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

341–350 of 359 posts

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#341

Post by gandalfgreybeer »

turquoisevar wrote: post #317
matthew-wegner wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple advertising extends beyond the app store, both for iOS and macOS, and is personalized by default. You can disable this in Settings -> Privacy and Security -> Apple Advertising on both platforms.

You’re right, it’s a bit more than the App Store. AFAIK it also includes ads in the News app and apps that load articles from the News app (e.g. Stocks app). Their fine print also mentions the TV app, but I haven’t seen ads there, so perhaps they’re referring to content suggestions. This seems to be confirmed further down the line in the fine print when it says: > We create segments to deliver personalized ads on the…

The ads on the TV app I think are 30s trailers when playing episodes or movies (only once per session as I’ve experienced) which can immediately be skipped like a recap.

It’s the only ad on a streaming service that has never annoyed me (I also like the fact that it’s not targeted). Zero ads are better but their implementation on tv plus is the least irritating I’ve experienced.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#342

Post by slipshady »

lost_tourist wrote: post #247
boesboes wrote: post #4

Fuck me that’s the worst UX I’ve seen in ages

It's super simple, left/right keys for 95% of it, why is that a bad UX?

I could barely read or navigate on mobile despite being prompted to ‘flip to landscape’. I gave up on the page.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#343

Post by KaiserPro »

lost_tourist wrote: post #242
KaiserPro wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet apple make so much noise about privacy, but don't activly block access to personal information. Like why do they allow access to the health data stored in the phone? It's almost like they need facebook to be the devil so they can say how good they are.

You have to opt in to that tho? Some apps do need your health info because they're a health/activity app.

> You have to opt in to that tho

Exactly! and yet the threads app doesn't actually request that access. Hence my scepticism

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#344

Post by Draiken »

musictubes wrote: post #310
Draiken wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. But my point is that how it looks now is irrelevant. The world changes. CEOs change. Incentives change. What won't change is the ultimate goal of any company: profit above all else.

How it looks now is not irrelevant. It is how I decide what to use. If things change in the future I will react to it then.

By then, they have all your data and can do whatever they want with it. That's my whole point.

This is not something you can retroactively deal with. Once that data is collected its completely outside of your control.

You can choose to ignore it and believe they will act on good faith for long enough, but it's still a bet.

Maybe for you it's a conscious bet. But in my view, most people don't realize this at all.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#345

Post by Draiken »

tomnipotent wrote: post #267
Draiken wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This inevitability is inherent to our system. It's not specific to Apple. I don't need to convince anyone of this. History will repeat itself as it always does.

What an absolutely absurd generalization wrapped in aphorism. There is nothing in history that is absolutely repeated in all instances, nor is "history repeats itself" a valid argument that proves anything other than lazy thinking.

Come on man. This is not an abstract thought. You don't need to go far to see examples of this exact scenario.

You can choose to ignore it. That's your prerogative. But what I'm saying is not a lazy generalization. It's backed by what happened and continues to happen in our current day and age.

Almost no company starts as an evil entity. But they definitely end up there once they grow large enough.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#346

Post by deafpolygon »

dazc wrote: post #109
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.

'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?

That's like asking "This company's stock is doing well. Why not dump everything you've got into it?"

Apple is diversifying their income stream, and leaving money on the table if they don't take it.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#347

Post by fmajid »

fh9302 wrote: post #162
fmajid wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything the article gives Apple unjustifiable benefit of doubt. Apple exempts itself fron the IDFA transparency requirements it imposes on third-party app developers, and has drawn legal scrutiny in France and the EU, among others: https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-whe... Then there is their scanning of iCloud backups for CSAM without being forced to do so by law, something Meta hasn't done…

Can you show a source for your iCloud backup CSAM scanning claim? These days iCloud supports E2EE so they have no ability to scan once you enable it. Signal does not support any cloud backups and WhatsApp uses iCloud so this seems like a flawed comparison.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...

"Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process is performed for that image against the database of known CSAM hashes".

Thus the scanning is done by your device against the unencrypted image before uploading it to iCloud. The fact they abandoned the plan is irrelevant, by considering it in the first place (and to a very high level of engineering R&D as evidenced by the document), they set a precedent and forefeited any trust. It's CSAM today, it will be mentions Winnie the Pooh mocking Xi Jinping tomorrow, and of abortion in Texas the day after.

Now, the only way I'd trust an Apple-mediated encrypted messaging service is if the clientapp is third-party and thus can't be backdoored retroactively if Apple feels it expedient to do so.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#348

Post by gaucheries »

gaucheries wrote: post #154

The author’s point about Threads’ privacy/data usage seems moot. Presumably they already use Instagram, and that app’s “Data Linked to You” section in the iOS App Store is comparable to Threads. I thought that they made a good point about how the Threads screen that links to the privacy policies doesn’t highlight the links very well. But it seems to me that the average social media user probably doesn’t care and woul…

The person who downvoted my comment should reply.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#349

Post by ethbr1 »

deafpolygon wrote: post #346
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? That's like asking "This company's stock is doing well. Why not dump everything you've got into it?" Apple is diversifying their income stream, and leaving money on the table if they don't take it.

On the one hand, Apple has some potential ad business ceiling.

That ceiling number varies according to how well they can target.

On the other hand, Apple has some amount of iPhone et al. sales that occur because they respect privacy.

Eventually, increasing the former will decrease the latter. I think Android shows us the link is weak (because most people don't care, if tracking is hidden), but it exists.

My impression would be that right now, Apple is targeting far less than their customers would allow (while still buying equivalent amounts of hardware).

The issue is +5 or +10 years, when Apple has a few bad product launches and needs to find a revenue stream, and selling a piece of their privacy soul to juice revenue is an easy bargain to make.

Google's central evil was allowing ad revenue to metastasize and dominate the company, which in turn meant that ad execs have more pull than is healthy.

Post reply on HN