14 ms·

Apple: Rotate tracking IDs on iPhone each month

225 points by tchalla 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
karulont 8y ago
Apple seems to have a vested interest in privacy. I hope that this petition falls on the right ears.
- leowoo91 8y ago
  Interesting to find out more options, I didn't know about "location-based ads" setting which was in a different place than the "advertising" menu. Plus, I always wanted location-based ads, so wanted to enable it, but it was already enabled.
tpush 8y ago
I don't even get why Apple supplies this functionality anyway. Instead of rotating they should just do away with it; it's not like this functionality is to their users benefit.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Because it used to be worse, from a privacy standpoint. If Apple doesn't supply it, app builders / ad agencies will employ scummier tactics. It's a compromise.
  - chmars 8y ago
    Scummier tactics are still used. The tracking and surveillance density of a typical iOS app – including screen recording – is shocking.
    - draugadrotten 8y ago
      Can you please direct me to where I can learn more about which iOS apps that are screen recording and surveillance? Screen recording sounds suspicous and even illegal in some jurisdictions. For example, if an app records my screen while I get an incoming iMessage, I can easily argue that being a GDPR violation.
      - unilynx 8y ago
        iOS won’t let apps do that. But apps can record their own screen.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - oarsinsync 8y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19101020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19101020 Previous discussion on apps secretly recording the screen and sending data in the clear, including credit card details.
        aaronharnly 8y ago
        But they weren’t recording the screen — they were eventing user interactions within their own app, including button presses and keypresses. That was described as “effectively screenshotting” by the article, which it is not. It might still be lousy behavior depending on the sensitivity of what users do in the app, but it’s not screen recording (which implies notifications and other apps might be recorded too).
        draugadrotten 8y ago
        Thank you for the link, I had not seen it before. Reading the follow-up article, the glassbox library appears to be a clear violation of Apple rules - "In an email, an Apple spokesperson said: “Protecting user privacy is paramount in the Apple ecosystem. Our App Store Review Guidelines require that apps request explicit user consent and provide a clear visual indication when recording, logging, or otherwise making a record of user activity.” “We have notified the developers that are in violation of these strict privacy terms and guidelines, and will take immediate action if necessary,” the spokesperson added. https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/ In my opinion, unauthorized processing of email addresses or credit cards or other personal information is also a clear violation of the GDPR in the EU. Of course there might be shady companies who willingly tries to break the law, but that is business as usual for law enforcement.
  - tpush 8y ago
    That doesn't seem to make sense. If the ad agencies have better methods for tracking than Apple's Ad-ID then they would be still using those, surely? Which makes Apple's Ad-ID redundant in addition to useless.
    - NikkiA 8y ago
      You're forgetting that apple 'vets' apps and can reject them for arbitary reasons. They're in a position to say 'you must use our Ad-ID, and if you don't and we detect you tracking users by other means, then your app will be rejected'. And as it happens, that's what they do, when they introduced IDFA they started rejecting apps that use other tracking heuristics, including the old UDID system.
    - xoa 8y ago
      >If the ad agencies have better methods for tracking than Apple's Ad-ID then they would be still using those, surely? Remember that Apple does in fact wield a level of coercive control here. They can ban any app or entire developer they wish at any time. But they do want a solid amount of development going on overall, despite individual exceptions. So just like a real world legal system, there's a dynamic set of cost/tradeoff equations, and practicality/reasonableness really matters. If Apple provides nothing and insists on nothing, the economic incentive to either cheat or simply leave entirely may move to near-requirement for too many developers. If Apple left it as "do whatever" and then slowly added requirements, it's still much harder to police and drive solutions that compromise best. Offering something official that is less effective then the previous ones but still of enough use to be valuable and also has the advantage of official support and sanction, then blacklisting anything else raising the economic risk, is a fairly tried and true strategy that can be reasonably effective overall. Cheating is disincentivized for those who are legitimate and the search space is reduced, making it turn easier to further enforce. Apple's exact compromise could use more tweaks from the sound of it and evolve better, but the basic concept of "better to have someone troublesome inside the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in" seems to apply here too doesn't it? Furthermore if many users are also more alright with it that too by itself can be a positive, preventing an arms war. Sometimes situations like these can fall into a vicious spiral left on their own: there could be many devs or even advertisers who would prefer to go with less obnoxious and creepy practices, in turn provoking absolute counter attacks, but can't disengage unilaterally when their competitors don't think as long term. Having a higher entity step in and force uniformity won't even make them all unhappy.
- CodeBiscuit 8y ago
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
- dwighttk 8y ago
  They provide the functionality for people like my friend who loves to see bass guitar ads and does because he is tracked. They also provide the ability to turn it off (set the ID to all 0s) for people like me who spend a little bit of effort to avoid ads. If you are in one group stop pretending the other doesn’t exist. (Also more generally applicable life advice)
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    (We could probably discuss which default is better, though I bet that opinion correlates to the group one is in)
  - Zenbit_UX 8y ago
    > If you are in one group stop pretending the other doesn’t exist. (Also more generally applicable life advice) I'd argue your friend would be better off not being tracked and just Googling bass guitars whenever he feels the need. Let's not pretend ads provide any benefit to humans, they manipulate us psychologically with the intent to part us from our hard earned money. In addition, they often drain our batteries at extreme rates and can contain malware and or lead to outright scams. Your counterpoint to this is you know a guy who likes to see new bass guitars?
    - dwighttk 8y ago
      Feel free to argue with him. He’s not ignorant of all the harms, trust me... I’ve brought them up when we’ve talked.
      - hu3 8y ago
        People who want to see ads are the exception. I'd argue that it would be better if Apple used id=0 as the default.
        dwighttk 8y ago
        more likely people who care either way are the exception.
- rgallagher27 8y ago
  Because relevant ads are actually good for users and developers. If you're served an ad for something you genuinely like and will use it benefits you. If you're able to bring a user to your service/product that will engage/purchase it benefits you.
Doches 8y ago
Previous (lively!) discussion from _this morning_: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19670024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19670024
anonymfus 8y ago
Windows just asks user if they want an advertising ID during "out of the box experience". Why not petition Apple to do the same?
- notamerican 8y ago
  I think the point of the ID is (partially) to reduce the chance that ad agencies will use scummy workarounds. If the ID isn't guaranteed to be there, I can see them using the scummy ways instead.
- yardie 8y ago
  Because Windows is complete garbage from a privacy standpoint. Even disabling every metric visible to the user Microsoft still allows their own ad network to track you. I do not believe they are honest in the user privacy sphere.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Nice rant, but how is this relevant to GP's comment?
    - yardie 8y ago
      Microsoft is an ad network. They went on a buying spree 10 years ago snapping up various ad networks. Windows 10 is riddled with ad tracking software and even when you disable every checkbox during OOBE there are still more that are enabled you cannot disable. If it was such a good idea they wouldn't use it. I don't trust any of their ideas on protecting your privacy just as I don't trust a fox to guard a hen house.
kgwxd 8y ago
"That means we could still get relevant ads" Ugh, if you're an advocate for privacy, please don't perpetuate the delusion that users actually want "relevant" ads, or that these ids are solely used for that purpose.
- dbbk 8y ago
  Are you suggesting people would prefer ads that are completely irrelevant to them?
  - kgwxd 8y ago
    I'm suggesting everyone on the planet automatically tunes out ads, what is shown is irrelevant no matter how relevant it is. There is no ad industry on the internet, there is only a tracking industry, the ads are just an excuse. There's no good reason Apple should even provide the id.
    - sanedigital 8y ago
      This is unequivocally false. Ad spend is so high specifically because advertisements work. Advertisers especially love digital because its so easy to attribute revenue back to their ad spend. Google didn't take in $118B for showing ads because "everyone on the planet automatically tunes [them] out."
      - abacadaba 8y ago
        "advertisements work" Everyone always wants to believe they're above this. You're not, ads work.
        jddj 8y ago
        I held this mindset ("I never click ads, and hide them whenever I see them. The whole industry is a giant bubble") for a long time. Then instagram started showing me ads for small live music events featuring artists I regularly listen to. I thought I was somehow above it all, but they just hadn't targeted me well enough yet.
negamax 8y ago
I don't have Advertising option. Is this only available in certain jurisdictions?
ignoramous 8y ago
I can't help but think that initiatives like ad-id and DoNotTrack are a diversion at best than actually addressing the real problem of user-tracking and malvertising. This is simply Shirky's Principle at work [0]. Some people argue for tougher regulation and laws-- sometimes regulations have resulted in solidifying hegemony of established players (telecom industry, for instance), and laws have worsened the situation when government has its skin in the game (key disclosure laws, for instance). Can't leave it up to the free markets either, but, they seem to get things right. Privacy oriented alternatives to existing tech today are facing a hard battle given the growth opportunities they leave on the table. I guess, we are poised for a tech breakthrough that'd settle it in favour of the users [1]: I hope when WASM goes non-web and cross platform, all kinds of apps are compiled to WASM and something like uBlockOrigin would simply shut all the trackers down on all platforms at the application layer. Of course, there are problems at other layers, for instance baseband on mobile phones that are known to track location, and ISPs that keep tabs on traffic flowing through their pipes... [0] https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/ https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/ [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)
layoutIfNeeded 8y ago
Oh no, one more JOIN. That will show them!
bobcall 8y ago
The posturing is quite strong with the Mozilla Foundation. It is quite laughable that the Mozilla Foundation would take this "holier than thou" position, considering that they (Foundation + Corporation) are pushing : tracking (telemetry), ADs (Pocket), malware (studies), MITI[1] (Ministry of Truth) and DRM (EME) in Firefox. The sad part here is the fact that the Mozilla community does not seem to care one bit about these issues[2]. At this point, I trust Apple more than I trust the Mozilla Foundation or the Mozilla Project (the bar is quite low for Apple). The Free Software / "Open Source" community has a critical problem with project supporting organizations pushing for things that undermine privacy, security and freedom to make a little bit of cash. If we don't address these issues now, it might not be possible to fix them in the near future. [1] Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : http://archive.is/jcJWg http://archive.is/jcJWg [2] For those who say : "you can turn these things off", this is not an excuse! Telling a new user that they have to fiddle with `about:config` settings out of the box is not acceptable.
- folkrav 8y ago
  > For those who say : "you can turn these things off", this is not an excuse! The telemetry is opt-in, the setting pops up once on first run. Ads are not tracking, you may disagree with their very existence, but they're not a privacy concern. Calling studies "malware" is just disingenuous. I don't see what MITI has anything to do with the rest. DRM does suck, but _not_ having it would be literal popular suicide, and in the current browser landscape, would literally mean letting Chromium take over even more than it already does.
  - Shivetya 8y ago
    consider that many options in firefox are not easily selected in dialog boxes it leaves a lot to be desired. now what eventually will have be settled is that many sites have adopted the policy of blocking items in turn prohibits use of the site at all. this is the battle I am curious how it will pan out. currently most can be avoided by turning javascript off but someone will find other means to test
  - bobcall 8y ago
    > The telemetry is opt-in... It is not "opt-in". The popup tells you to change those settings and if you don't do anything, it is on. Just by unchecking the box in settings does not turn off all telemetry. > Calling studies "malware" is just disingenuous. I guess you don't remember the "Mr.Robot" incident[1] that we were not suppose to know about and many did not consent? Pushing an update with "Studies" enabled by default and then pushing this malicious software is not consent! > I don't see what MITI has anything to do with the rest. Mozilla* is not in a position to be calling out other companies when they themselves are guilty of doing the exact same things. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/16/firefox-mr-robot-extension/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/16/firefox-mr-robot-extensi...
founderling 8y ago
Can websites read that ID? Or is this about apps?
gesman 8y ago
I’d pay extra $100 for the iPhone where unique ID is editable. Even manually, no schedule needed. Win win for Apple and for customers.
- sambe 8y ago
  You can reset the identifier already. I assume you are not looking to supply a particular value?
  - layoutIfNeeded 8y ago
    Sure, why not? E.g. I would set it to a shock site URL.
  - gesman 8y ago
    How do I do that? I used one app that banned me arbitrarily by iPhone ID. I’d want to reset it
jsgo 8y ago
This seems strange to me. If we're going as far as to advocate cycling tracking IDs each month, that means that at each switch, we've lost our "relevant" ads until we rebuild them up. So why not go full on no tracking IDs? With Apple pushing privacy as being the factor that separates them from their peers, I don't see why they wouldn't have privacy on by default in this area. Apple Ads are gone now, right? So no skin in the game?
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
This is a foolish idea. Rotating IDs on a slow basis like a month would mean that big players can still easily create statistical cross-device graphs based on traffic and activity patterns and link your rotated IDs (or link them probabilistically). Small players who can’t afford this effort would lose or shift business to Android-only.
- korzun 8y ago
  > This is a foolish idea Are you talking about the idea you just proposed or the petition at hand? I definitely agree on the former; what you are describing makes absolutely no sense.
brookhaven_dude 8y ago
Not terribly relevant for those of us who use safari only for everything, because content blockers.
dontbenebby 8y ago
So if I go into Srttings -> Privacy -> Advertising and click “reset advertising identifier” once a month does that accomplish this manually? It’s not a perfect fix but adding a once a month calendar todo seems like a good short term fix for the privacy conscious.
- wjossey 8y ago
  Yes. Technically speaking, it does what the Mozilla author proposed. You’ll end up getting a lot of ads for apps and services you potentially already own, which is the “downside”. FWIW: Worked in mobile ad tech for five years so I know this space.
  - dontbenebby 8y ago
    >You’ll end up getting a lot of ads for apps and services you potentially already own, which is the “downside”. Thanks for the clarification. I don't mind that. I usually get product recs from things like Wirecutter. I much prefer the model where a site I trust recommends a product, then get a referral bonus when I buy it on Amazon than tracking my web history to "nudge" me. Since iOS can't let me use extensions, many of the tools I use to protect my privacy (adblocker, JS whitelisting, etc) aren't doable on iOS. So even small hacks like this are interesting to me.
    - astkaasa 8y ago
      there's an App called AdGuard
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

225 points by tchalla 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

karulont 8y ago

Apple seems to have a vested interest in privacy. I hope that this petition falls on the right ears.

leowoo91 8y ago
Interesting to find out more options, I didn't know about "location-based ads" setting which was in a different place than the "advertising" menu. Plus, I always wanted location-based ads, so wanted to enable it, but it was already enabled.

tpush 8y ago

I don't even get why Apple supplies this functionality anyway. Instead of rotating they should just do away with it; it's not like this functionality is to their users benefit.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Because it used to be worse, from a privacy standpoint. If Apple doesn't supply it, app builders / ad agencies will employ scummier tactics. It's a compromise.
- chmars 8y ago
  Scummier tactics are still used. The tracking and surveillance density of a typical iOS app – including screen recording – is shocking.
  - draugadrotten 8y ago
    Can you please direct me to where I can learn more about which iOS apps that are screen recording and surveillance? Screen recording sounds suspicous and even illegal in some jurisdictions. For example, if an app records my screen while I get an incoming iMessage, I can easily argue that being a GDPR violation.
    - unilynx 8y ago
      iOS won’t let apps do that. But apps can record their own screen.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - oarsinsync 8y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19101020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19101020 Previous discussion on apps secretly recording the screen and sending data in the clear, including credit card details.
      - aaronharnly 8y ago
        But they weren’t recording the screen — they were eventing user interactions within their own app, including button presses and keypresses. That was described as “effectively screenshotting” by the article, which it is not. It might still be lousy behavior depending on the sensitivity of what users do in the app, but it’s not screen recording (which implies notifications and other apps might be recorded too).
      - draugadrotten 8y ago
        Thank you for the link, I had not seen it before. Reading the follow-up article, the glassbox library appears to be a clear violation of Apple rules - "In an email, an Apple spokesperson said: “Protecting user privacy is paramount in the Apple ecosystem. Our App Store Review Guidelines require that apps request explicit user consent and provide a clear visual indication when recording, logging, or otherwise making a record of user activity.” “We have notified the developers that are in violation of these strict privacy terms and guidelines, and will take immediate action if necessary,” the spokesperson added. https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/ In my opinion, unauthorized processing of email addresses or credit cards or other personal information is also a clear violation of the GDPR in the EU. Of course there might be shady companies who willingly tries to break the law, but that is business as usual for law enforcement.
- tpush 8y ago
  That doesn't seem to make sense. If the ad agencies have better methods for tracking than Apple's Ad-ID then they would be still using those, surely? Which makes Apple's Ad-ID redundant in addition to useless.
  - NikkiA 8y ago
    You're forgetting that apple 'vets' apps and can reject them for arbitary reasons. They're in a position to say 'you must use our Ad-ID, and if you don't and we detect you tracking users by other means, then your app will be rejected'. And as it happens, that's what they do, when they introduced IDFA they started rejecting apps that use other tracking heuristics, including the old UDID system.
  - xoa 8y ago
    >If the ad agencies have better methods for tracking than Apple's Ad-ID then they would be still using those, surely? Remember that Apple does in fact wield a level of coercive control here. They can ban any app or entire developer they wish at any time. But they do want a solid amount of development going on overall, despite individual exceptions. So just like a real world legal system, there's a dynamic set of cost/tradeoff equations, and practicality/reasonableness really matters. If Apple provides nothing and insists on nothing, the economic incentive to either cheat or simply leave entirely may move to near-requirement for too many developers. If Apple left it as "do whatever" and then slowly added requirements, it's still much harder to police and drive solutions that compromise best. Offering something official that is less effective then the previous ones but still of enough use to be valuable and also has the advantage of official support and sanction, then blacklisting anything else raising the economic risk, is a fairly tried and true strategy that can be reasonably effective overall. Cheating is disincentivized for those who are legitimate and the search space is reduced, making it turn easier to further enforce. Apple's exact compromise could use more tweaks from the sound of it and evolve better, but the basic concept of "better to have someone troublesome inside the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in" seems to apply here too doesn't it? Furthermore if many users are also more alright with it that too by itself can be a positive, preventing an arms war. Sometimes situations like these can fall into a vicious spiral left on their own: there could be many devs or even advertisers who would prefer to go with less obnoxious and creepy practices, in turn provoking absolute counter attacks, but can't disengage unilaterally when their competitors don't think as long term. Having a higher entity step in and force uniformity won't even make them all unhappy.
CodeBiscuit 8y ago
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
dwighttk 8y ago
They provide the functionality for people like my friend who loves to see bass guitar ads and does because he is tracked. They also provide the ability to turn it off (set the ID to all 0s) for people like me who spend a little bit of effort to avoid ads. If you are in one group stop pretending the other doesn’t exist. (Also more generally applicable life advice)
- dwighttk 8y ago
  (We could probably discuss which default is better, though I bet that opinion correlates to the group one is in)
- Zenbit_UX 8y ago
  > If you are in one group stop pretending the other doesn’t exist. (Also more generally applicable life advice) I'd argue your friend would be better off not being tracked and just Googling bass guitars whenever he feels the need. Let's not pretend ads provide any benefit to humans, they manipulate us psychologically with the intent to part us from our hard earned money. In addition, they often drain our batteries at extreme rates and can contain malware and or lead to outright scams. Your counterpoint to this is you know a guy who likes to see new bass guitars?
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    Feel free to argue with him. He’s not ignorant of all the harms, trust me... I’ve brought them up when we’ve talked.
    - hu3 8y ago
      People who want to see ads are the exception. I'd argue that it would be better if Apple used id=0 as the default.
      - dwighttk 8y ago
        more likely people who care either way are the exception.
rgallagher27 8y ago
Because relevant ads are actually good for users and developers. If you're served an ad for something you genuinely like and will use it benefits you. If you're able to bring a user to your service/product that will engage/purchase it benefits you.

Doches 8y ago

Previous (lively!) discussion from _this morning_: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19670024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19670024

anonymfus 8y ago

Windows just asks user if they want an advertising ID during "out of the box experience". Why not petition Apple to do the same?

notamerican 8y ago
I think the point of the ID is (partially) to reduce the chance that ad agencies will use scummy workarounds. If the ID isn't guaranteed to be there, I can see them using the scummy ways instead.
yardie 8y ago
Because Windows is complete garbage from a privacy standpoint. Even disabling every metric visible to the user Microsoft still allows their own ad network to track you. I do not believe they are honest in the user privacy sphere.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Nice rant, but how is this relevant to GP's comment?
  - yardie 8y ago
    Microsoft is an ad network. They went on a buying spree 10 years ago snapping up various ad networks. Windows 10 is riddled with ad tracking software and even when you disable every checkbox during OOBE there are still more that are enabled you cannot disable. If it was such a good idea they wouldn't use it. I don't trust any of their ideas on protecting your privacy just as I don't trust a fox to guard a hen house.

kgwxd 8y ago

"That means we could still get relevant ads" Ugh, if you're an advocate for privacy, please don't perpetuate the delusion that users actually want "relevant" ads, or that these ids are solely used for that purpose.

dbbk 8y ago
Are you suggesting people would prefer ads that are completely irrelevant to them?
- kgwxd 8y ago
  I'm suggesting everyone on the planet automatically tunes out ads, what is shown is irrelevant no matter how relevant it is. There is no ad industry on the internet, there is only a tracking industry, the ads are just an excuse. There's no good reason Apple should even provide the id.
  - sanedigital 8y ago
    This is unequivocally false. Ad spend is so high specifically because advertisements work. Advertisers especially love digital because its so easy to attribute revenue back to their ad spend. Google didn't take in $118B for showing ads because "everyone on the planet automatically tunes [them] out."
    - abacadaba 8y ago
      "advertisements work" Everyone always wants to believe they're above this. You're not, ads work.
      - jddj 8y ago
        I held this mindset ("I never click ads, and hide them whenever I see them. The whole industry is a giant bubble") for a long time. Then instagram started showing me ads for small live music events featuring artists I regularly listen to. I thought I was somehow above it all, but they just hadn't targeted me well enough yet.

negamax 8y ago

I don't have Advertising option. Is this only available in certain jurisdictions?

ignoramous 8y ago

I can't help but think that initiatives like ad-id and DoNotTrack are a diversion at best than actually addressing the real problem of user-tracking and malvertising. This is simply Shirky's Principle at work [0]. Some people argue for tougher regulation and laws-- sometimes regulations have resulted in solidifying hegemony of established players (telecom industry, for instance), and laws have worsened the situation when government has its skin in the game (key disclosure laws, for instance). Can't leave it up to the free markets either, but, they seem to get things right. Privacy oriented alternatives to existing tech today are facing a hard battle given the growth opportunities they leave on the table. I guess, we are poised for a tech breakthrough that'd settle it in favour of the users [1]: I hope when WASM goes non-web and cross platform, all kinds of apps are compiled to WASM and something like uBlockOrigin would simply shut all the trackers down on all platforms at the application layer. Of course, there are problems at other layers, for instance baseband on mobile phones that are known to track location, and ISPs that keep tabs on traffic flowing through their pipes... [0] https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/ https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/ [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)

layoutIfNeeded 8y ago

Oh no, one more JOIN. That will show them!

bobcall 8y ago

The posturing is quite strong with the Mozilla Foundation. It is quite laughable that the Mozilla Foundation would take this "holier than thou" position, considering that they (Foundation + Corporation) are pushing : tracking (telemetry), ADs (Pocket), malware (studies), MITI[1] (Ministry of Truth) and DRM (EME) in Firefox. The sad part here is the fact that the Mozilla community does not seem to care one bit about these issues[2]. At this point, I trust Apple more than I trust the Mozilla Foundation or the Mozilla Project (the bar is quite low for Apple). The Free Software / "Open Source" community has a critical problem with project supporting organizations pushing for things that undermine privacy, security and freedom to make a little bit of cash. If we don't address these issues now, it might not be possible to fix them in the near future. [1] Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : http://archive.is/jcJWg http://archive.is/jcJWg [2] For those who say : "you can turn these things off", this is not an excuse! Telling a new user that they have to fiddle with `about:config` settings out of the box is not acceptable.

folkrav 8y ago
> For those who say : "you can turn these things off", this is not an excuse! The telemetry is opt-in, the setting pops up once on first run. Ads are not tracking, you may disagree with their very existence, but they're not a privacy concern. Calling studies "malware" is just disingenuous. I don't see what MITI has anything to do with the rest. DRM does suck, but _not_ having it would be literal popular suicide, and in the current browser landscape, would literally mean letting Chromium take over even more than it already does.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  consider that many options in firefox are not easily selected in dialog boxes it leaves a lot to be desired. now what eventually will have be settled is that many sites have adopted the policy of blocking items in turn prohibits use of the site at all. this is the battle I am curious how it will pan out. currently most can be avoided by turning javascript off but someone will find other means to test
- bobcall 8y ago
  > The telemetry is opt-in... It is not "opt-in". The popup tells you to change those settings and if you don't do anything, it is on. Just by unchecking the box in settings does not turn off all telemetry. > Calling studies "malware" is just disingenuous. I guess you don't remember the "Mr.Robot" incident[1] that we were not suppose to know about and many did not consent? Pushing an update with "Studies" enabled by default and then pushing this malicious software is not consent! > I don't see what MITI has anything to do with the rest. Mozilla* is not in a position to be calling out other companies when they themselves are guilty of doing the exact same things. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/16/firefox-mr-robot-extension/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/16/firefox-mr-robot-extensi...

founderling 8y ago

Can websites read that ID? Or is this about apps?

gesman 8y ago

I’d pay extra $100 for the iPhone where unique ID is editable. Even manually, no schedule needed. Win win for Apple and for customers.

sambe 8y ago
You can reset the identifier already. I assume you are not looking to supply a particular value?
- layoutIfNeeded 8y ago
  Sure, why not? E.g. I would set it to a shock site URL.
- gesman 8y ago
  How do I do that? I used one app that banned me arbitrarily by iPhone ID. I’d want to reset it

jsgo 8y ago

This seems strange to me. If we're going as far as to advocate cycling tracking IDs each month, that means that at each switch, we've lost our "relevant" ads until we rebuild them up. So why not go full on no tracking IDs? With Apple pushing privacy as being the factor that separates them from their peers, I don't see why they wouldn't have privacy on by default in this area. Apple Ads are gone now, right? So no skin in the game?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

This is a foolish idea. Rotating IDs on a slow basis like a month would mean that big players can still easily create statistical cross-device graphs based on traffic and activity patterns and link your rotated IDs (or link them probabilistically). Small players who can’t afford this effort would lose or shift business to Android-only.

korzun 8y ago
> This is a foolish idea Are you talking about the idea you just proposed or the petition at hand? I definitely agree on the former; what you are describing makes absolutely no sense.

brookhaven_dude 8y ago

Not terribly relevant for those of us who use safari only for everything, because content blockers.

dontbenebby 8y ago

So if I go into Srttings -> Privacy -> Advertising and click “reset advertising identifier” once a month does that accomplish this manually? It’s not a perfect fix but adding a once a month calendar todo seems like a good short term fix for the privacy conscious.

wjossey 8y ago
Yes. Technically speaking, it does what the Mozilla author proposed. You’ll end up getting a lot of ads for apps and services you potentially already own, which is the “downside”. FWIW: Worked in mobile ad tech for five years so I know this space.
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  >You’ll end up getting a lot of ads for apps and services you potentially already own, which is the “downside”. Thanks for the clarification. I don't mind that. I usually get product recs from things like Wirecutter. I much prefer the model where a site I trust recommends a product, then get a referral bonus when I buy it on Amazon than tracking my web history to "nudge" me. Since iOS can't let me use extensions, many of the tools I use to protect my privacy (adblocker, JS whitelisting, etc) aren't doable on iOS. So even small hacks like this are interesting to me.
  - astkaasa 8y ago
    there's an App called AdGuard

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]