Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by refulgentis on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:00AM
(#40282212)
Cupertino, if you're listening, I'm not comfortable with the offset either, that would also do fine as an identifier.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by int_19h on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:34AM
(#40282368)
You expect apps to have no access to a simple monotonic timer?
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by nozzlegear on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @01:17AM
(#40282573)
I expect Apple to figure out how to provide apps with such a timer in a way that also prevents them from having access to the system uptime.
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by int_19h on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @03:05AM
(#40283126)
If there's a random offset applied, how would they have access to the actual system uptime?
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by nozzlegear on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @09:24AM
(#40285148)
I don’t know, like I said, I expect Apple to figure that out. Their engineers get paid to figure out such problems, not me!
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by int_19h on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @07:25PM
(#40303754)
My original response in this thread was to a comment that said, "I'm not comfortable with the offset either".
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by refulgentis on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:36AM
(#40282382)
I expect privacy theater; I err towards having opinions that enforce privacy - i.e. a time that's guaranteed to be x seconds since the app first started after system boot can be used to diminish privacy
Re:Google, Meta 'break' Apple's device fingerprinting rules
by int_19h on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @07:27PM
(#40303769)
Why would you expect privacy theater, though. Apple genuinely tries to frustrate this kind of snooping from (third-party) apps, so if they choose to obfuscate the timer in the first place, I don't see what the point is for them to make it a security theater. The obvious and trivial implementation for this is adding a random number, and that's what any minimally competent dev will do unless specifically told otherwise. So, why would they be told otherwise?