Live data from Hacker News

Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

theinformation.com

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#41
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also used Life360 to geofence my kids and get notifications when they leave school and return home. It actually caught my son running away from school one time, and when the guidance counselor couldn't find him, I was able to locate him outside the school wandering around the streets.

Not a parent, but a recent kid, and I’d hate my parents having that kind of control over me. Though I guess I’d just turn off the phone. Which then makes me even more unreachable than if the tracking had never been instituted in the first place.

A lot of these tools depend a lot on the age of the kid and how they're used.

I have five year old, and they're nearly to the point where they could go the the park by themself if they had some sort of device where (a) we could tell where they were and (b) they could easily contact us plus (c) it was socially acceptable to do this. This would be using tracking to allow our kid more freedom, since the alternatives are (1) go to the park on our schedule and under full supervision and (2) stay home.

As kids get older we would want to pull back that kind of supervision, so that by the time they're 12 or so we can get their location with something active and visible to them, and by the time they're 15 or so we can just call or text them.

The technology can be used in a lot of ways, and whether it makes kids more or less free depends on parenting and culture.

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#42
Innovation is often about using things in ways that were never intended. This often conflicts with the ability to police other people's behavior.

Maybe the resolution in this case would be requiring notification decryption to be open source with a verified compile, so Apple (and users) can see what the code does?

Users need privacy, code doesn't.

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say the same thing. Even this description is _really_ light on details. I'd love to see a technical breakdown of this problem. iOS 13 has a background task API - why can't that be used? Incoming notifications can trigger application code to run - why can't that method be used?

iOS 13 has a background task API - why can't that be used? The iOS 13 background task API limits your background tasks to a few minutes. So, they're useful for short batch tasks you don't want to interrupt when the app closes, like cleaning up a database. They aren't so useful for listening for a notification that could come after hours of inactivity. Incoming notifications can trigger application code to run - why c…

> This is probably what apps will do in response to the rule changes. It isn't ideal, though. Incoming notifications can trigger application code to run, but only for notifications that include a visible display to the user. This means that a server has to differentiate between different types of data on their network, like knowing the difference between a new user message and a read receipt. It is not ideal for privacy to expose that information to the server.

I guess I still don't get it.

A notification comes into the iPhone. iOS wakes the app. The user clicks the notification, the app opens, the user reads the message and the app sends a read receipt to it's own servers.

A new message would just be a new message. The user would type it and hit send. The app would send it to it's servers which would then use the push api to send a message to the recipient.

Edit: Ok, I get it. The point is one doesn't want a server knowing the difference between the two types of messages. That's a leak of metadata.

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure, but on the other hand now all your stuff isn't broken. Give and take, I think.

Had a similar situation once. Apple announced a rule change that impacted our business. We talked to them and realized we had to suck it up. We spent 6 months completely redesigning our app to fit in with the new guidelines. Meanwhile we found out our competitors spend 6 months doing nothing but complaining to Apple. Apple reneged on the change. We lost 6 months dev time trying to comply with the new rules in good fa…

What was the change?

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#45

My wife and I use Life360 every day for giving us notifications whenever we leave work, arrive at home, arrive at our kid's school, etc. We use these tracking notifications for all sorts of things. For example, my wife won't start prepping dinner until she gets the notification that I've left work. I will be very annoyed if Apple's changes break tools like Life360. I opted into the tracking for a reason. I don't need…

FYI, Life360 sells your location information, driving habits, and registration details to third-parties including advertisers and insurance companies. From their privacy policy ( https://www.life360.com/privacy_policy/ ): > One of the 3rd parties who we share data with is Arity. [...] Arity may use this data to [...] provide and service insurance products, including using personal data to perform profiling activities…

[deleted]

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#47
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, and to think of all the times I've held myself back colouring within the app guidelines. Meanwhile other app developers are abusing the apis to no end.

Well sure, but on the other hand now all your stuff isn't broken. Give and take, I think.

Except if he was using PushKit in a compliant way.

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#48
post #3

It seems like a user side configurable app permission such as "allow this application to use PushKit for non VOIP related functions" would take care of this without breaking functionality. However if the author of this article is correct it seems like this is more a jab at Facebook messenger than anything.

That doesn't work with average users. Basically Android did that - apps started to ask for admin permissions, accessibility features and other dangerous stuff and users just click Allow on anything.

This is exactly correct: because average users are dumb, it is our duty as software developers to make decisions for them, and to use whatever practical encryption or legal copyright means available to us to ensure that users do not have the ability--by any means that could plausibly be under the control of the user--to access and modify (or even see!) the behavior of the software running on the hardware they think they "own"... anything less would be devastating for security and is too scary to contemplate.

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#49
post #31

Note that the intended replacement API has been available for three years: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/... According to Moxie, it does have a downside. Notifications must be marked as either displaying an alert or as silent. Silent notifications are invisible to the user, but can be read by the app; Signal uses them for things like typing indicators and read receipts. With the new API,…

[deleted]

Re: Apple Change Causes Scramble Among Private Messaging App Makers

#50
The title is (inadvertantly?) misleading, since the aforementioned private messaging app makers are only inconvenienced because they were knowingly misusing an API for which an incomplete API existed.

So, as Apple updates APIs, they're having to repay their own knowingly-incurred technical debt to stop using what was the only thing working, a workaround, before.

Post reply on HN