3 ms·

>IMHO a better idea would be to create privacy jails for apps and then users can decide if they want to stick certain apps inside jails where they don't get acc

>IMHO a better idea would be to create privacy jails for apps and then users can decide if they want to stick certain apps inside jails where they don't get access to your IP, GPS data, accelerometer, camera, contacts, etc. Jails would be better than the annoying popups for permissions as they currently do it. Nah that's a Do-Not-Track-esque cop out to preserve the ad and analytics industries. It's also extremely un-Apple. "Totalitarian" doesn't mean anything in this context because we're talking about computers and not governments. Privacy should be by default and not shift the burden to users or cost them in terms of user experience. Apple has the power to do that.

la_barba 7y ago
Well, totalitarian in this context means shackling developers with micro-management of basic functions of software development. Apple has a large enough megaphone that I don't feel the need to care about whats best for them. They can do that themselves just fine. I'm only interested in it as a developer and as a user. As a developer I don't want an OS vendor telling me what code I write or which library I use. As a user, I want to be able to run an app inside a privacy jail that completely blocks access to my IP or GPS data - if I want to. >Privacy should be by default and not shift the burden to users or cost them in terms of user experience. Apple has the power to do that. You can have every single app run in a privacy jail by-default. Let the user opt-out on a per-app basis if they choose to. Apple could also simply just run a ad-blocker or a tracking scripts blocker as a system level feature. I admit that these kinds of measures are very 'controlling' if not totalitarian of their users. Should Microsoft allow users to install Chrome if the browser acts basically like a giant keylogger? Should we let users make the choice? Or let a benevolent dictator dictate what apps a user should be protected from. Reasonable people can come out of both sides of the privacy debate.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >Well, totalitarian in this context means shackling developers with micro-management of basic functions of software development. This might be an interesting philosophical/religious debate about computers to some, but it's also one we had in 2008 when the App Store launched. It's clear after 11 years that Apple was right and the rest of the world simply does not share that religion. Conversely they sure do like the practical benefits from Apple's micromanagement. >You can have every single app run in a privacy jail by-default. Let the user opt-out on a per-app basis if they choose to. Apple could also simply just run a ad-blocker or a tracking scripts blocker as a system level feature. Apps already run in a sandbox and are private by default. The user has to give consent before an app gets location or contacts data. An ad blocker for apps is silly because it's an unnecessary hack when they control the App Store policies. The difference with giving permission to an app you downloaded is that you have a first party relationship with that app. You don't have a first party relationship with any of the SDKs that developers package into their app. They disclose it in their privacy policies that no one reads, but that's certainly not informed consent.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Well, all I can say is thanks for explaining your position, but I don't agree with your points.

la_barba 7y ago

Well, totalitarian in this context means shackling developers with micro-management of basic functions of software development. Apple has a large enough megaphone that I don't feel the need to care about whats best for them. They can do that themselves just fine. I'm only interested in it as a developer and as a user. As a developer I don't want an OS vendor telling me what code I write or which library I use. As a user, I want to be able to run an app inside a privacy jail that completely blocks access to my IP or GPS data - if I want to. >Privacy should be by default and not shift the burden to users or cost them in terms of user experience. Apple has the power to do that. You can have every single app run in a privacy jail by-default. Let the user opt-out on a per-app basis if they choose to. Apple could also simply just run a ad-blocker or a tracking scripts blocker as a system level feature. I admit that these kinds of measures are very 'controlling' if not totalitarian of their users. Should Microsoft allow users to install Chrome if the browser acts basically like a giant keylogger? Should we let users make the choice? Or let a benevolent dictator dictate what apps a user should be protected from. Reasonable people can come out of both sides of the privacy debate.

Despegar 7y ago
>Well, totalitarian in this context means shackling developers with micro-management of basic functions of software development. This might be an interesting philosophical/religious debate about computers to some, but it's also one we had in 2008 when the App Store launched. It's clear after 11 years that Apple was right and the rest of the world simply does not share that religion. Conversely they sure do like the practical benefits from Apple's micromanagement. >You can have every single app run in a privacy jail by-default. Let the user opt-out on a per-app basis if they choose to. Apple could also simply just run a ad-blocker or a tracking scripts blocker as a system level feature. Apps already run in a sandbox and are private by default. The user has to give consent before an app gets location or contacts data. An ad blocker for apps is silly because it's an unnecessary hack when they control the App Store policies. The difference with giving permission to an app you downloaded is that you have a first party relationship with that app. You don't have a first party relationship with any of the SDKs that developers package into their app. They disclose it in their privacy policies that no one reads, but that's certainly not informed consent.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Well, all I can say is thanks for explaining your position, but I don't agree with your points.