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

Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 403 posts

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#361

Post by foobiekr »

superkuh wrote: post #145

Apple can make an anti-tracking computer but nothing they do can make an anti-tracking phone. It is a "cell" phone. The very nature of cell phones means the basestations have to decide where you are and which cell takes your connections. With precise clocks and multi-lateration the position of your handset is known to about 50m. All US telco keep this location data (which is constantly updated) for 2 to 5 years. And…

You can't make any internet-connected computer any more anonymous than a cell-connected computer. Your internet connection is as traceable and mostly using the same methods as your computer minus triangulation if you turn off wifi. Your provider knows the service address and pretty much everything else.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#362

Post by [deleted] »

chungus_khan wrote: post #281
eganist wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although for what its worth, I wonder if it's possible for a cell to throw telcos off by broadcasting at higher power and connecting randomly between more and less distant antennas. This is probably one of the dumber ideas I've come up with given that I have no idea how the different protocols for handshakes between cells and towers work. Looking to be educated on it here in the comments.

Sounds like a great way to get your IMEI blacklisted by the carrier (and drop/miss calls a lot), and would not really stop them from triangulating your position (because you still have to be physically in range of all the towers, and would still be a determinable distance from them, being that distance is calculated using timing). Cellular modem firmwares are also generally pretty closely guarded and not flashable.

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#363

Post by edmundsauto »

nvrspyx wrote: post #354
edmundsauto wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the adaptation will be disappearing, including a large number of sites that contribute articles that pop up here on HN. Another way would be getting more invasive, like requiring login, before the content gets displayed.

Many of the sites that are featured on HN are not even the actual source of information, which often gets linked in the comments. As for going more "invasive", it's that exact reason that ads are being attacked, so I wouldn't bet on that working out long term either. I also fail to see how logging in inherently leads to revenue, unless we're talking about a subscription service in which case it'll live or die by the…

This is certainly possible - I am terrible at predicting the future! To clarify the logging in comment: site is free, but they require you to login to view content (what Medium is doing) and now you have a unique identifier that can be used track you across sites when shared locally ("login with Google" effect)

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#364

Post by airstrike »

damnyou wrote: post #320
inetknght wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're justifying the abuse of people's privacy because they can't afford to buy out of it. That might be legal for the moment but it is in no way moral.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm merely stating what I think is an unequivocally positive side effect of advertising-based models: they have automatic price discrimination built in. Subscription models do not have it built in—developers have to do extra work to introduce price discrimination. I think this is a demerit of subscription models, though not one that outweighs the demerits of advertising models.

> they have automatic price discrimination built in.

How, exactly? It's entirely opaque to the user.

At a minimum, you should offer a free, ad-supported version alongside a paid, ad-free (and tracking free) experience.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#365

Post by [deleted] »

ogre_codes wrote: post #290
olliej wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of IDFA was to provide an identifier that wasn't hardwired to the device - apps were going to absurd lengths to get the UDID, and IDFA gave them something ostensibly sufficient that users could in theory reset at will. I give good odds ad frameworks will again start trying to circumvent the platform security to get a UDID or equivalent.

Then apps get kicked out of the App Store for violating App Store Policy and word gets around that it's a shitty ad network.

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#366

Post by wyattpeak »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #282
alwillis wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of Apple's revenue is from selling hardware. Yes, there's revenue from services, which is growing fast. The trailing 12 month revenue for Mac, iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch (+ HomePod, AirPods, etc.) was over $220 billion . And while $20 billion is not nothing, it's actually not that big a deal for Apple, especially when you consider its $2 trillion market cap.

You’re mixing a lot of numbers there. Apple makes about 60 billion a year in the profit. The 10 billion they get from Google constitutes 16% of their annual profit. That’s significant! Apple trades at a 37x P/E ratio. An additional $20B profit could be worth about an additional $760 billion in market cap. You can’t dismiss 10 billion in pure profit because their market cap. Those numbers are directly related and far…

> The 10 billion they get from Google constitutes 16% of their annual profit.

You're playing funny buggers with figures there. According to your standard the sales of physical devices constitutes over 350% of their annual profit.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#367

Post by isignal »

jefftk wrote: post #275
thesuitonym wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but if you had headless browsers loading the ads on your site no one would be able to tell that those views were not from real users. There is literally nothing in the world I care about less than this.

Of course you don't care about it directly, but it is part of a chain that funds things you probably do care about? Advertisers pay publishers to show their ads to real users. Publishers run their sites because they receive money from advertisers. We visit the sites because they're diverting/informative/useful/etc. If the advertisers can't tell whether their ads are instead shown to robots, the whole thing falls apar…

This is an interesting proposal, thanks for sharing.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#368

Post by isignal »

michaelt wrote: post #238
jefftk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, privacy and fraud both benefit from the same changes. To prevent tracking online, you want your device to look just like everybody else's devices. To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different so you can tell when a device does not represent a real user. At the extreme, imagine if every person has a unique identifier that was automatically sent whenever they used any device: preventing ad fra…

> To prevent fraud, you want devices to look different To me, if your system relies on being able to tell most internet users apart, that sounds extremely close to processing personally identifiable information.

It doesn’t need to tell them apart individually, just high level demographics or geography are already useful. If your website suddenly got 99% of traffic from Tibet (random example), you would probably discount those impressions/clicks.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#369

Post by inetknght »

damnyou wrote: post #320
inetknght wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're justifying the abuse of people's privacy because they can't afford to buy out of it. That might be legal for the moment but it is in no way moral.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm merely stating what I think is an unequivocally positive side effect of advertising-based models: they have automatic price discrimination built in. Subscription models do not have it built in—developers have to do extra work to introduce price discrimination. I think this is a demerit of subscription models, though not one that outweighs the demerits of advertising models.

> an unequivocally positive side effect of advertising-based models

Democracies are bought on advertising.

Hiding the price of the user's attention is not a positive side effect to the user. Hiding who buys the user's attention is not a positive side effect to the user. Hiding how many other people's attentions are also being sold is not a positive side effect to the user. All of these are detriments to the user.

Re: Apple’s Anti-Tracking Plans for iPhone

#370

Post by forrestthewoods »

wyattpeak wrote: post #366
forrestthewoods wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re mixing a lot of numbers there. Apple makes about 60 billion a year in the profit. The 10 billion they get from Google constitutes 16% of their annual profit. That’s significant! Apple trades at a 37x P/E ratio. An additional $20B profit could be worth about an additional $760 billion in market cap. You can’t dismiss 10 billion in pure profit because their market cap. Those numbers are directly related and far…

> The 10 billion they get from Google constitutes 16% of their annual profit. You're playing funny buggers with figures there. According to your standard the sales of physical devices constitutes over 350% of their annual profit.

Yes, gross revenue is larger than net income. Particularly when manufacturing is involved.

The $10B Google money is basically pure profit. It costs Apple nothing. Maybe a few million in lawyer time to negotiate the fee each year.

Hardware sales generates enormous revenue and also very large profit. I believe more than half of Apple’s profit is still hardware sales. But they’re working very hard to increase their services income.

Post reply on HN