I just came back from the theater. Every word of this article rings true. The movie is a piece of art, the best of star wars with the grandeur of Game of Thrones. Its very rare to get movies like this these days.
Watched the part one on day 1 as well. It was definitely more intriguing than enjoyable. The visuals and soundtrack really carried it despite the pacing. Imo, part one was just a great setup for this masterpiece.
We live in a police state. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country. Many of the people in prison are political prisoners. Our national security apparatus is powerful and unaccountable. Congress just reauthorized 702 which allows warrantless surveillance. Police and security apparatus is constantly looking for more ways to watch and incriminate anybody who resists their power.
People are needlessly paranoid because there will be a few incidents that get a lot of media attention and mindshare, despite being a vast minority of the time.
Of course passwords are fine. What's not fine is getting billions of people to change their behavior and switch to and use a password manager (that's not chrome).
You could even argue passwords are better than passkeys for those with strong password hygiene. However when it to the masses, the convenience-security tradeoff of something like passkeys is always going to be better. And for the nerds and geeks, passwords are not going to disappear anytime soon.
Not the parent but the problem is that Chrome (sub. Firefox and Safari, these are problems with pretty much all browsers) isn't a password manager, its a password autofiller.
The result is that what should be crucial things like "how do we ensure permanency of the passwords file" are treated as very second rank - profile corruption usually is met with "remove the entire profile", which also ditches the password database. Literally every other password manager has some sort of tool available that makes it very clear where your data is stored and emergency backup options.
Chrome also doesn't like it if the login form doesn't look like most other login forms (and because this is the internet, you're gonna at some point run into weird login forms). It also can behave really funny if the site combines the user registration form with the user login form (which a lot of webshops do) by putting the autofill information in the registration form instead of the login form.
Add to that a very subpar experience in manually filling the right fields and "why not Chrome" should have a very clear answer.
It's a full-featured password manager, accessible via passwords.google.com . Also has great android app integration. I use it on Android, Linux, and Windows. The only thing it's missing is the marketing; I often wonder why they don't market it and crush 1password et al.
This isn't a great answer, but I've never liked Chrome password manager because I feel like a password manager is something I want to pay a company for, not a service I want to be given for free. Somehow, it being a free feature that's bundled with my browser makes me not trust it. (Again, not claiming this is a great reason not to use it)
I use pass as my password manager on all my Linux boxes (with a yubikey to store GPG keys and Password Store + OpenKeychain on android).
I basically refuse to use any password manager with an implementation I can't see or audit.
I can't imagine trusting any company to handle my passwords correctly.
The only proprietary component is the yubikey which is basically incapable of misbehaving in a way which would cause me to lose control over my passwords unless I lose control over the yubikey itself.
Yes, pass is 800 lines of relatively straightforward bash and I am qualified to review bash. Now, granted, it uses GnuPG and git but in those cases I think the risk of problems is minimal.
I haven’t in all honesty read the Password Store android application (nor OpenKeychain) source code but I trust my phone sandbox capabilities enough for it not to do anything nefarious like send my passwords somewhere. Its also not so large that it would be hard to read it.
The point is, the operating principles behind how Pass works are simple enough that its relatively easy to verify the core of any implentation and relatively difficult to smuggle in nefarious behavior.
Not sure if it is what the GPP is referring to, but I prefer to keep a larger gap between my browser and password manager to reduce the potential spread of difficulties if the browser falls foul of a security vulnerability. The risk of this happening is of course small, it would require significant bugs in a couple of different places, but the potential damage is high. Firefox's password manager, or those built into any other web UAs, I'd be wary of for the same reason rather than it being specifically an anti-chrome thing.
An air gap would be preferable still, as that would protect from similar issues at the OS level, but that is another step or few into less practical (well, significantly more inconvenient) territory. I at least have my master password on a USB device (and backed up by other physical means in case that dies) which is only plugged in when needed, that is effectively an air gap when I don't leave the password manager unlocked between uses.
Good thing they’re not attacking anyone then. They’re very clearly from the linked application in the article trying to register a trademark for a very long standing trademark that they now own within the realm of trade that said trademark has been traditionally used. That is, they’re trying to register the Apple Records (of the Beatles fame) logo as a trademark in the realm of music and related multi-media.
Which isn’t what’s happening. A fruit seller has a hypothetical concern over a trademark application, which is how you turn a non story into a story on a slow news day.
Apple is manoeuvring itself into a position where it could
Without any other reasonable explanation for why it should
Except for the one of which Fruit Union is afraid it would
No other explanation except that they’re registering a very specific logo which they are now the owners of but has been used in trade since the 60s within the domain of trade relating to the historical use of that trademark (that is music and related media). You know, exactly the sort of thing you might expect the owner of a trademark to do in all the relevant legal jurisdictions where it might be using that mark in trade
That's precisely the point I was trying to make in response to my parent; Fruit Union's fears are fully justified as there'd be no reason for Apple to pursue this trademark if they weren't intending to exploit the perks of its ownership in the future.
Yes, the perks of its ownership like enforcing their trade mark in the trade they are engaged in. Specifically the sale of music and the licensing of that mark back to Apple Records. Again they aren't trademarking the concept of apples, or all pictures of apples, nor is the application for anything more than the categories under which that trademark was. Further more, the application is not really any different from any number of other trademarks for which the Swiss government has already registered for Apple, such as:
Realistically this article is pure rage bait mixed with some clever marketing by the Swiss fruit union. They're not seriously worried, they're getting free press by stirring up controversy over an absolute nothing. And you can tell because of this weasel word line:
>“We have a hard time understanding this, because it’s not like they’re trying to protect their bitten apple,” Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariéthoz says, referring to the company’s iconic logo.
They would understand if Apple were (and indeed already has as linked above) trademarking their Apple Computer logo, but they somehow don't understand why Apple is also trademarking the logo of Apple Records which they also own? Either everyone involved in this article from the fruit union reps all the way up to the editors are completely ignorant of Apple Records, their logo and the previous IP battles regarding that logo or they're playing dumb for the sake of making a story.
It really is relative. If Apple was spending even a majority of it's profits in new products then I would take back my statement. Spending a paltry billion a year (Estimated for Vision Pro) when you make more than 200 billion in profits, and the majority of profits going into share buybacks is "no good vision".
$12k for 50M requests, wow. It seems Reddit has taken the twitter way out.
If they just wanted to ban third party apps, they should have the balls to do it rather than pull all this stuff.
