Or WhatsApp not allowing you name contacts unless you gave it access to your entire address book so FB can have your entire FOAF graph.
I'm traveling to Europe right now and had to install WhatsApp, and this absolutely infuriated me. You cannot start new chats with anyone (on Android at least) unless you grant it the contacts permission. I'm sure other things are limited too, like you say. Workarounds include having the other person message you first, or manually typing wa.me/+number into your browser. Slightly more info: https://android.stackexchang…
It is clearly an invasion of privacy and huge overreach by FB.
Apple does not share identifiable personal data with partners for the purpose of advertising, which is why its apps don’t ask for permission to track. Almost everyone arguing against Apple in these comments seems to misunderstand this, likely because of motivated reasoning.
What are Apple apps asking permissions for? As as I understand, declining to use the ATT framework just means they don't share the system advertising identifier (IDFA). That does not mean the information they do share cannot be fingerprinted.
Losing access to IDFA is the technical mitigation, but the ATT prompt also places policy obligations on developers. Preventing tracking technically entirely is a technical dead end. There are too many sources of entropy. ATT primarily operates at a policy level.
Apple only blocks sharing links from outside the app Dominos app to other apps (bolstering Apple's ad monopoly). Apple does nothing to stop Domino's from sharing the actual important data 3rd parties track in the Domino's app.
Huh? Basically every sentence in your comment is wrong. Apps can link to other apps. There's an entire framework called Universal Links to support this. And Apple is the only platform maker that requires apps to ask for permission before sharing data for tracking.
Apps can link to other apps, but the receiving app can't track where that link came from (unlike HTTPS where you append anything you want, ie ref=otherapp.com). This has led to the large companies that reverse engineer this via web server hops, S2S calls and SDKs.
As a European Apple user I want politicians and bureaucrats leave the company alone! They are not a monopoly, they never will be and won't have Microsofts 90% desktop market share, so let the damn market sort it out.
The market does not work unless the rules of fair play are enforced, just like any other endeavour of humanity from sports to politics.
The rules France applies here are not fair and user friendly though:
> The bureaucratic hurdles they impose are to the benefit, not detriment, of the surveillance ad industry. That’s now proven out by industry groups — the ones ATT successfully tempered — successfully getting France’s regulators to penalize Apple. Users don’t know how to lobby government bureaucracies. What the Autorité de la Concurrence is saying, in so many words, is that two layers of consent is too much, and the only one that’s necessary is the one that advertising lobbying groups don’t object to, not the one they do (but which users understand and like).
No, the issue in the article is that 3rd parties feel they need additional consent. That's on them if they choose to do it.
Yes, to comply with regulations. Because apple's forced solution isn't enough. So it's apple's fault. This is just more an extension of the DMA lolly gagging they are doing where there's a clear solution that Apple takes its sweet time strolling towards.
> What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent potential dumpers from entering a market? The legal system, including the discovery process, and basic accounting to calculate when the selling price is lower than BoM cost. Now it's your turn to answer my earlier question.
> The legal system, including the discovery process, and basic accounting to calculate when the selling price is lower than BoM cost. So price controls is your answer? The Costco rotisserie chicken is illegal monopolization in your world. > What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent competition going out of business while maintaining the artificially low prices? The legal system, including the equitable power t…
> The legal system, including the equitable power to split up companies under antitrust law.
And how well has this been working out? There hasn't been a real threat of forced divesture since Microsoft's anti-trust case back in the 1990s, and large companies are willing to pay fines that are dwarfed by the profits earned from destroyed competition. How does paying a fine undo consumer harm?
Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice. So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff. They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...
I'm actually okay with the Apple Camera app asking me once and the Domino's Pizza app having to ask me twice. Who are the consumers being harmed here?
Apple has its own trackers and ad services. But it treats itself specially. While other apps need to ask. Maybe I don't want some apps from apple to have the same permissions, as other apps from apple. It is basically bundling. I agreed for one app from apple to share data, not for all apps from apple. Oh, and don't let me start about wording they use on these pop-ups... Like when I download some app from the internet, which is signed, notarized and so on, it still asks: oh, you downloaded this app from the internet (surprise!)... Instead of: "ok, you downloaded from internet, it has sign, notarification, developer is already delivering software for 10 years and have 20 million users, so looks safe to run...". Basically, fear inducing messages instead of actually useful from security sense.