Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#421

Post by yladiz »

sakis wrote: post #330

I wonder what would happen if FB and Google went a step further and decided to give Apple the Windows Phone (or Huawei) treatment, by pulling all their apps from the App Store, citing these changes as the reason they can't support Apple's platform. I'm not sure the majority of iOS devices users would be happy with any of the involved parties, and that includes Apple.

> I'm not sure the majority of iOS devices users would be happy with any of the involved parties, and that includes Apple.

I think Apple is smart enough to know how to spin it if Facebook or Google left the App Store because of privacy issues. Some users would be annoyed at Apple, sure, but I would bet many users would see it as a Facebook/Google problem. I didn't hear people blame Apple for requiring listing what data is being collected when Google started not updating their apps and warnings started appearing.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#422

Post by ParanoidShroom »

kube-system wrote: post #370
minsc__and__boo wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple's incentives appear aligned with their customers Not in China: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...

That's not due to Apple’s business model or their own choice. They were forced to hand over iCloud by Chinese regulators.

Like Google in China?

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#423

Post by quenix »

dnh44 wrote: post #388
celsoazevedo wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the permission popup that asks users to allow/block access to the location, tracking, etc, tied to the App Store? On Android, it doesn't matter the source of the app. If the app wants to access your location, camera, files, etc, you need to give it access. I don't see why this new iOS feature to "ask apps not to track" has to be different, isn't it all part of what the "app sandbox" lets them do? Apple can't contr…

That would work for things like accessing a user’s address book or location but some of the quality control occurs at the App Store review level. I don’t think iOS would be capable of protecting against, for example, the running of hidden cryptocurrency software. Also iOS has private api’s but their use is prevented by the review process.

You can block access to private APIs at the kernel level without any manual review--in fact, blocking private APIs is about the easiest thing to automate.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#424

Post by robteix »

tomekjapan wrote: post #415

Apple some time ago recognized that they won't be able to compete on software with other BigTech giants so they are building an environment where certain software advancements are crippled. User activity data will be important to tune algorithms for maximum utility and by restricting access to user data for others, Apple wants to give itself the best shot to stay in the game. In the long run this will be a net loss f…

> Apple some time ago recognized that they won't be able to compete on software with other BigTech giants so they are building an environment where certain software advancements are crippled. User activity data will be important to tune algorithms for maximum utility and by restricting access to user data for others, Apple wants to give itself the best shot to stay in the game.

That seems off to me. Apple isn't crippling anything, they're giving their users the choice of opting in/out of tracking. If, as you say, choosing not being tracked makes the users' experiences so bad, they can simply opt-in and all will be good again. What am I missing?

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#425

Post by zepto »

svachalek wrote: post #387
reaperducer wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real message is how emotional and immature the leadership is to a perceived slight It's very telling that personal privacy has Facebook's leadership fudging its collective Huggies, while every other company — even Google — is going along with it.

Google has avoid updating their iOS apps for months to avoid putting privacy labels on them.

To be fair, they have now started to do it.

One unexplored possibility is that they actually needed to do quite a bit of analysis to determine all the uses the data is put to within their organization and doing a legal review so that they didn’t end up making a false statement.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#426

Post by 23iofj »

reaperducer wrote: post #263
23iofj wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. "Existential threat" means a threat to the very existence of a thing, so a thing that is an "existential threat" is a very big actual threat. I think maybe you're confusing "Existential" with "Hypothetical"?

"Existential threat" means an implied, or perceived threat. Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago, and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time.

> ...and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time.

I can't decide if this comment is very clever ironic satire or... not ;-)

> Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago

"Existential threat" has been in wide-spread use for a really long time. The first time I heard the phrase used was probably some time in the late 90s. And that's more a function of my age than of how long the term has been used. The cliche is at least half a century old and has been used by politicians for at least decades.

For example, the phrase was commonly used in anti-proliferation and denuclearization advocacy during the last quarter of the 20th century, when nuclear weapons were characterized as an "existential threat" to humanity. This use persists today; see, for example, https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/nuclear-weapons-and-ex...

But the term isn't particularly partisan or limited to extinction-level threats. it's also been used throughout modern history by right-wing populists to refer to one group or another being an "existential threat to our way of life". See for example https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44498438

The point is, the phrase has been used for a long time, always with the same meaning, and its use hasn't been particularly partisan as far as I can ever remember. Both sides use the phrase for various things. But they all definitely mean the same thing -- a threat to the existence of something (humanity, dominant cultural norms, the country, etc.). Not a "perceived" threat.

I'm genuinely and sincerely curious where you got the idea that "Existential threat means an implied, or perceived threat" rather than "a threat to the existence of a thing". The former has never been anywhere close to the dominant accepted meaning. Possibly you heard a politician or pundit use the term in a sarcastic way and misunderstood their sarcasm as literal? Or you heard someone use the phrase in a hyperbolic way?

Can you share one or more sources where people are using the phrase in the way you describe?

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#427

Post by fmakunbound »

tailrecursion wrote: post #406

My guess is over time most free apps that depend on tracking will refuse to work unless allowed to track. And most users will acquiesce, just so they can use an app that they want to use. Even the Facebook app itself could refuse to work unless tracking is turned on. It's still a positive change overall, and still affects Facebook but it appears to me the effect will be minor, even temporary.

Sure, but then the App Store rules will be changed to target such app behavior.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#428

Post by [deleted] »

worker767424 wrote: post #376
edoceo wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Escape hatches? Edit: Ok. Maybe https://news.yahoo.com/mark-zuckerberg-reportedly-escape-hat...

Calling it now: for all the hate Zuckerberg gets now, he's going to be Bill Gates in 25 years, and they only people who won't trust him are the vaccine mind control nuts.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#429

Post by Arainach »

indigochill wrote: post #346
Spooky23 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally, but look at how smart (and evil) the tobacco companies were. They pivoted between strategies in smart ways. Once reality started setting in and denial didn't cut it, they acted to protect the shareholders. Phillip Morris bought things like Kraft that they could spin-out later. They settled claims and paid states billions of dollars for healthcare costs a few years before healthcare started going up 30% a yea…

Well, I'm by no means defending Facebook's business, but they did open-source a couple little projects called React, GraphQL, and PyTorch (and a bunch of other lesser-known stuff), so technically it's not _all_ bad. :P

The point isn't doing good, the point is having multiple viable lines of business. No one does that better than Microsoft - they have, what, a dozen billion dollar products now? Google is trying but has this far been less successful, and Facebook isn't even really trying at all. The closest they have is Oculus, but hardware isn't going to cut it.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#430

Post by zepto »

Veen wrote: post #282
SMAAART wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex-smoker here. So, what do you advocate? Reward smokers? Encourage smoking?

Perhaps we should advocate consistency. Either shaming and punishment works to discourage unwanted behaviour or it doesn't. If it does, then perhaps we should start shaming obese people and crack addicts. P.S. Before the downvotes come, I'm rather fat and a mostly ex-smoker, so I'm not attacking obese people, just wondering at the inconsistency.

> we should start shaming obese people and crack addicts

Where do you live where obese people and crack addicts are not shamed?

Post reply on HN