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

Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#51

Post by iji40 »

save_ferris wrote: post #10
acdha wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scaremongering isn't the right way to describe a real, well-documented ongoing concern. We have a long history of app developers trying to monetize their user's privacy, and that also explains why your comparison is inaccurate: if you buy an iOS device you are already trusting Apple. If you don't trust Camera to do nothing more than geotag your photos, you can't use iOS at all because every mechanism which would prot…

Don't you think it's at least a little hypocritical that they don't extend the same privacy configuration options to their apps that they mandate for 3rd party apps? Sure, I generally trust Apple more than a random 3rd party developer, but the fact that Apple doesn't trust me to set my own privacy configuration for the camera makes me trust them less.

No, I don’t, because they do. The entire thesis of the upstream argument is false. You’re arguing a falsehood. There are no special libraries to defeat privacy available to first party apps. They use the same exact methods externals do. The first party app documentation is literally the public site with very few exceptions.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#52

Post by acdha »

xbmcuser wrote: post #39
acdha wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, how large is the population of people who don't trust Apple's apps not to exfiltrate their data but do trust Apple's OS to enforce restrictions on the apps built-in to the OS? If, for example, you don't trust Camera with your location data you also need to be concerned about having cellular networking enabled and making sure that Apple's WiFi interface, crash report, software updates, Music/Books/TV, etc. don'…

Apple has put its servers in china for chinese users so that the chinese government can access the data. Now the data it collects legally they have to give to chinese government if asked. I am not saying they are giving data to chinese government that rather that they are collecting data which can get into the hands of government so they should let the user control what data they are comfortable with sharing.

Again, what do you believe that a checkbox on the camera app would accomplish? If you’re concerned about protecting Chinese users against their government, think long and hard about whether this would provide anything more than a false sense of security. I even gave you a partial list of other ways the same data can leak.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#53

Post by jeffbee »

iji40 wrote: post #51
save_ferris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it's at least a little hypocritical that they don't extend the same privacy configuration options to their apps that they mandate for 3rd party apps? Sure, I generally trust Apple more than a random 3rd party developer, but the fact that Apple doesn't trust me to set my own privacy configuration for the camera makes me trust them less.

No, I don’t, because they do. The entire thesis of the upstream argument is false. You’re arguing a falsehood. There are no special libraries to defeat privacy available to first party apps. They use the same exact methods externals do. The first party app documentation is literally the public site with very few exceptions.

I think you're being a little obtuse. How do you address the fact that I can disable microphone for any 3rd-party voice memo application but I cannot disable it for Apple's "Voice Memos". This is a clear double-standard regardless of how fondly you feel about your own contributions to Apple Maps.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#54

Post by iji40 »

jeffbee wrote: post #50
iji40 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because more apps than Apple Maps consume that information. Your “never ask to turn it off” returns to the complete misunderstanding of how permissions work. You are not prompted because you already granted it access during provisioning, and it’s not asking for background data. Your allegation that Google Maps is targeted with engineering and architectural decisions is not supported by public evidence and wholly refu…

Google Maps also provides cooked geographic data to other Google applications (such as "Google" FKA "Google Now") but this fact does not exempt it from iOS scaremongering.

So that’s a no on listening rather than continuing down the falsehood path, then? Roger that.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#55

Post by MiroF »

AlexandrB wrote: post #41

> Essentially, Apple is forcing advertisers to use a per-app permission pop-up with scary language, telling users the app wants permission to track them across other apps and websites. > But notice the significantly scarier language: “’Pal About’ would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” > This is language that is likely designed to minimize opt-in. Love how honest languag…

'Love how honest language is framed as "scary" language'

Isn't the problem here that Apple isn't using honest language for their own advertising?

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#56

Post by jeffbee »

iji40 wrote: post #54
jeffbee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Maps also provides cooked geographic data to other Google applications (such as "Google" FKA "Google Now") but this fact does not exempt it from iOS scaremongering.

So that’s a no on listening rather than continuing down the falsehood path, then? Roger that.

So far you haven't given us anything but vitriol to consider.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#57

Post by iji40 »

jeffbee wrote: post #53
iji40 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don’t, because they do. The entire thesis of the upstream argument is false. You’re arguing a falsehood. There are no special libraries to defeat privacy available to first party apps. They use the same exact methods externals do. The first party app documentation is literally the public site with very few exceptions.

I think you're being a little obtuse. How do you address the fact that I can disable microphone for any 3rd-party voice memo application but I cannot disable it for Apple's "Voice Memos". This is a clear double-standard regardless of how fondly you feel about your own contributions to Apple Maps.

I think you’re completely making shit up because you can’t stand Apple yet still carry an Apple device, so sounds like we both have distaste for each other, but that distaste is not exactly relevant to the issue at hand.

That sounds like a bug. There are places to file it.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#58

Post by [deleted] »

spanhandler wrote: post #31
wutbrodo wrote: post #3

I had a very brief stint working on mobile ads in 2011, so I have some vague familiarity with the sausage factory and its implications for user privacy on mobile devices, and this is par for the course for Apple. A big part of their marketing strategy is duping people into thinking they're pro-user, when they're one of the most aggressively anti-user companies I can think of. What's really impressive is how successfu…

I wish anyone, anyone else would make competing operating systems & accompanying software suites that performed as well and required as little unproductive horseshit to keep working properly, and in fact worked as hard to make my life easier through useful integrations (little things, like auto-fill auth code from a text message—god, so nice). I don't like them but any time I use something else I feel like I've made…

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#59

Post by innagadadavida »

acdha wrote: post #7
jeffbee wrote: post #2

Apple exempts all their iOS software from their own privacy scaremongering. iOS never pops up a scary dialog warning you that Camera has accessed your location twice in the last week, even though Camera accesses your location every time you start it. There is a completely separate iOS privacy regime for Apple's own apps.

Scaremongering isn't the right way to describe a real, well-documented ongoing concern. We have a long history of app developers trying to monetize their user's privacy, and that also explains why your comparison is inaccurate: if you buy an iOS device you are already trusting Apple. If you don't trust Camera to do nothing more than geotag your photos, you can't use iOS at all because every mechanism which would prot…

Apple allows you to turn off location services for system apps as well. So even if you don’t trust Apple, you have legal recourse if those terms are violated.

Re: Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

#60

Post by prophesi »

MiroF wrote: post #55
AlexandrB wrote: post #41

> Essentially, Apple is forcing advertisers to use a per-app permission pop-up with scary language, telling users the app wants permission to track them across other apps and websites. > But notice the significantly scarier language: “’Pal About’ would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” > This is language that is likely designed to minimize opt-in. Love how honest languag…

'Love how honest language is framed as "scary" language' Isn't the problem here that Apple isn't using honest language for their own advertising?

That's definitely the big issue, but the majority of the article focuses on this "scary" language, and the hoops others must jump through, as if to say that these warnings are a bad thing.
Post reply on HN