck convincing the (potential) users of your app :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by giblaz on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @10:09AM (#16977006)
It's certainly an issue to consider if you're starting a company.

If you are creating a organization that is less focused on making money as a core element like a business is, then you should feel fine using .org or any other domain.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by brlewis on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @09:19PM (#16973315)
Is there any precedent for a TLD owner doing what you describe? I think this is HSTS preload and nothing more.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by CydeWeys on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @09:35PM (#16973399)
ICANN has hundreds (thousands?) of pages of rules and procedures relating to the ngTLD program detailing exactly how all of this plays out. Spoiler alert: There's not and can't be.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by therealmarv on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @08:06AM (#16976122)
yes, there are many domains which describe what is acceptable and what not on their usage policy or terms.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by dingo_bat on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @10:53PM (#16973687)
Yes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/daily-stormer-being-dumped-by-go...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/godaddy-boots-the-daily-stor...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by CydeWeys on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @10:58PM (#16973708)
Both of those are articles are about registrars refusing to do business with one specific hate group. They're not about registries.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by cookiecaper on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @12:37AM (#16974086)
Yes, but that still represents a very serious problem. The EFF has written extensively on it since this occurred in August. Here's a starting point: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/eff-icanns-registrars-....

ICANN has worked very well so far, but if they don't put up a strong response to registrar-based censorship on already-registered domains and make this contractually impossible, the internet is going to be in big trouble. We can't let "you can't have a domain because we don't want you to be able to talk, as a matter of corporate policy" become a thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by brlewis on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @10:12AM (#16977036)
Is the problem worse with .app than with .com? If so, why?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by dingo_bat on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:10PM (#16973762)
Aren't Google and Godaddy both TLD owners?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by CydeWeys on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:16PM (#16973783)
GoDaddy is a registrar. Google has both a registrar and a registry, but the linked actions were taken on the registrar side (i.e. not relevant to what the registry can do with its TLDs). The list of TLDs run by the registry can be found here: https://www.registry.google
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by bastawhiz on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:20PM (#16973791)
Yes, technically. But GoDaddy's GTLD (.godaddy) isn't available for public use, so your point is moot.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by dingo_bat on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:43PM (#16973876)
My point is that google will ban your website off the internet in whatever way possible for them, if they don't agree with what you're saying. They have demonstrated this as I linked. Just because their role is now TLD owner, doesn't mean they will not do what they think is necessary.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by edem on Thursday May 03, 2018 @05:00AM (#16984387)
They violated terms of use. What's the problem?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by dingo_bat on Thursday May 03, 2018 @07:23AM (#16984951)
No problem. I was just answering parent's question about precedent.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by zouhair on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:21PM (#16973796)
You mean Signal the messaging app? Can you link to a news?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by jperras on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:23PM (#16973802)
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17308508/amazon-web-servic...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/18/17253784/google-domain-fr...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by ehsankia on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @12:16AM (#16974011)
I don't understand why Google or Amazon are to blame here. It's like using an unofficial API and then complaining when it's taken down. Yes, it sucks that Signal can't hide behind them to bypass censorship, but as far as I understanding, it's not a good practice for these big sites to support Domain fronting in the first place.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by zouhair on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @11:33PM (#16973839)
Jesus, now Signal is useless.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by beojan on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @08:31AM (#16976266)
Only if you live somewhere that blocks it.

And I suspect even then, you could still use a Signal server hosted by someone else.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by acct1771 on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @12:26PM (#16978588)
Not with the official client.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web by s2g on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @07:24PM (#16972684)
Makes sense, given their mission to monopolize the internet.

Break up google.

[ Parent | on HN ]