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

Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#31

Post by gruez »

gregoriol wrote: post #11
JimDabell wrote: post #3

When I buy an iPhone and use iOS, I’m making an active choice to be an Apple user. When I install a third-party app and use it, I’m making an active choice to be their user too. When that third-party app embeds the Facebook SDK which tracks me, I don’t know about it and do not have the ability to consent to Facebook tracking me. ATT brings Facebook to the same level as Apple and the third-party app developers by givi…

If you trust Apple with what they do on your iPhone, you should trust the third-party with what they do inside their app, there is no difference. If you need to know the details of what is done inside the third-party app, then that third-party is not trustworthy. Or you also need to know what is done inside iOS. The problem is that in today world, we don't know who we can trust, and that the context might change over…

>If you trust Apple with what they do on your iPhone, you should trust the third-party with what they do inside their app, there is no difference.

Why is trust an all or nothing proposition? Why can't I trust an app to do whatever it wants within its sandbox, but not to get an unique identifier that can be shared between apps? It's not any different than sandboxing, where I trust the app to do whatever it wants in its sandbox, but not mess with my documents or OS.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#32

Post by gruez »

buran77 wrote: post #13
alistairSH wrote: post #5

Maybe because opting into tracking via "Music" or "Photos" when I've already consented to tracking at the OS level is redundant? There's no unknown 3rd party here - it's all Apple. In the case of apps from the App Store, there are/were 3rd party trackers - I download "Candy Crush" and it sends data to Meta or Google or somebody else.

> I've already consented to tracking at the OS level That's very wide and obscure. Even the bullet points for how the OS can track you go past what can be considered informed consent. If that consent covers every 1st party app that will ever run on the phone then it's a guarantee nothing in about it is really informed. If you think a vague, blanket consent is all it takes then every company will get one in a jiffy. J…

>Remember when Disney tried to get out of a wrongful death lawsuit by citing some agreement the family of the victim accepted for a Disney+ trial years before? [0] Well you're describing the same principle. Consent should be granular.

That case was wildly mischaracterized. The restaurant that allegedly caused the wrongly death was not owned or operated by Disney, but Disney was dragged into the lawsuit anyways on the basis that they listed the restaurant on their website. Disney retorted that if they could be on the hook for a wrongful death under such tenuous circumstances, that they should be let off the hook on the basis of the tenuous waiver the plaintiff signed years before.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#33

Post by gruez »

realusername wrote: post #17
Spivak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying what's being collected isn't invasive but over time we've redefined spyware and tracking to include logging, error reporting, and telemetry. Someone in the 90's would be imagining bonzi buddy when you say tracking when it's actually pendo.

And what about something like the AdvertisingID? The OS creates an identifier for the purpose of tracking you with ads.

Before that app developers were reading IMEI or mac addresses, which were arguably worse because they can't be reset.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#34

Post by alabastervlog »

Spivak wrote: post #14
realusername wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've already consented to tracking at the OS level Isn't that sentence by itself kind of insane? Tracking at the OS level used to be unacceptable. Nobody should expect their OS to track them like this in the first place.

Not saying what's being collected isn't invasive but over time we've redefined spyware and tracking to include logging, error reporting, and telemetry. Someone in the 90's would be imagining bonzi buddy when you say tracking when it's actually pendo.

This has it backwards: “telemetry” or otherwise collecting info without explicitly asking each time was definitely, for-sure just spyware as late as the mid ‘00s. We only later decided a bunch of that definitely-not-ok stuff was ok.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#35

Post by jajko »

alistairSH wrote: post #5

Maybe because opting into tracking via "Music" or "Photos" when I've already consented to tracking at the OS level is redundant? There's no unknown 3rd party here - it's all Apple. In the case of apps from the App Store, there are/were 3rd party trackers - I download "Candy Crush" and it sends data to Meta or Google or somebody else.

Mam, I wish I had your blind trust into multibillion corporations. I am experienced enough to know that I simply don't. Champions of privacy should do better, no they should clearly lead the market, like it was with updates.

I mean thats the main value proposition for Apple these days, no? At least for more tech users.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#36

Post by realusername »

gruez wrote: post #33
realusername wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about something like the AdvertisingID? The OS creates an identifier for the purpose of tracking you with ads.

Before that app developers were reading IMEI or mac addresses, which were arguably worse because they can't be reset.

Isn't that just because the sandboxing is really poor on mobile compared to the web? You cannot read those on the web.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#37

Post by righthand »

JimDabell wrote: post #3

When I buy an iPhone and use iOS, I’m making an active choice to be an Apple user. When I install a third-party app and use it, I’m making an active choice to be their user too. When that third-party app embeds the Facebook SDK which tracks me, I don’t know about it and do not have the ability to consent to Facebook tracking me. ATT brings Facebook to the same level as Apple and the third-party app developers by givi…

You also don’t have a choice when Apple embeds tracking into their apps, third-party or not. I don’t see why Apple gets away with it just because it’s first party. Should I assume Reminders is sending tracking data to Apple and that’s okay?

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#38

Post by 827a »

> strict ... rules do not cover Apple's own practice of combining user data across its ecosystem – from its App Store, Apple ID and connected devices – and using them for advertising purposes.

It is not obvious to me that Apple is doing this, at least in any meaningfully industrialized sense. The biggest third party advertising platform Apple runs is App Store ads, and I think it would be surprising indeed if Apple were using any data to influence these ads beyond "what have I downloaded from the App Store" (actually, they might not even use that, I seem to recall at some point they spoke on the extreme privacy of these ads. they might just be related search term ads).

The other major one is Apple News, which is such an underused, weird service that I can't bring myself to care about it.

There's a few other minor things that sometimes look like third party ads, like... the banners on Apple TV sometimes advertising an Apple TV+ show that might have been made by a non-Apple Studio? I've never gotten the sense that is personalized, at all, its always just some new show. Maybe there's some incentive payments on the backend of Apple Music that surface certain artists, like Spotify does? Grasping at straws.

First party advertising is a bit more prevalent, but I don't feel this is what the article is speaking on, because at the end of the day the ATT system is designed to stop the proliferation of personal data. For example, the ad in the Settings app to upsell customers on AppleCare+; the Fitness+ notifications some customers get; the Apple Store app recommending accessories for products it knows you own. I'm also not going to lose sleep over any of these things.

Weak argument. I don't see any evidence of Apple not holding themselves to an even higher standard than ATT and most other companies when it comes to security and privacy. The EU just hates American tech.

Re: Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself

#39

Post by layer8 »

JimDabell wrote: post #3

When I buy an iPhone and use iOS, I’m making an active choice to be an Apple user. When I install a third-party app and use it, I’m making an active choice to be their user too. When that third-party app embeds the Facebook SDK which tracks me, I don’t know about it and do not have the ability to consent to Facebook tracking me. ATT brings Facebook to the same level as Apple and the third-party app developers by givi…

> When I buy an iPhone and use iOS, I’m making an active choice to be an Apple user.

I disagree. I’m choosing to be a user of the specific device that I bought, nothing more.

Post reply on HN