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

201–210 of 359 posts

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#201

Post by Scoring6931 »

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…

It boggles my mind that some people don't see the relevance.

Apple provides a backdoor into Chinese citizens' iCloud to the Chinese government, while praising itself as the bastion of privacy.

Doing so because of money is all the more hypocritical.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#202

Post by nirvdrum »

daneel_w wrote: post #191
nirvdrum wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about Apple because Apple is the one billing itself as the vanguard of privacy and as the privacy-preserving opponent of Android. It's also quite possible the author doesn't have or use an Android device. If you've invested in a platform for reasons related to privacy, I think it's quite okay to be concerned when that platform falls short on some pretty big privacy invasions.

They bill themselves as the privacy-protecting opponent of Android because iOS/iPadOS doesn't commit to breaches of privacy the way Google does in, well, pretty much all of their products. So how does Apple fall short, and how are they the ones committing privacy invasions? By allowing third-party applications on the App Store? By not rejecting every app they don't like? They're doing users the favor of letting them…

Maybe I misread your intent, but it sounded like a "gotcha!" on the original post because the author didn't dive into something with even worse privacy protections. Google and Android don't need to be brought up every time Apple privacy is being discussed. For a huge swathe of people it's an irrelevant point. And, yes, I believe Apple could do better. Being better at privacy than Google isn't a monumental hurdle to clear. We can and should push all parties to do better.

> They're doing users the favor of letting them know what information apps can collect so that users can make informed choices.

The whole point of the article is that this information is hard to find and hard to understand. The author is suggesting Apple find a better way to present that data. That would help consumers make a more informed decision. Many people don't realize just how pervasive that tracking is. Perhaps surfacing that data would help consumers pressure bad actors into being better citizens.

Moreover, I'd argue they should also use their platform to rein things in. It'd be nice if they used their position to improve the privacy of their users. It's their walled garden. It's their platform. It's their APIs being used. The App Store already has a bunch of rules, most of which benefit Apple, so I don't think it's a huge leap to add one that protects consumers. And a lot of the current privacy issues are a result of Apple and Google building a new platform that gives apps unprecedented access to personal data. I think they have a responsibility to clean up that mess.

If that means apps like Threads aren't viable, so be it. But, I suspect Meta would be able to find a way to make a social media app that doesn't need to track so much.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#203

Post by screye »

giantrobot wrote: post #170
nologic01 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another year passes by, their revenue sources dry up (or dont meet expectations) and everybody is scrambling for a new stream. They look at their massive data trove, they double check with the lawyers and your nice little trust framework is up in flames. Thats how capitalism works. This is all wrong. Conditioning on goldilocks and accepting least bad solutions is not how the digital society should be built. And make…

> They look at their massive data trove I can tell you from first hand experience their data trove isn't the most valuable for farming out for AdTech. They take in a lot of opt-in telemetry and bend over backwards to anonymize it. There's also very clear demarcation of PII and if you even work around something considered PII you as an engineer need to sign all sorts of extra paperwork. Even if any individual manager…

I have been in a big company where a single incident of possible PII leakage happened. (turned out it was a non-issue but) It was the biggest fire I have ever seen, with everyone bringing out every apology, every on call engineer, every lawyer, every HR person and every training there was to make sure it never happened again.

Dunno about all of them, but I can confirm that at least some of the big-tech companies treat PII as nuclear fuel that is never to be touched and placed behind the strongest locks the company has available.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#204

Post by halostatue »

isodev wrote: post #189
Timber-6539 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The IDFA on iOS is a random device identifier and not tied to your identity. It would allow an advertiser to correlate that it’s the same device that has installed several apps, nothing more. It also resets in certain situations. Facebook on the other hand, creates a grand central repository of everything there is to know about you and sells it to whoever wants to pay. Just like Google.

The IDFA is also unique per developer, if not per app.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#205

Post by fhd2 »

Draiken wrote: post #156
sumeno wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why not keep it that way? Because capitalism incentivizes unsustainable growth at all costs.

Dead on. No corporation in the world can stop this once they are big enough. Maybe if you had an already rich individual keeping his company private and making an active effort to not be evil. But come on, let's be real...

I'd doubt anyone would get that rich without a) being incredibly lucky b) lacking any notion of "good enough".

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#206

Post by potamic »

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...

Advertisers can sell you things at higher prices if they know you have more money. The first rule of negotiation in business is that information is power.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#207

Post by Zambyte »

isodev wrote: post #177
nicce wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's ad business, however, is growing all the time. And in significant margins. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://www.statista.com/statistics/1330127/apple-ad-revenue...

Apple shows ads for apps in the App Store sans behavioural targeting. If there is a kind of “ethical ads” that’s as close as it gets.

> If there is a kind of “ethical ads” that’s as close as it gets.

A news paper ad? A builtin board? I think advertisements that hijack your attention are always unethical. You should have to look for ads to see them.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#208

Post by amelius »

epistasis wrote: post #106
paulryanrogers wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if the implication wasn't obvious. Once they sell B2C services it's just a matter of time before that too becomes ad supported, then your data (or at least eye balls) are for sale.

Why are dollar-for-service inevitably going to switch to ad supported? I can't imagine the necessity of that, you already have a paying customer.

See Smart TVs.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#209

Post by JohnFen »

charcircuit wrote: post #175
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.

>that works without tracking.. like a billboard. Billboards still require tracking. If you had the option of putting a billboard up in 1 of 2 neighborhoods and it would get 10k impressions in either location which one would you choose? The optimal strategy is not to pick randomly. The optimal strategy is to predict the conversion rate of both locations. In order to do that you need to investigate who is likely to see…

> Billboards still require tracking.

What billboard is tracking individuals?

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#210

Post by satvikpendem »

sumeno wrote: post #113
dazc wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services.' So why not keep it that way? I understand the temptation of veering from the path of 'do no evil' but Apple are not exactly short of revenue? Apple, Google and Meta are currently all three sides of the same coin. Take your pick but don't claim any virtue for doing so.

> So why not keep it that way? Because capitalism incentivizes unsustainable growth at all costs.

Most of the time, that growth is good for us, so we continue to keep that economic system around.
Post reply on HN