Chrome lets you override and proceed to the site. The problem for the small business is that a large fraction of their customers see the scary red warning page.
Well, that goes without saying. If you want a blocker, you want a blocker. So all the nigerian princes and the like should still be blocked.
You just don't want to give control over the blocking blacklist/whitelist to a single entity, even less so to a huge powerful one, possibly in a country other than your own (which e.g. forces their foreign policy dictums to your blacklist), and even less so the one that already makes your browser, that should be a totally neutral conduit.
I don't think this solves the problem from the article, since small businesses will still have to deal with getting mistakenly blocked by whatever the popular blockers are. With 40,000 new phishing sites per week, it's not an easy task. If the blockers are free (I imagine they'd have to be to get widespread adoption), who's going to review the false positives? Volunteers?
But also, it would leave the people most vulnerable to phishing unprotected, namely those not tech-savvy enough to install a phishing protection service. Most internet users don't even have ad-blockers.
> they could offer control to override
Chrome lets you override and proceed to the site. The problem for the small business is that a large fraction of their customers see the scary red warning page.
Well enough that it will still be a blocker.
Well, that goes without saying. If you want a blocker, you want a blocker. So all the nigerian princes and the like should still be blocked.
You just don't want to give control over the blocking blacklist/whitelist to a single entity, even less so to a huge powerful one, possibly in a country other than your own (which e.g. forces their foreign policy dictums to your blacklist), and even less so the one that already makes your browser, that should be a totally neutral conduit.
I don't think this solves the problem from the article, since small businesses will still have to deal with getting mistakenly blocked by whatever the popular blockers are. With 40,000 new phishing sites per week, it's not an easy task. If the blockers are free (I imagine they'd have to be to get widespread adoption), who's going to review the false positives? Volunteers?
But also, it would leave the people most vulnerable to phishing unprotected, namely those not tech-savvy enough to install a phishing protection service. Most internet users don't even have ad-blockers.