23 ms·

Apple is following up on their own promise to be a privacy-first company. That's their game now and they are playing it respectably. First, they removed Faceboo

Apple is following up on their own promise to be a privacy-first company. That's their game now and they are playing it respectably. First, they removed Facebook from Internet Accounts in settings, then they blocked Facebook's enterprise certificate and now this. Remember that Apple was one of the first to send an anonymous MAC address to Wifi hotspots so that advertisers could not track a user in real space.

wtmt 8y ago
> First, they removed Facebook from Internet Accounts in settings, then they blocked Facebook's enterprise certificate and now this. Just to make it clearer, the removal of Facebook in the accounts was not about Facebook alone (though it may have been the cause for the decision). Integrations with Twitter, Vimeo, etc., were also removed together. Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. But it’s also true that that app wouldn’t have passed the App Store review process had it been submitted there.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. The rules were written to block sleazy apps. That the rules were the instrument by which the certificates were revoked doesn’t decouple the app’s sleaziness from its removal. (Similarly, saying “he went to jail for stealing” is accurate. Despite the reason for the jailing being the statute banning stealing.)
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > The rules were written to block sleazy apps. No, they weren't; they were written to block distribution of applications without formal App Store review to the general public.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
      Thank you. It's frustrating to see people completely throw facts out of the window as soon as it comes to hating on their favorite bugbears. Today Facebook and Google, tomorrow something else.
      - lloeki 8y ago
        I can see the general strategy there though: it's easier to be excessively stringent then improve and relax through iteration and emergent discovery of use cases than the other way around. E.g accessing the filesystem used to be downright impossible in the MAS, preventing apps like Coda or DaisyDisk from even existing due to stringent sandboxing, but now it's perfectly possible.
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  >Just to make it clearer, the removal of Facebook in the accounts was not about Facebook alone (though it may have been the cause for the decision). Integrations with Twitter, Vimeo, etc., were also removed together. That one has more to do with Apple releasing frameworks that allowed any of the internet services to tie into iOS themselves. For instance, share extensions: >Share extensions give users a convenient way to share content with other entities, such as social sharing websites or upload services. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/Share.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge... Apple no longer needed to pick winners and add integration for them into the OS by hand. >Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. But it’s also true that that app wouldn’t have passed the App Store review process had it been submitted there. Facebook's spyware in a VPN's clothing had already been kicked off of the App Store last year. >Onavo, which Facebook bought back in 2013, does two things. As far as regular consumers are concerned, Onavo comports itself like a VPN, offering to “keep you and your data safe” and “blocking potentially harmful websites and securing your personal information.” But Onavo’s real utility is pumping a ton of app usage data to its parent company https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/22/apple-facebook-onavo/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/22/apple-facebook-onavo/
minikites 8y ago
>Apple is following up on their own promise to be a privacy-first company. Only after the media takes notice and it makes Apple look bad. In both this case and the "FacePalm" FaceTime spying incident, Apple knew for months. You shouldn't get brownie points for getting coerced into good behavior.
- dpcx 8y ago
  Is there a source for Apple knowing about the FaceTime incident for months?

wtmt 8y ago

> First, they removed Facebook from Internet Accounts in settings, then they blocked Facebook's enterprise certificate and now this. Just to make it clearer, the removal of Facebook in the accounts was not about Facebook alone (though it may have been the cause for the decision). Integrations with Twitter, Vimeo, etc., were also removed together. Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. But it’s also true that that app wouldn’t have passed the App Store review process had it been submitted there.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. The rules were written to block sleazy apps. That the rules were the instrument by which the certificates were revoked doesn’t decouple the app’s sleaziness from its removal. (Similarly, saying “he went to jail for stealing” is accurate. Despite the reason for the jailing being the statute banning stealing.)
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > The rules were written to block sleazy apps. No, they weren't; they were written to block distribution of applications without formal App Store review to the general public.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
    Thank you. It's frustrating to see people completely throw facts out of the window as soon as it comes to hating on their favorite bugbears. Today Facebook and Google, tomorrow something else.
    - lloeki 8y ago
      I can see the general strategy there though: it's easier to be excessively stringent then improve and relax through iteration and emergent discovery of use cases than the other way around. E.g accessing the filesystem used to be downright impossible in the MAS, preventing apps like Coda or DaisyDisk from even existing due to stringent sandboxing, but now it's perfectly possible.
GeekyBear 8y ago
>Just to make it clearer, the removal of Facebook in the accounts was not about Facebook alone (though it may have been the cause for the decision). Integrations with Twitter, Vimeo, etc., were also removed together. That one has more to do with Apple releasing frameworks that allowed any of the internet services to tie into iOS themselves. For instance, share extensions: >Share extensions give users a convenient way to share content with other entities, such as social sharing websites or upload services. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/Share.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge... Apple no longer needed to pick winners and add integration for them into the OS by hand. >Facebook’s enterprise certificate was revoked because it violated Apple’s policy by using it to distribute applications to users who’re not “internal” and not employees/contractors. That the app in question was also sleazy (as Facebook usually seems to be) was a coincidence in this case. But it’s also true that that app wouldn’t have passed the App Store review process had it been submitted there. Facebook's spyware in a VPN's clothing had already been kicked off of the App Store last year. >Onavo, which Facebook bought back in 2013, does two things. As far as regular consumers are concerned, Onavo comports itself like a VPN, offering to “keep you and your data safe” and “blocking potentially harmful websites and securing your personal information.” But Onavo’s real utility is pumping a ton of app usage data to its parent company https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/22/apple-facebook-onavo/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/22/apple-facebook-onavo/

minikites 8y ago

>Apple is following up on their own promise to be a privacy-first company. Only after the media takes notice and it makes Apple look bad. In both this case and the "FacePalm" FaceTime spying incident, Apple knew for months. You shouldn't get brownie points for getting coerced into good behavior.

dpcx 8y ago
Is there a source for Apple knowing about the FaceTime incident for months?