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

601–610 of 734 posts

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

#601

Post by noizejoy »

lstamour wrote: post #570
kml wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one giant fighting another. Apple wants to destroy ad revenue and shift everyone to a paid App model because Apple can get its 30%. I bet you if Apple loses control of the AppStore for anti trust reasons, they would be all for ads.

That's Facebook's claim, yes. And when it comes to Apple News and even the App Store, Apple also serves advertising on behalf of its partners. It's also true that Apple themselves runs a lot of ads, and benefit from ad networks through the services they've integrated in the past. In fact, Apple justifies their 15-30% cut by suggesting that the App Store is itself a platform that promotes apps, and has featured apps i…

> Personally, I'd love it if Apple went a step farther and used the network layer and code signing to identify which apps actively use which trackers and tracking networks the same way they currently identify apps that use the microphone and camera. It'd be fascinating to see an operating system feature that says 50% of my network traffic in Application X was telemetry being sent to Facebook, for example.

If you had broken this paragraph out into a separate post, it might get more and highly deserved attention.

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

#602

Post by lwhi »

dnh44 wrote: post #308
lwhi wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is there two funding models at play. Advertising vs. paid content. Apple wants the tide to switch to paid content, and want to encourage people to do so through their own merchant gateways. In my opinion, this feel reasonable _only_ if consumers have real choice. Telling users they can use a different platform if they're not happy, is not real choice.

You're not wrong with your first three lines but do you really think consumers will actually have any meaningful choice if all the trendy but privacy invading apps have their own app store with software free to run rampant on users devices? With iOS, Apple was able to create a mass market of easy to use device for regular people that didn't get infested by various adware and malware. I think that's a really significa…

> If app stores get regulated I fear we'll end up where windows PCs were in the late 90's. I don't know about you but I quite enjoy not having to remove spyware from the mobile phones of friends and family on a regular basis.

What's stopping an alternative market place being hot on screening for bad apps and crapware too?

> I think this is a lot more about developer rights masquerading as user rights.

I disagree it's about the rights of everyone _accept_ Apple.

I was trying to think of a good metaphor for these sanctioned app marketplaces.

To me it feels like living in a city where you're forced to buy from one city sanctioned shopping mall.

Every shop in the mall has to provide thirty percent of their takings to the city gov.

If you're not happy with the setup you need to move to another city.

Can you think of anyone who would think this represents a positive model?

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

#603

Post by ogre_codes »

dhdhhdd wrote: post #226

How can an app track activities in other apps? Is it only possible if those other apps use the same tracking networks, or can the app track activities in _any_ other app? How does this work? What can facebook extract today? (I'm surprised a bit, i thought phones offer app isolation). The only things that comes to mind is to correlate device ids from different apps if the apps use the same analytics/advertising networ…

Facebook, Google, and other aggregators entice developers into using their APIs (or even their ad platforms). The developers get use of a nice analytics package, authentication, or other features, and in exchange Facebook and Google use those APIs to exfiltrate data from your device.

They can tie all of this data neatly together using an identifier which Apple has to date provided as an opt-out service. Apple is now changing this to opt-in, so all these developers who have included APIs which are sneaking data out to the Google and Facebook will need to include a pop-up to get permissions to tie their data to the rest of Google and Facebook’s acquired knowledge about you.

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

#604

Post by RamblingCTO »

svachalek wrote: post #396
RamblingCTO wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember that years ago they had a page like "we will delete this page if we are forced to give out data under the so and so act of the USA because we can't tell you explicitly". Does anyone remember more details?

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

Very nice, thanks! So Apple's disappeared in Sept. 2014. I also found their privacy report for anyone who's interested: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/report-pdf.html

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

#605

Post by TheJoYo »

firephreek wrote: post #553

"Personalized Ads for Small Businesses" What a bunch of malarkey. I've worked in ad space and the actual ability for SB's to compete is laughable. Their budgets are so comparatively small that they simply don't get the assistance necessary. They're drinking through paper straws while the big dogs swim in lakes. SB's absolutely need a platform to compete, but I'm absolutely incredulous that FB is that platform, much l…

They should own their social media again instead of leasing out their IP to FB for little to no exposure.

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

#606

Post by warmfuzzykitten »

thenewwazoo wrote: post #244

Fuckin' let 'em. I'll pick Apple over Facebook eight days a week, and if Facebook takes their ball and goes home, well, even better since it'll finally get me to completely pull the plug on their platform.

Agreed. Though it's fairly simple to opt out now, just delete the Facebook app. The browser still works just fine.

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

#607

Post by lazzlazzlazz »

whoisburbansky wrote: post #27
jahlove wrote: post #4

> Some apps, like Facebook, allow for some data tracking to be manually disabled. But by default, it is turned on. That gives the company reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells. My understanding is that Facebook does not sell this data, but rather lets advertisers create hyper-targeted ads, which are only possible because of this data. Edit: Certainly…

It's a nice bit of semantic ju-jitsu to say "they take this data and sell a service that wouldn't be possible without it" isn't the same as "selling this data," isn't it? Especially given that the targeting mechanisms don't have any k-anonymity guarantees, and I'm aware of at least one paper showing information leaks through the ad portal [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/122...

Huge mental gymnastics to pretend "sell the data" and "use the data to sell something else" are the same. Baffling.

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

#608

Post by mektrik »

nicoburns wrote: post #571
rorykoehler wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that until I realised Apple also have a billion dollar ads business

Does Apple's ad business track users though? It seems to me that an ad business shouldn't need to in order to be effective.

It does - it provides advertisers data on which users have downloaded their app after seeing specific adverts.

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

#609

Post by the-dude »

phabora wrote: post #585
firephreek wrote: post #553

"Personalized Ads for Small Businesses" What a bunch of malarkey. I've worked in ad space and the actual ability for SB's to compete is laughable. Their budgets are so comparatively small that they simply don't get the assistance necessary. They're drinking through paper straws while the big dogs swim in lakes. SB's absolutely need a platform to compete, but I'm absolutely incredulous that FB is that platform, much l…

Small business is just a propaganda tool. The idea has some allure, maybe because it reminds Americans of their priomordial beginning as settlers, homesteaders, yeomans, craftsmen (or so the stories go).

Small business vs Big tech. A clever diversion.

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

#610

Post by josho »

taylodl wrote: post #163
reedjosh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just biased. I hate advertising and I hate tracking even more. I'm sure some companies will be slightly hurt, but I believe it will be a net gain for society. I worked at a small hardware store as a kid and we got all our business from word of mouth. IDK what the best argument here is, so I suppose I'm just admitting my feelings with this comment.

I don't see why we need to compromise our privacy to support advertising for small business. If I want to opt-in in order to get ads for services that would likely be relevant to me then sure, let me do that. But to be forced to opt-in and then create a moral hazard claiming I "don't support small business" - yeah, screw that! I don't see why Zuckerberg et. al.'s failed business model should be my problem.

Oh the irony that one of the most profitable and largest companies (facebook) is making the claim that small businesses will be impacted.

I think the honest answer is, yes if facebook protects their profit margins then it will impact small business as they pay more to get the same results. OR Facebook could reduce their margins since Apple's change will reduce their product effectiveness.

Once we frame it that way it is clear what the battle is about. Facebook is fighting apple to protect their own profitability and is using a sympathetic actor (small business) as a shield.

Post reply on HN