Live data from Hacker News

Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

uk.reuters.com

151–160 of 229 posts

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#151

This ends when the origin site starts proxying requests to the ad aggregators via the site-native domain.

Doesn’t work for the web because without the 3rd party domain there’s no access to 3rd party cookies so the tracker can’t identify you that way.

[deleted]

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#152

I see a resurgence in marketing similar to Mad Men: where firms don’t have access to highly personalized data, and eventually, will actually have to be creative, instead of just using algorithms parameterized with user tracking/profile data

Let's just start charging for services

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#153
post #140

I wish the Safari content blocking API allowed cookies to be blocked. I'd block cookies for 99% of sites I visit, allowing them only for the handful of sites to which I login. I'd suggest Safari could even make cookies require getting user permission, the same way location access needs to be granted. "Allow, allow for 24 hours, deny." It could default deny except for sites to which it has a saved password which could…

> Safari could even make cookies require getting user permission

Ode to browsers of the 90s

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#154

“Foxes complain about Apple improving hen house security”. As a user, Google and their advertiser puppets can go whistle.

The only caveat i'll add is Apple is providing ad software that doesn't trigger the double verification. This can be seen either as a push to force people to respect privacy(as their software does), or a push to control a larger share of the ad market (as the foxes here i'm sure believe)

I don’t love them, but I’m ok with ads. I’m not ok with tracking/spyware/modern adtech.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#155

“Foxes complain about Apple improving hen house security”. As a user, Google and their advertiser puppets can go whistle.

The only caveat i'll add is Apple is providing ad software that doesn't trigger the double verification. This can be seen either as a push to force people to respect privacy(as their software does), or a push to control a larger share of the ad market (as the foxes here i'm sure believe)

It does not pass the smell test though: Apple has nothing to gain from its non-existent advertising arm, whilst advertisers have a lot to lose if random users can opt out. I have no doubt Apple's solution needs improving and will be circumvented, but I am not going to lament that better is not perfect.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#156

> Sixteen marketing associations, some of which are backed by Facebook Inc (FB.O) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google, faulted Apple for not adhering to an ad-industry system for seeking user consent under European privacy rules. Apps will now need to ask for permission twice, increasing the risk users will refuse, the associations argued. I was taken aback when I read that sixteen(!) agencies had banded together, in…

> collusion from Google and Facebook

Is there a good reason to believe that Google or Facebook are involved? Seems like it may be a tenuous connection given the article's vagueness: "some" of 16 unnamed "associations" are "backed" by Google/Facebook, according to a source we know nothing about.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the case all over the web. Many of these cookie/privacy modals just don’t work or are deliberately engineered to be as obnoxious as possible. We need some legal test cases where this behavior is declared to be in violation of the spirit of GDPR and CCPA.

My favorite firefox addon after NoScript is " I don't care about cookies".

You could replace both with ublock origin.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#158

> Apple last week disclosed features in its forthcoming operating system for iPhones and iPads that will require apps to show a pop-up screen before they enable a form of tracking commonly needed to show personalized ads. Christ almighty I don't think I can take more pop-ups. They're just cancer. Cookies, newsletters, forced logins, individual folder permissions... how many bullshit popups do I have to deal with per…

>Things like cookies, tracking, etc. should be a browser- or OS-wide setting. Asking me individually for every site, for every app, is the absolute worst user experience ever. Sorry but this pattern just has to DIE.

We already have that, the Do Not Track header. Advertising companies ignore it because they're not legally obliged to honor it. Reminder that these companies do not care about you or your user experience and will do anything they can to skirt the law to make an extra buck off you. And we can't rely on the competence of legislators because their answer is always more popups.

However, you do have weapons to defend yourself. My favorite is uMatrix. You can set it up to automatically block cookies from any site you don't have whitelisted. And you can make it only accept first party cookies. You can also have it block javascript, cross origin requests, frames by default. If a site doesn't work without scripts, you can easily enable them temporarily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple will give them a choice soon enough. And hopefully one not reliant on so many dark patterns. The OneTrust opt-outs are the worst (and don't even work! which must be against the california consumer privacy act). On my iphone in safari: say I'm cooking dinner and go to epicurious.com. Greeted with the now-standard opt-out banner at the bottom. 1. Click the "Do not sell my advertising" 2. Greeted with a giant Co…

This is the case all over the web. Many of these cookie/privacy modals just don’t work or are deliberately engineered to be as obnoxious as possible. We need some legal test cases where this behavior is declared to be in violation of the spirit of GDPR and CCPA.

Yeah, I'm really curious about this because I don't even see these things anymore. I mean they're there, and I don't block them, but I also don't read them and never click anything in them to accept or not accept. Are they allowed to track me under either GDPR or CCPA? I haven't consented. And having text that says, "By reading our articles you consent" doesn't make any sense if I haven't read the text that says that.
Post reply on HN