Comment by gyomu

17 hours ago

> why can't I disable network access entirely for some apps

Agreed, the only reason we don’t have a streamlined version of Little Snitch (very flexible network monitor) built in to the OS is that it’d destroy billions of revenue for the advertising industry.

7 comments

gyomu

Reply
j16sdiz  13 hours ago

The same API needed for Little Snitch can be used for surveillance. See Facebook/Onavo.

  • kuekacang  12 hours ago

    I'm sure no API and only built-in control is more favorable. Digressing, built-in mixer is nice to have too.

lostlogin  15 hours ago

> it’d destroy billions of revenue for the advertising industry.

Excellent.

What hidden consequences am I missing? I don’t see a downside.

I spent too much time fortifying devices and blocking their shit from getting in.

  • why-o-why  7 hours ago

    About 5 years ago I purged as many apps as I could. I still have some I need for my job, especially on my work-issued iPhone, but excluding those apps I have exactly 5 apps on my phone. Everything has a website.

    I've heard that native apps are more secure than webapps, but in my experience Firefox is a more reliable steward of security, and App permissions are too obscure to really understand: it is harder to make a malicious webapp than it is to make a malicious native app. Is that a fair statement?

  • luplex  15 hours ago

    you're missing the fact that OS developers like ads, because they want the OS to be a platform where devs can make money.

    • lostlogin  15 hours ago

      I avoid ad supported apps, so if those devs move to companies that I support, it might actually help me?

      If it damages the the OS, that’s a problem for me on a Mac/ios but not so much with Ubuntu.

      It’s not that long ago that I was paying for OS updates (that seems wild, I had to go and check). If it went back to that and I had no ads, it would be a straight win.