Mobile Safari Anti-Phishing Feature Criticized As Being Inconsistent

I'm on that bus....:eek:

This not like Apple. I just checked my bank accounts today! I could be flat broke right now and I wouldn't even know it!

whinge bloody whinge, im sure if theres a problem apple will be on it soon

in the bigger scheme of things don't blame apple blame the SOBS that are trying day and night to get your personnel information. And for the record, apple never said the Mac couldn't get viruses. Never! It has been the overzealous apple community touting that BS and getting all them apple converts all hyped up. Now some of the converts are questioning their decision to go apple. Meh!

This not like Apple. I just checked my bank accounts today! I could be flat broke right now and I wouldn't even know it!

You must be joking, but in case you aren't, here goes:

Say you have accounts at US Bank. If you go to usbank.com, you will not have any problems. If you get an email saying it's from your bank and it's not, and you click a link which opens into a website that is not your bank, then you would have to be an idiot to enter your personal information.

Bottom line: don't be a fool. This feature is only for morons. If you use your bookmark for your bank's website, or even type it in manually, there is no reason to need the anti-phishing measures.

You must be joking, but in case you aren't, here goes:

haha yes, to an extent. As I just did a reset and lost all my bookmarks, I had to manually typed the url in today over my school's non-encrypted wifi network, then register the "new computer" to my account.

I agree. Those SOBS at the IRS (or HMRC/Inland Rev etc) are always trying to get my personal info and my money. ;-)

Safari didn't throw up a warning for all those .gov sites.

in the bigger scheme of things don't blame apple blame the SOBS that are trying day and night to get your personnel information.

Given that most people know that they should type url's fir their banks etc rather than clicking on links, I'm not sure how bigger problem this is.

It's best just to be aware. Better for the user to be aware that the feature isn't working properly so they shouldn't rely on it.

I don't think I'd turn complacent just because a non-foolproof feature was assisting me in being careful, as a convenience. This kind of feature can't be foolproof anyway.