14 ms·
Having been on both sides of the table, I would slightly disagree here. Fraud prevention for example will get an order of magnitude harder, plus this move will
by endymi0n 6y ago
Having been on both sides of the table, I would slightly disagree here. Fraud prevention for example will get an order of magnitude harder, plus this move will further skew the playing field towards FAANG who have the resources to puzzle the scraps back together for decent conversion tracking with the help of logins, IPs, SDKs with First Party IDs and a massive dose of machine learning.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoI wonder if it would be profitable for Visa/Mastercard/Discover/AmEx to sell a verification service where people can authenticate with a $0.01 authorization or approval amount. Obviously, it wouldn't work with gift cards or other accounts not tied to a real person.
- rattray 6y agoAnd make stolen credit card numbers even more valuable? (I like where your head is at, fraud is just hard)
- sudhirj 6y agoStolen cards have long since been solved in many parts of the world with 3DS. Not sure why the US is still lagging behind on this.
- trishmapow2 6y ago3D Secure for those like me who didn't know the proper term, referring to an extra verification step from your bank e.g. SMS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_Secure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_Secure https://stripe.com/docs/payments/3d-secure https://stripe.com/docs/payments/3d-secure
- hanche 6y agoFor some value of “solved”, yes. I live in 3DS-land myself, but since 3DS is not universal, credit card info is still at risk. I had a fraudulent purchase against my card recently. The bank returned the money, but at the moment, I am fighting a bill for import duty on the Gucci scarf the crook purchased on my card. :-/ I had no idea, until now, that they may charge €350 for a scarf.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoCombine it with 2FA, such as TOTP or SMS.
- ratherbefuddled 6y agoThe answer to card fraud is called Strong Customer Authentication and it's a requirement under PSD2. It requires payment service providers to obtain a second factor for authentication. This might be an online banking login and approval, device data capture or an SMS one time code. How is up to the card provider.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoI'm not referring to verification for card fraud, I'm saying the card networks could sell it to anyone that wants to verify a human is on the other end. Like an alternative to Captcha.
- ratherbefuddled 6y agoStrong Customer Authentication should be sufficient to prove that the payment request is authorised by the card holder, given this I'm not sure why a business would pay to be sure there's a human there?
- lotsofpulp 6y agoI’m not referring to payments at all. I’m talking about using the card networks to serve as an alternative to Captcha for things like forums or any other situation besieged by bots and whatnot.
- wil421 6y agoDo you think iPhone users care if it’s harder for Facebook and the like to catch fraud?
- Cipater 6y agoI'll flip this one back to you in the same spirit. Do you think iPhone users care that Apple is implementing anti-tracking?
- CubsFan1060 6y agoI do, but mostly as part of the overall message. Folks like my parents will comment about how creepy targeted ads are. When I showed them how to turn it off currently, they were very happy. I don't think they know each setting that is available, but they without doubt have the impression that "Apple is better with privacy"
- Twisell 6y agoYes we do care Maybe not all of us, but for me it's an important and differentiating feature. What we don't really care about is hypothetical thinking about wether we care from people that apparently don't care.
- sequoia 6y agoThey’ll care if Apple tells them to care. Sent from my iPhone
- wil421 6y agoAbsolutely and it’s a huge reason I will never use Android. I don’t want an advertising company making my phone.
- leadingthenet 6y agoYes, it's like half the reason I own Apple devices.
- coldpie 6y agoI've used Android for the past decade, but I'm very strongly considering switching to iPhone because of Apple's pro-privacy moves in iOS over the past year (and also because they are the only manufacturer to make a phone that fits the human hand).
- stefan_ 6y agoFraud prevention? What exactly are you paying the Apple cut for?
- tenacious_tuna 6y agoI think they mean app-side: determining if a user is a bot or not gets harder when you can't tie that user to the datamine'd indicators of their humanity.
- swiley 6y agoHackernews seems to manage.
- javajosh 6y agoWe don't move money around or even have private messaging. If the stakes are high enough, users need the service provider to be skeptical of all client processes, because the risk of being impersonated is born, right or wrong, by the user.
- swiley 6y agoIf you move money around then the legal system already exists to deal with fraud. As someone who doesn't use an iphone it's really frustrating that online services are starting to expect one for this reason when it hasn't been necessary in the past.
- tenacious_tuna 6y agoThere's a cost-benefit balance at play: is using the cost of the legal system (lawyers, evidence, courts, long tail on case times) better than developing a system to prevent fraudulent users? I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a burden of "good faith effort" required to show that you've taken measures to prevent frauds.
- justapassenger 6y ago
- Nextgrid 6y ago> FAANG who have the resources to puzzle the scraps back together for decent conversion tracking with the help of logins, IPs, SDKs with First Party IDs Those are not exempt from the GDPR either. Granted, at the moment there’s very little enforcement around these (especially IP addresses despite their huge tracking potential) but once enforcement is stepped up there shouldn’t be any difference whether it’s a FAANG or a small company doing it).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- eznzt 6y agoI don't know why you use a big word such as "fraud" when you mean "we want to be able to know which accounts are owned by the same person".
- jefftk 6y agoThat isn't what "fraud" means in this context. Ad fraud is when you have something other than a real user loading or clicking on ads. For example, I could stand up a headless browser to click on the ads on my site. This would get me more of a payout from my advertisers, but would also be fraud. A stable identifier makes identifying this sort of behavior much easier. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
- rndgermandude 6y agoAd fraud... How exactly is this my problem as a consumer? This sounds pretty much like a "you" (ad networks and advertisers) problem... So why should you be allowed to spy on me - who never defrauded any advertisers - to fix your problem?
- jforman 6y agoBecause it makes advertising more expensive, which in turn makes the products and services you use more expensive.
- alisonkisk 6y agoHow is that my problem? I have no interest in advertising more assaulting me with lies.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- coldpie 6y agoI would be thrilled if online advertising became unviable as a business model. Most of what makes the web suck today (megabytes of javascript on every page; clickbait articles; outrage-driven social media; warehouses of PII waiting to be bought/sold/stolen) is because of advertising. Yes, I do want to pay for the services I use.
- gnu8 6y ago> puzzle the scraps back together They’re not supposed to do that. Their dogmatic refusal to see the writing on the wall is ridiculous.
- chokeartist 6y agoI'm calling your bluff right now: online advertising, which is underpinned on knowing as much as possible about you, is fucked. The half measures you described will not even be 10% as useful as the current model (direct ID from the device). What are you going to correlate a CG-NAT IP with, when said IP is shared by potentially hundreds of thousands of users? It becomes an exercise of diminishing returns, very quickly. And that is not a defect, that's a feature. Privacy isn't about just maximizing your shekels. It is about protecting and respecting user data. Advertisers are clinically incapable of understanding that second part.
- csommers 6y ago“Fraud”...uh-huh. Please be clear that you mean AD fraud and not fraud-fraud. Also: boohoo
- ogre_codes 6y ago> Fraud prevention for example will get an order of magnitude harder, First Ad Fraud != Fraud. It is low grade hacking. Second. Trading the privacy of every iPhone user so that advertisers can prop up a sketchy/ poor industry is a terrible trade.
- closeparen 6y agoThis completely changes the game on all kinds of fraud, not just ad fraud. Currently when you get caught, the service you’re abusing bans your device. To keep trying you need new hardware; attacks have a real monetary cost for the attacker. When your iPhone can present itself as infinitely many iPhones, this is neutered, and services will need different (probably more invasive) techniques to keep banned users away.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y agoCan someone (only) use IMEI plus account instead of IDFA for uniqueness? So if you want to exclude/ban a user, you can use the IMEI+account, but outside of excluding a user from using your service, you cannot access IMEI+account. User privacy is preserved because there's no singular ID for advertisers, and services can still ban fraud because if it's present they can use the IMEI+account to ban a user. Maybe even have that built into the OS? The app can ban someone based on an IMEI+account, but the IMEI+account info stays on the device. The device just certifies that the combination is unique without exposing that info to the app, and the app can still ban that hardware/account, so the user would need to buy new hardware to get around the ban.
- ogre_codes 6y agoThe IMEA is worse than the IDFA and neither is needed for this use case.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y agoIt could be. In that case, let the OS handle whether the phone/account are unique, and the app can ban that phone/account without having that unique identifier to ID the person in other cases, like advertising.
- _the_inflator 6y agoI agree here. Apple's privacy changes might seem like a good idea from the outside, but essentially or paradoxically leads to higher entry barriers for new competitors and cement the role the actual players have. However, we do not have experience with so-called "big tech." It is relatively new, iPhone came to light in 2007. So I regard Apple's measurements as another experiment, and we will see how things further evolve.
- adamlett 6y agoApple's privacy changes might seem like a good idea from the outside, but essentially or paradoxically leads to higher entry barriers for new competitors and cement the role the actual players have. Honestly, who cares if the barrier of entry for a shitty business model is raised. And can see only upside to this.
- kergonath 6y agoI won’t complain if it makes it harder for fly-by-night ad brokers to set up shop, quite the contrary. I don’t care if the playing field is not level, and we don’t owe them a business. You’re right, things are moving quite fast, but we are also more and more vulnerable. I won’t hesitate between the human right to privacy and a company’s right to make money.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y ago“Fraudsters” can already reset the IDFA from the iOS Settings by turning off personalized ads in the Privacy section.