Finding the settings mentioned in the article is the sole dark pattern I can think of in iOS — when you find them it’s like finding a secret level in Super Mario Land. They are under Settings...Privacy...Advertising https://imgur.com/a/EOvUzCS The Advertising and Analytics options are only visible below the fold, if one scrolls down the privacy page. The fold itself is disguised as the bottom of the page to put you o…
Did you… print out a screenshot of your phone?!
Privacy: Is That iPhone?
21–30 of 188 posts
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#22Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#23Finding the settings mentioned in the article is the sole dark pattern I can think of in iOS — when you find them it’s like finding a secret level in Super Mario Land. They are under Settings...Privacy...Advertising https://imgur.com/a/EOvUzCS The Advertising and Analytics options are only visible below the fold, if one scrolls down the privacy page. The fold itself is disguised as the bottom of the page to put you o…
Do you really think it's a dark pattern? What does Apple have to gain?
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#24Finding the settings mentioned in the article is the sole dark pattern I can think of in iOS — when you find them it’s like finding a secret level in Super Mario Land. They are under Settings...Privacy...Advertising https://imgur.com/a/EOvUzCS The Advertising and Analytics options are only visible below the fold, if one scrolls down the privacy page. The fold itself is disguised as the bottom of the page to put you o…
Do you really think it's a dark pattern? What does Apple have to gain?
They could, for example, sign a deal with an ad network that gives them beneficial rates on the condition that Apple show there is less than 1% churn in device IDFAs per month. Hiding the IDFA reset button would help with that.
It could also quite easily be some PM’s H2 goal to move the needle on IDFA retention. If they provably impact IDFA resets and they get an exceeds expectations rating in that performance review cycle! Bonus stock options all round! Tech companies are weird like that.
I’ve commented before accusing Apple of using growth and engagement tactics with iOS’s Mail.app, presumably to improve mean-time-before-replying-to-grandma metrics, so color me conspiracy theorist / jaded about Silicon Valley performance metrics.
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you… print out a screenshot of your phone?!
I applied filters and took a screenshot of the screenshot to reduce image fidelity in case it contained any [covertly embedded]* identifying information [in the form of watermarks or hidden pixels] . *added for clarity.
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I applied filters and took a screenshot of the screenshot to reduce image fidelity in case it contained any [covertly embedded]* identifying information [in the form of watermarks or hidden pixels] . *added for clarity.
What are trying to protect against? A screenshot of a screenshot with a filter applied to it isn’t going to help you if your name shows up somewhere in it.
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#27OK, so, probably an ignorant question, but here I go anyway: What, exactly, does "turning off IDFA" do? Does it send just a dummy IDFA? Or does it give you nothing at all? Why is rotating it periodically better? (I'm assuming rotation is better because that is what Mozilla is apparently recommending.)
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think it's a dark pattern? What does Apple have to gain?
Why do they have this as the default setting if they have nothing to gain from it?
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you… print out a screenshot of your phone?!
I applied filters and took a screenshot of the screenshot to reduce image fidelity in case it contained any [covertly embedded]* identifying information [in the form of watermarks or hidden pixels] . *added for clarity.
Re: Privacy: Is That iPhone?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I applied filters and took a screenshot of the screenshot to reduce image fidelity in case it contained any [covertly embedded]* identifying information [in the form of watermarks or hidden pixels] . *added for clarity.
I get the filters, but why the second screenshot? Aren't you just adding more hypothetical tracking pixels with that step?