6 ms·

With New Browser Tech, Apple Preserves Privacy and Google Preserves Trackers

89 points by dwynings 9y ago

gcb0 9y ago
...and eff forgets about mozilla.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Wake me up when Firefox enables its Tracking Protection by default.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  I think they do that on purpose. Mozilla presents itself as a good guy and many people still believe that, so those people could get offended and not get the point eff tries to make. But yeah, Mozilla follows Google in this regard and it's in Mozilla's best interest to preserve tracking and allow advertising industry to "hijack our attention", otherwise they won't get enough funding to exist.
  - gcb0 9y ago
    except Firefox is the only mobile browser that you can run effective script and ad blocker extensions. well, on android at least.
0x0 9y ago
The #1 reason to block ads for me is protecting against malware, both for inline drive-by exploits and for scam sites offering backdoored downloads.
- x0x0 9y ago
  This really is crucial for older relatives.
godzillabrennus 9y ago
Wake me up when Apple has started helping foster a community of developers for Safari plugins. Chrome is useful because it's so extendable.
- amartya916 9y ago
  I am sorry to say that you are ignoring the importance of privacy, and somewhat flippantly making the case for extensibility over privacy. Safari's (and Apple's) commitment to privacy is to be commended and we should try not to lose sight of it because of our personal preferences.
  - xbmcuser 9y ago
    Apple sells default placement to search engines like Google and Bing. If it it really cared about privacy 1. It would not sell it's customers to Google or Bing as search placement 2. It would put duckduckgo or similar as default.
    - amartya916 9y ago
      This is a fair critique. I wish they didn't sell the search placement in the first place.
    - jolux 9y ago
      Once they have intelligent tracking protection enabled though it won't matter what search engine you use, because it will prevent tracking on all of them. Just including DuckDuckGo in the defaults is a huge step forward. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was defaulted if Google keeps trying to circumvent adblocking measures.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      The product manager who picked Google likely did so because of user preference.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tensor 9y ago
In tandem with their Better Ads enforcement, Google will also launch a companion program, Funding Choices, that will enable CBA-compliant sites to ask Chrome users with content blockers to whitelist their site and unblock their ads. Should the user refuse, they can either pay for an "ad-free experience" or be locked out by a publisher's adblock wall. Does this mean that Chrome will be directly supporting anti-adblock technology? Will it somehow just disable extensions like ublock on these CBA supported sites?
- petre 9y ago
  This is just like paying protection tax to the mob.
- derefr 9y ago
  Key part of the quote: > publisher's adblock wall The publisher is the one responsible for using a mixture of Javascript and server-log analysis to detect ad-blocking users and prevent them from accessing the content. As already happens on a growing number of sites. The change here is that Chrome will now notice when a publisher has served a user a "please disable your adblock for this site to continue" wall (maybe Google will suggest such pages be sent as HTTP 402 responses?) and do something on the browser-chrome level to give users the additional option: using a Google payments system built into Chrome to send the publisher a one-time [micro?]payment in exchange for unlocking that one article, without having to disable their adblocker. (Of course, many ad-supported publishers also already have ad-free subscriptions that you could sign up for—but they don't tend to bother with one-off per-article micropayments, because going through the whole giving-out-your-credit-card-to-a-web-form flow isn't worth it to read one article. This would avoid that problem.) Funny coincidence: I pitched this exact thing in the form of a browser extension to a VC firm a few years ago.
DannyBee 9y ago
This is so odd. They say : "While we welcome the willingness to tackle annoying ads, the CBA's criteria do not address a key reason many of us install ad blockers: to protect ourselves against the non-consensual tracking and surveillance that permeates the advertising ecosystem operated by the members of the CBA." "many" is a link to https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/why-people-use-ad-blockers/ https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/why-people-use-ad-b... Except that page shows that "to avoid being tracked" is actually relatively low on the list of reasons people use ad blockers compared to the annoying advertising issues, malware, etc?
- bobajeff 9y ago
  It's relatively low but it's not insignificant. It's still about 39%. Also 60% say its to avoid "intrusive ads".
- taneq 9y ago
  Two out of five people on the internet certainly qualifies as "many", just not "most". All of the reasons listed in that survey are just aspects of a single overarching reason to block ads, which is that ads universally degrade your experience of the internet.
Asdfbla 9y ago
Never really thought of Apple as a defender of user privacy, but it does make some sense. They aren't in the market for ads, so there's no reason for them to make their users the product. I think it shouldn't be surprising that Google acts like this. It seemed likely from the start that their ad blocking effort is mostly an attempt to preserve the ad industry and eliminate third party ad blocking not under Google's control.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- feld 9y ago
  User privacy is literally their business model. You pay Apple up front and they never expose your private information to third parties for any reason whatsoever and try to make sure your devices stay private. The cost of your privacy and future software updates through the life of the device is built in to the sticker price. You get exactly what's on the tin.
- _red 9y ago
  Most people have realized this - either explicitly or intuitively - over the last 10 years. Those cheap android phones and lower-end Windows laptops are so cheap because they are subsidized from the revenue they bring in via data collection and selling. Its like a privacy 101 realization...
  - pawadu 9y ago
    > Those cheap android phones and lower-end Windows laptops are so cheap because they are subsidized from the revenue they bring in via data collection and selling. Not true. Lets see what those "cheap" devices provide in terms of privacy: 1. During installation Windows 10 explicitly asks you what stuff you want to enable and how those affect your privacy 2. Microsoft Edge supports ad blockers and anti-trackers on desktop, mobile version is coming (already here in fast-ring?) 3. Google allows you to turn off all kind of analytics. They email you once a year and ask you to check your security and privacy settings. 4. Chrome allows you to install ad-blockers from Googles own extension store 5. On Android you also have the choice of installing Mozilla firefox which supports desktop-grade adblocker and anti-tracker extensions. Android being android you can make it the default OS browser and disable or remove Chrome completely. 6. On Android you can also install Mozilla Focus which is a privacy-oriented browser You are basically spreading FUD.
lotsoflumens 9y ago
They still want users to either view the ads or pay the "publisher". This will never work. They must start paying users. Only then, will their ads be viewed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ams6110 9y ago
uBlock to block the ads, disable 3rd party cookies to block the trackers. Add a hosts file and you're miles better off than either of these proposals.
lupinglade 9y ago
No surprise here. Ever heard of AdWords?
mark_l_watson 9y ago
For decades I favored Linux in the desktop, then adopted Android, etc. In the last year, due to Apple's reasonably good support for privacy, I have gone all-in for iOS and macOS devices. I didn't make this decision lightly, but for me it seemed like the right thing to do. I favor using Google services that I pay for (GCP, Play Music and Movies) but I am concerned about tracking activities of Google and Facebook. I think Apple deserves support for respecting customer privacy.

89 points by dwynings 9y ago

gcb0 9y ago

...and eff forgets about mozilla.

mtgx 9y ago
Wake me up when Firefox enables its Tracking Protection by default.
zzzcpan 9y ago
I think they do that on purpose. Mozilla presents itself as a good guy and many people still believe that, so those people could get offended and not get the point eff tries to make. But yeah, Mozilla follows Google in this regard and it's in Mozilla's best interest to preserve tracking and allow advertising industry to "hijack our attention", otherwise they won't get enough funding to exist.
- gcb0 9y ago
  except Firefox is the only mobile browser that you can run effective script and ad blocker extensions. well, on android at least.

0x0 9y ago

The #1 reason to block ads for me is protecting against malware, both for inline drive-by exploits and for scam sites offering backdoored downloads.

x0x0 9y ago
This really is crucial for older relatives.

godzillabrennus 9y ago

Wake me up when Apple has started helping foster a community of developers for Safari plugins. Chrome is useful because it's so extendable.

amartya916 9y ago
I am sorry to say that you are ignoring the importance of privacy, and somewhat flippantly making the case for extensibility over privacy. Safari's (and Apple's) commitment to privacy is to be commended and we should try not to lose sight of it because of our personal preferences.
- xbmcuser 9y ago
  Apple sells default placement to search engines like Google and Bing. If it it really cared about privacy 1. It would not sell it's customers to Google or Bing as search placement 2. It would put duckduckgo or similar as default.
  - amartya916 9y ago
    This is a fair critique. I wish they didn't sell the search placement in the first place.
  - jolux 9y ago
    Once they have intelligent tracking protection enabled though it won't matter what search engine you use, because it will prevent tracking on all of them. Just including DuckDuckGo in the defaults is a huge step forward. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was defaulted if Google keeps trying to circumvent adblocking measures.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The product manager who picked Google likely did so because of user preference.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tensor 9y ago

In tandem with their Better Ads enforcement, Google will also launch a companion program, Funding Choices, that will enable CBA-compliant sites to ask Chrome users with content blockers to whitelist their site and unblock their ads. Should the user refuse, they can either pay for an "ad-free experience" or be locked out by a publisher's adblock wall. Does this mean that Chrome will be directly supporting anti-adblock technology? Will it somehow just disable extensions like ublock on these CBA supported sites?

petre 9y ago
This is just like paying protection tax to the mob.
derefr 9y ago
Key part of the quote: > publisher's adblock wall The publisher is the one responsible for using a mixture of Javascript and server-log analysis to detect ad-blocking users and prevent them from accessing the content. As already happens on a growing number of sites. The change here is that Chrome will now notice when a publisher has served a user a "please disable your adblock for this site to continue" wall (maybe Google will suggest such pages be sent as HTTP 402 responses?) and do something on the browser-chrome level to give users the additional option: using a Google payments system built into Chrome to send the publisher a one-time [micro?]payment in exchange for unlocking that one article, without having to disable their adblocker. (Of course, many ad-supported publishers also already have ad-free subscriptions that you could sign up for—but they don't tend to bother with one-off per-article micropayments, because going through the whole giving-out-your-credit-card-to-a-web-form flow isn't worth it to read one article. This would avoid that problem.) Funny coincidence: I pitched this exact thing in the form of a browser extension to a VC firm a few years ago.

DannyBee 9y ago

This is so odd. They say : "While we welcome the willingness to tackle annoying ads, the CBA's criteria do not address a key reason many of us install ad blockers: to protect ourselves against the non-consensual tracking and surveillance that permeates the advertising ecosystem operated by the members of the CBA." "many" is a link to https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/why-people-use-ad-blockers/ https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/why-people-use-ad-b... Except that page shows that "to avoid being tracked" is actually relatively low on the list of reasons people use ad blockers compared to the annoying advertising issues, malware, etc?

bobajeff 9y ago
It's relatively low but it's not insignificant. It's still about 39%. Also 60% say its to avoid "intrusive ads".
taneq 9y ago
Two out of five people on the internet certainly qualifies as "many", just not "most". All of the reasons listed in that survey are just aspects of a single overarching reason to block ads, which is that ads universally degrade your experience of the internet.

Asdfbla 9y ago

Never really thought of Apple as a defender of user privacy, but it does make some sense. They aren't in the market for ads, so there's no reason for them to make their users the product. I think it shouldn't be surprising that Google acts like this. It seemed likely from the start that their ad blocking effort is mostly an attempt to preserve the ad industry and eliminate third party ad blocking not under Google's control.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
feld 9y ago
User privacy is literally their business model. You pay Apple up front and they never expose your private information to third parties for any reason whatsoever and try to make sure your devices stay private. The cost of your privacy and future software updates through the life of the device is built in to the sticker price. You get exactly what's on the tin.
_red 9y ago
Most people have realized this - either explicitly or intuitively - over the last 10 years. Those cheap android phones and lower-end Windows laptops are so cheap because they are subsidized from the revenue they bring in via data collection and selling. Its like a privacy 101 realization...
- pawadu 9y ago
  > Those cheap android phones and lower-end Windows laptops are so cheap because they are subsidized from the revenue they bring in via data collection and selling. Not true. Lets see what those "cheap" devices provide in terms of privacy: 1. During installation Windows 10 explicitly asks you what stuff you want to enable and how those affect your privacy 2. Microsoft Edge supports ad blockers and anti-trackers on desktop, mobile version is coming (already here in fast-ring?) 3. Google allows you to turn off all kind of analytics. They email you once a year and ask you to check your security and privacy settings. 4. Chrome allows you to install ad-blockers from Googles own extension store 5. On Android you also have the choice of installing Mozilla firefox which supports desktop-grade adblocker and anti-tracker extensions. Android being android you can make it the default OS browser and disable or remove Chrome completely. 6. On Android you can also install Mozilla Focus which is a privacy-oriented browser You are basically spreading FUD.

lotsoflumens 9y ago

They still want users to either view the ads or pay the "publisher". This will never work. They must start paying users. Only then, will their ads be viewed.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ams6110 9y ago

uBlock to block the ads, disable 3rd party cookies to block the trackers. Add a hosts file and you're miles better off than either of these proposals.

lupinglade 9y ago

No surprise here. Ever heard of AdWords?

mark_l_watson 9y ago

For decades I favored Linux in the desktop, then adopted Android, etc. In the last year, due to Apple's reasonably good support for privacy, I have gone all-in for iOS and macOS devices. I didn't make this decision lightly, but for me it seemed like the right thing to do. I favor using Google services that I pay for (GCP, Play Music and Movies) but I am concerned about tracking activities of Google and Facebook. I think Apple deserves support for respecting customer privacy.