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

41–50 of 72 posts

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

#41

Post by oneplane »

immibis wrote: post #23
oneplane wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could charge themselves, but what would a couple of entries in bookkeeping do here. If you 'charge yourself' there is no cost, and no gain. It's meaningless.

It would make their apps look unprofitable on paper, unless they raised the prices 30% like every other developer has to.

Right, but that's something any audit will poke right through, and if you take the paper trail (or follow the money) far enough, it just ends up with whatever tax haven corp that is used for the money either way, and the profits and losses still end up with a net zero difference.

Technically, it doesn't even matter where this split is made, if you go up the tree high enough, it merges and just cancels itself out.

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

#42

Post by hnuser123456 »

righthand wrote: post #37
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?

For diagnostics and usage patterns only, of course.

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #42
righthand wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For diagnostics and usage patterns only, of course.

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by buran77 »

CharlesW wrote: post #29
buran77 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> That's very wide and obscure. It's not "obscure" to anyone who takes 5 minutes to ask for it. Apple will happily send you all the data they have about you. https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/apple-data-and-privacy-how... https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-r...

You're shooting blanks from the hip. Jumping to answer without even understanding the question or the point of the article.

When I activate a brand new iPhone I don't get presented with Cnet/Zdnet articles from 7 years that tell me that the OS tracking I'm consenting to now will be pooled with any tracking collected from any Apple app now or in the future.

Apple does not allow 3rd party apps to cross track. Insta app can't collect tracking from the FB app. And that's great. But Apple's apps are excluded from this and allow cross tracking. Apple pools together all the tracking it has access to between OS and apps. OP says they're fine with it because they already trusted the OS. But the OS and the apps are different things. What the OS does is at technical level, the apps know what medication I take, how well I slept last night, or which stores I buy my things in. Combining that is way more intimate than "OS tracking".

I trust Apple more than most other big tech companies but such policies still don't sit right with me. They advertise "privacy" but then eschew their own rules.

Downloading my takeout data after the fact won't prevent Apple apps from pooling tracking data in the first place.

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

#45

Post by paulddraper »

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're mixing things up.

There are two decisions:

1. To be a user.

2. To have data tracked.

Installing from the App Store is decision #1 but #2 is made separately.

Is buying a phone both #1 and #2 together? If so, why?

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

#46

Post by paulddraper »

immibis wrote: post #23
oneplane wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could charge themselves, but what would a couple of entries in bookkeeping do here. If you 'charge yourself' there is no cost, and no gain. It's meaningless.

It would make their apps look unprofitable on paper, unless they raised the prices 30% like every other developer has to.

What apps does Apple charge for?

TV I guess?

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

#47

Post by zimpenfish »

gruez wrote: post #32
buran77 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Disney retorted [...] tenuous waiver

They've since backtracked on that retort though and accepted the court process[0].

Although their first response was nothing to do with arbitration[1]. Their lawyers are flip-floppers.

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/disn...

[1] "Disney made no mention of arbitration, instead arguing it was not liable because it has no control over Raglan’s operations or management and merely serves as its landlord."

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

#48

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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…

> there is no difference.

That’s not true, Facebook’s business model is inherently privacy invading.

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

#49

Post by alistairSH »

jajko wrote: post #35
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.

I don't trust Apple - I assume they're tracking. Their record here is better than Google or MS, but that's a pretty low bar. And now that I've picked my poison for overall ecosystem, I want to limit (or at least opt-in) to other tracking.

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

#50

Post by neuroelectron »

Thankfully iOS is pretty complete without apps. I don't use apps, I don't find them more convenient than websites. I use my phone like a basic computer. I only really use more advanced things outside of news/calendar/maps on a home desktop PC.

I'm not particularly old-fashioned as I had a 12 year career in FAANG mostly working with sensitive PII and business data which is quite boring if you're not a criminal. But I understand that there is no real way to enforce the kind of privacy standards people seem to assume exist.

Post reply on HN