8 ms·

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 the

by 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.
    - dwighttk 8y ago
      I agree. Citation needed for screen recording on iOS apps
      - chmars 7y ago
        https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/iphone-session-replay-screenshots/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/iphone-session-replay-scre... Same for websites. It makes sense for development, however, it remains turned on in most apps. And at least under iOS, there is no actual ad / tracking blocking available for, well, against apps.
- 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.

by 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.
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    I agree. Citation needed for screen recording on iOS apps
    - chmars 7y ago
      https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/iphone-session-replay-screenshots/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/iphone-session-replay-scre... Same for websites. It makes sense for development, however, it remains turned on in most apps. And at least under iOS, there is no actual ad / tracking blocking available for, well, against apps.
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.