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

Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

growth.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 359 posts

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#141

Post by Timber-6539 »

hedora wrote: post #128
Timber-6539 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the difference between Meta's tracking pixel and Apple's IDFA?

From the top hit for IDFA (the wikipedia article): > Starting in iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5, users are prompted to decide whether to opt-in or out of IDFA sharing before apps can query it. This choice can be altered in Settings.[2][3] In May, 2021, Verizon-owned advertisement analytics company Flurry Analytics reported that 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing.[4]

It's by default opt-out and am pretty sure the prompt doesn't apply for Apple's own apps.

And since you brought out the opt-out option, one can also block Facebook's trackers through uBlock and/or DNS filters.

The defaults are what matters. From the same Wikipedia article,

> Users can opt-out of IDFA via the "Limit Ad Tracking" (LAT) setting (and an estimated 20% do).

80% users never change the defaults.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#142

Post by tomcar288 »

goalieca wrote: post #71
daft_pink wrote: post #13

I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.

Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.

I don't understand why people are so against Advertisers targetting people based on their data? what are people so afraid of?

the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like...

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#144

Post by kaba0 »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #129
kaba0 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly sure there are many forms of advertisement that works without tracking.. like a billboard. Displaying an ad next to search results based on the search query for example is similarly benign.

Sure. But Apple didn't invent billboards and you can be rest assured it (billboard advertising) is never coming up in an iOS update in the future! Enough with carrying water for a megacorp that makes money from selling advertising services.

I am no bootlicker for any corp, but I do value and appreciate Apple’s focus on privacy, and I think that many criticisms of it is just nitpicky and doesn’t help anyone (e.g. calling that buy icloud service label an ad..).

On the other hand, I very much await sideloading to be forced out of Apple by the EU.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#145

Post by dwaite »

hospitalJail wrote: post #70
dm319 wrote: post #28

You don't expect your health data, financial data and purchase history (does that include anything paid for by Apple pay?) to be shared with Meta just because you are trying out Threads.

This kind of blew my mind. People get soo invested in Apple's Walled Ecosystem. Imagine in 10 years, they flip on a dime and start selling your info. 1 company has health, finance, search/URL history, emails, all pictures ever, etc... Yikes times 100.

How is that untrue for nearly any computing platform?

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#146

Post by heavyset_go »

goalieca wrote: post #71
daft_pink wrote: post #13

I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.

Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.

If we're going to get technical, Facebook doesn't sell your information, it sells access to its ad network. Apple has an ad network it sells access to, too.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#147

Post by OmarShehata »

nirvdrum wrote: post #90
endisneigh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Target and CVS are not "advertising companies". And if you'd like you can pay cash, no? The indirection (ad company to retailer) is intentional.

Given companies are doing subject tracking with in-store cameras and can use facial recognition to tell who you are, cash isn't going to be sufficient. They'll be able to build a pretty compelling shopping profile and can tie associate your cash purchases to your profile. Sure, it's not 100% fool-proof, but it doesn't need to be to be a massive privacy invasion. I suppose you could wear a mask, but that's generally f…

The industry is still struggling to track who's clicking on ads properly in all cases...we're very far from this idea of tracking cash purchases & building a profile with facial recognition. This sounds like science fiction. Are there any companies actually doing anything like this?

Closest thing I know is companies who sell "foot traffic" data, of who walks in front of your store. But that's done with phones pinging wifi networks passively as you walk, not anything as fancy as facial recognition.

Example: https://grapeseedmedia.com/blog/foot-traffic-data/

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#148

Post by pb7 »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #74
giancarlostoro wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say, nobody believes in any privacy Meta alleges. Even when they do E2EE they still collect anything else about you that they can.

That is because of business models - Apple sells you stuff, Meta collects all the info about you and sells that to other people... It's very hard to have privacy when your paycheck depends on selling data.

This is wrong. They do not sell user data.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#149

Post by bugglebeetle »

kaba0 wrote: post #130
bugglebeetle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t believe any privacy that Apple alleges, given their actions in China, attempts at iCloud scanning, etc. Post-Snowden, it would seem naive to believe in any such assertions, beyond the level of “this might protect me okay against average criminals, assuming I install all the latest updates and use features like lockdown mode.”

I don’t see China’s relevance here: they have two choices: play by their rules or leave on the table shitloads of money. Maybe not morally the best decision, but it is not black-and-white evil I would say. For a Chinese person that also has to play by the same rules it is an added choice, and since all are similarly hijacked by the government this aspect doesn’t make it any worse. Also, CP scanning was deliberately p…

> I don’t see China’s relevance here: they have two choices: play by their rules or leave on the table shitloads of money.

This is also exactly how the US operates WRT state surveillance, so it confuses me that you don’t see the relevance.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#150

Post by Keirmot »

tomcar288 wrote: post #142
goalieca wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.

I don't understand why people are so against Advertisers targetting people based on their data? what are people so afraid of? the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like...

If that’s the worst you think it can happen, you lack imagination.

I Myanmar fingerprinting helped the military find dissidents, the the US Cambridge Analytica managed to get enough data to influence an election, and there’s many more examples.

Besides, if a private company can sell access to you through ads, less benevolent actors can use that access for other more nefarious practices.

Post reply on HN