Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#261

Post by jefftk » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #250

jefftk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

> if you had headless browsers loading the ads on your site no one would be able to tell that those views were not from real users This seems like a problem with the current model of ads being paid for by impression/click, and switching to a model where ads are being paid for the time they're being displayed (pay X to have your ad appear here for Y time) the problem goes away. Furthermore, the current advertiisng mod…

> switching to a model where ads are being paid for the time they're being displayed (pay X to have your ad appear here for Y time) the problem goes away

I don't think it does. How does the advertiser know what the spot on the site is worth without traffic estimates? See my response to chongli downthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25431138

> Is it fraud if a real user "looks" at the ad but actually looks away from their screen? If they mute the sound? If they don't speak the language the ad is in?

None of these are fraud, because the ad is in front of a real user.

Fraud here doesn't mean "the ad doesn't perform as well as the advertiser hoped for some reason" it means "the ad was not actually shown to real users on the site, contrary to the agreement between the publisher and the advertiser".

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#262

Post by giancarlostoro » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

rahoulb wrote: post #154

Cipater wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll flip this one back to you in the same spirit. Do you think iPhone users care that Apple is implementing anti-tracking?

The number of times I've had non-tech people complain about how their phone is listening to them and then showing them adverts about stuff they've been talking about has gone through the roof in the last 18 months (generally as soon as I mention that I work with computers). It's becoming a real concern for normal people - they don't understand what it is or how it works but they really don't like it.

I've seen articles that defend this by stating Facebook buys debit card data, but then I was shown an ad about something extremely niche, like way out there... Aircraft pavement, specifically for aircraft hangars. One single comment was mentioned to me 8 hours prior... Involving aircraft hangar gravel or something, I never googled it, I never have even thought about such a product in my entire life. Yet there was the ad from a completely once in a lifetime conversation I had with someone. It's too damn niche to be coincidence.

I was in shock when I saw it on Instagram on my brand new iPhone (switched from Android) which has all mic permissions off by default. So some 'smart' device in their home must of heard us. Some advertiser somewhere must have my voice profile hooked up to my Instagram account by now and they somehow share it in an "unidentified" way.

Edit: We need further research into these 'impossible' ads to see if devices from different software OS' and companies are listening and grabbing detail and showing ads based on what are supposed to be 100% private conversations.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#263

Post by jefftk » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #252

jefftk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

By fraud you mean ad fraud?

Yes; we're talking about endymi0n's claim in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25429278 that without IDFA preventing ad fraud is (a) harder and (b) disproportionately harder for smaller players

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#264

Post by jefftk » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #255

jefftk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisers can purchase fixed display ads on reputable sites by contracting directly with the site owner. But what is a fair price? That depends on the traffic, but we are positing that detection of "is this a real user" is not possible, right? Traditionally, advertisers have gone by Nielsen style ratings for broadcast media (pay people to track what they consume, extrapolate) and circulation numbers for print med…

> But what is a fair price? That depends on the traffic, but we are positing that detection of "is this a real user" is not possible, right? Couldn't the price just be based on the actual payoff the advertiser gets (aka increased product sales)? The publisher is incentivized to set the maximum price that the advertiser will pay, and the advertiser is incentivized to get the most bang for their buck, so at the very le…

As I wrote in my response to rndgermandude [1], only some advertisers work this way. If you put up pictures of standing desks, people click through those ads, land on your site, and purchase desks, then it does not matter how scummy the publisher is because you can accurately measure the quality of traffic you are getting from them. On the other hand, if your ads aren't expected to lead to an online purchase (beverages, cars, political ads) this model doesn't work.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25430585

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#265

Post by whynaut » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

stinos wrote: post #109

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an interesting option. However, people who write newspaper articles, etc.. still need to get paid. I think we all say "I'd like to be able to pay just for the articles I want to read", but just like a la carte TV, I think we'd find out that is much more expensive than we know. My theory is that, collectively, our privacy and attention is worth far more to other people that to us. Making up numbers, a…

people who write newspaper articles, etc.. still need to get paid They sure do. But seeing the majority out there does want to see ads or doesn't care about seing them, it's not like they won't get paid at all. And indeed that majority won't pay for content but there are others who do, and it's not impossible to make a living out of it: there are proper independent online-only news channels out there with no ads and…

> Assuming you mean Netflix

I think they literally mean a la carte TV, like paying for the Showtime package, the sports package, the premium sports package, etc. on top of your subscription, or paying to watch a movie on Prime

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#266

Post by halversonmd » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

elefanten wrote: post #257

jefftk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

Google’s inability to protect its core revenue stream is squarely in the “not my problem” category. In fact, making internet advertising less desirable for businesses sounds like a benefit to me. So, Apple’s decision is looking even better to me now.

Google's core revenue stream doesn't rely on IDFA. Many 3rd party advertising companies and apps do rely on IDFA. Apple's move helps Google.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#267

Post by nitrogen » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

elefanten wrote: post #257

jefftk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

Google’s inability to protect its core revenue stream is squarely in the “not my problem” category. In fact, making internet advertising less desirable for businesses sounds like a benefit to me. So, Apple’s decision is looking even better to me now.

Banking fraud is a much bigger deal, and fraud detection works similarly there.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#268

Post by nitrogen » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #250

jefftk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

> if you had headless browsers loading the ads on your site no one would be able to tell that those views were not from real users This seems like a problem with the current model of ads being paid for by impression/click, and switching to a model where ads are being paid for the time they're being displayed (pay X to have your ad appear here for Y time) the problem goes away. Furthermore, the current advertiisng mod…

pay X to have your ad appear here for Y time

Someone once told me how they got a bunch of cheap/used phones and just left them all running an app that shows ads. They'd glance at the phones now and then to see if they needed to "interact" with them to keep the ads rolling.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#269

Post by raxxorrax » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #179

wil421 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how Apple’s anti tracking measures are going to hurt small business and make fraud easier?

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

As a user I would like zero tracking because I don't care about ad fraud that much. I also think advertisers and contemporaries collecting my info is a security problem or even a breach.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#270

Post by alibarber » Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #179

wil421 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how Apple’s anti tracking measures are going to hurt small business and make fraud easier?

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

I was expecting fraud here to refer to that which might impact the user in some way (i.e. credit card / bank, identity, fraud etc) - was genuinely surprised that other people read 'ad fraud' from this...