|
|
|
|
|
by miomyosky
4729 days ago
|
|
My point is that with an browser (similar to an OS), they cannot take things lightly and flag things left and right based on "heuristics". With great power comes great responsibility. My point is that if you are going to design a system to identify bad websites it better be fail safe otherwise it is going to cause a lot of hurt. The message shown in the browser for a phishing warning is the same as when a website has an invalid SSL certificate.
The first is vaguely accurate, the latter is 100% accurate and no one is going to argue if the warning is needed. Both show the mind chilling warning no sane user will click through. I am more interested in removing the phishing filter than in writing a phishing filter. Anyways, with a 'closed' server component also in the mix, what option is there to provide any implementation. IMHO, I think that doing things for the 'benefit of most' will lead to eroded freedoms for all over time. PS: 'Supply a better implementation' is not an answer to writing poor code and hoisting on the world. |
|