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

711–720 of 734 posts

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

#711

Post by afiori »

zepto wrote: post #710
afiori wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree that there is a difference but the Cambridge Analytica scandal told a different story regarding how much your data is safe within Facebook

Very true. Facebook has definitely undermined trust on what data it shares. However that is not it’s normal model.

This makes it worse in my opinion.

For example Telegram has a very specific approach to security based on "you can trust us", by default chats are not end-to-end encrypted, they use non-standard encryption and the app is free, but they are upfront on why such tradeoffs are made and their point of view in making them.

Facebook could have a position of "personalized advertising is the future" and allow ipertargeted marketing by means of gathering every scrap of data they could find. But they could draw the line to keeping it within their own databases and never distributing any of it. Apparently their main line of bussiness is exactly like that, but they do not do only that, they also partake in sharing that data.

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

#712

Post by beowulfey »

throw_away892 wrote: post #685
beowulfey wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary—I’m not sure if you’ve ever watched Mad Men, but there are some pretty good examples of ads in there that didn’t use tracking at all. Calling tracking a cardinal rule of ads is like calling HTML a cardinal rule of communication. Sure it might be ubiquitous now, but if HTML were to suddenly disappear I guarantee communication between humans won’t stop — it would adapt. Tracking isn’t a foundation, it i…

I enjoyed Mad Men. But comparing web advertising today to the 70-80s is disingenuous. Fact of the matter is, advertising today / web marketing relies on user tracking. I'm yet to see anyone debunk this.

My point is that advertising right now uses tracking because it can be used, and it makes money.

But in no way does it need it. We could easily go back to untargeted, reasonably effective ads that appeal to broad markets instead of extremely specific ones.

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

#713

Post by ASalazarMX »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #573
move-on-by wrote: post #44

I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.

> I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying. For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in sp…

> For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in specific categories.

Since I can't edit my original comment, I chose to reply to it instead of replying to everyone who corrected me. Yes, there's no API to directly query installed apps and usage on iOS. I think I got the wrong impression from years ago, when the function canOpenURL() could be abused to detect which apps were installed[0]. Thank you all for the corrections.

0. https://useyourloaf.com/blog/querying-url-schemes-with-canop...

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

#714

Post by edmundsauto »

mbesto wrote: post #359
ChrisKnott wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me like you're more playing "semantic ju-jitsu" than OP. Facebook collect data to sell targetted adspace, they do not sell data. This is a plain fact.

> This is a plain fact. A plain fact that requires looking realistically at how colloquialisms are used combined with a little bit of technical know how. How many businesses do you know actually "sell data"? The only market I can think of are companies like Zoominfo. Outside of that there really aren't that many companies that "sell your data". However, you'll see a ton of social justice campaigns against "stop compa…

There are thousands of companies like ZoomInfo. They all trade csvs of data of dubious origins, mash and resell it to the highest bidder. There is a tranche of these companies who build algorithms to do fuzzy linking between huge datasets, including sources like data breaches (where name/address info is included).

There are conferences. Much of the data can be obtained as Salesforce "apps" - connect your CRM to our massive data portal and we'll fill in information that you don't have. The biggest of these is owned by SF and called Data.com.

Not to hand waive away anyone's pre-baked hatred of Google/FB/etc., but there is an actual data industry that does buy and sell your data, with no controls over it and what it can be used for. By comparison, FB and Google are much better stewards.

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

#715

Post by edmundsauto »

notyourday wrote: post #443
edmundsauto wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t pass the sniff test. Would you say that in general, you wouldn’t expect a difference in results if you sold Taylor swift albums to white suburban women in Iowa, versus black urban men in Atlanta?

You know what would blow both of those out of the water? Selling it to those that have indicated that they are interested in Taylor Swift as white suburban women in Iowa do not buy Taylor Swift albums. They buy mom jeans. Instead they are getting ads for Taylor Swift.

How do you increase your market past people who have already liked Ms. Swift?

The argument still stands - just replace TS with mom jeans. My point wasn't actually about Taylor Swift marketing - it was that demographic targeting is a reasonable way to identify an audience. Those mom jeans are not going to sell very well in a younger, urban demographic compared to Iowa.

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

#716

Post by ajsnigrutin »

nuker wrote: post #650
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APIs are great.. i want an app to be able to list all the apps installed. I just don't want facebook app to do it, because it really doesn't need that data, and I don't want to give it to them. This should be done the same as with location and microphone access... ie. "ask the user". "Flashlight 2000 DX app wants to access list of apps installed - allow once, allow always, deny now, deny always". Facebook wants to tr…

> APIs are great.. i want an app to be able to list all the apps installed. That a big No. List of apps uniquely identifies the device and the user. Is this api available??

Contact list access does that too... and a bunch of apps get it.

I just want the app to ask me, and me to decide if the app really needs it or not.

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

#717

Post by ajsnigrutin »

unishark wrote: post #626
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APIs are great.. i want an app to be able to list all the apps installed. I just don't want facebook app to do it, because it really doesn't need that data, and I don't want to give it to them. This should be done the same as with location and microphone access... ie. "ask the user". "Flashlight 2000 DX app wants to access list of apps installed - allow once, allow always, deny now, deny always". Facebook wants to tr…

I don't think they're great, it seems like a way of obfuscating what the app really does. Your approach might work for savvy or paranoid users, but not everyone notices much beyond "contains ads" or such. Apple needs to force them to be up front from the very beginning that their stupid game or screensaver or else is also a tracking app. And boot any app that uses your phone to do anything beyond what they told you t…

But i want to be able to use an app to act as a VNC server (screen capture, inputs,...), or an app (eg. tasker automation) to start a vpn connection and an ssh server when i send a SMS to the device. I just don't want a screensaver app to be able to do that.

Basically, i'd be happy if those "risky" permissions would be hidden in app management in settings, disabled by default, and enabled only by power users.

The problem now is, that due to fscked up permissions schemes, some apps are unable to work at all, even the stuff they work now, some due to play store issues (eg. termux because they want to run downloaded code), and some due to missing apis (eg vnc servers).

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

#718

Post by dreamcompiler »

The way to fix this is not to ask the user whether Facebook should be allowed to track them. That approach is doomed because it gives the FB app the option to diminish its functionality or refuse to work altogether without those permissions.

This kind of stuff happens a lot. Almost every (Android) app I've downloaded in the past two years refuses to run if I don't allow it to see my location. Why does an HP photo printer app need my location? Answer: It doesn't. So now I have to install a GPS spoofer app just to print a photo.

The way to fix this nonsense permanently is to give the user a single dashboard that lets him/her determine for every app whether it can see true or random data when it tries to snoop. That way the FB app cannot tell when it's being denied something it wants, and thus it cannot arbitrarily decide not to work for that reason.

It's critically important that by default apps should not be allowed to know when they are being denied access to private data.

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

#719

Post by dillondoyle »

arrosenberg wrote: post #487
dillondoyle wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they do. It really bugs me all these HN threads state this and rely on their own personal experience not as an ad buyer but as a consumer. It's not true. One can directly measure ROI and prove the value of this advertising. Especially FB provides for my business (political marketing) at least 10X better direct response value and that is mostly using 1:1 targeting and lookalike modeling.

FB has also lied consistently about the performance of their ad products, so who knows if you are really getting that ROI.

i know... and so do probably most major and direct response marketers.

there are a lot of ways to measure outside of FBs analytics tools.

including the very simple simply using a refcode or even a specific product/url. How many purchases did you get / how much did you spend?

this is what i'm referencing. like that's so incredibly basic and it bugs me HN just either doesn't understand or lets their opinion on it go first

In my experience FBs inaccurate reporting is just a tiny amount of impressions delivered and they refund the $1 or whatever it is a couple times a year. Have they ever had a reporting anomaly on their analytics tools for tracking off FB conversions? they very well could have but I haven't heard of one.

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

#720

Post by dillondoyle »

nojito wrote: post #623
dillondoyle wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they do. It really bugs me all these HN threads state this and rely on their own personal experience not as an ad buyer but as a consumer. It's not true. One can directly measure ROI and prove the value of this advertising. Especially FB provides for my business (political marketing) at least 10X better direct response value and that is mostly using 1:1 targeting and lookalike modeling.

It is true and has been verified from companies who conduct proper studies internally and choose to release it such as eBay. There is also an academic researcher who regularly publishes as well. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.118... and of course there's Tim Hwang. https://www.fsgoriginals.com/books/subprime-attention-crisis Internet ads do not work past simple location based targeting.

There are plenty of examlpes on both sides.

I have routinely gotten over 100% immediate last-click roi from fb ads, for many clients.

I know for a fact many others have too. There are a ton of direct to consumer online-only products that easily measure this. Just make a page or item which you only use to advertise on FB. sales/spend. Game developers track this closely too.

Post reply on HN