33 ms·

“Catastrophic privacy” is quite a huge claim - do you have any actual examples? My perspective is that iphone privacy protections have actually gotten better an

“Catastrophic privacy” is quite a huge claim - do you have any actual examples? My perspective is that iphone privacy protections have actually gotten better and more sophisticated over time, and I’m much more comfortable having older non-techie relatives on iOS for that reason. When it comes to providing them tech support ios has always been less finicky than android.

rndgermandude 6y ago
>Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) on iPhones Nuff said.
- leereeves 6y ago
  Identifier for Advertisers was opt-out, and will soon be opt-in [1], so that seems like an example of Apple's privacy protections getting better over time. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/09/03/idfa-stay-of-execution-apple-delays-new-ios-14-privacy-measures-until-2021/?sh=513348ca569f https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/09/03/idfa-st...
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    Yes, but "better" is a qualitative term not a quantitative. That this thing even exists in the first place and was either mandatory or opt-out is still concerning to me. This change moved Apple a little closer to the "good guys" column, but not really into it.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      If by "good guys" you mean champions of privacy, I don't think Apple will ever be that. They're a giant business and that means they're primarily motivated by profit. It's up to the people to be the champions of privacy and help Apple realize that our interests (privacy) are aligned with their interests (profit). (And I say this as someone who's rather anti-Apple for other reasons. Life is complicated and full of compromises.)
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  But when you follow history of how IDFA was introduced (a replacement for more privacy-invasive identifiers which were available), IDFA makes sense. At least it's completely fair and honest - it is an identifier for advertisers, that user's have control over.

rndgermandude 6y ago

>Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) on iPhones Nuff said.

leereeves 6y ago
Identifier for Advertisers was opt-out, and will soon be opt-in [1], so that seems like an example of Apple's privacy protections getting better over time. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/09/03/idfa-stay-of-execution-apple-delays-new-ios-14-privacy-measures-until-2021/?sh=513348ca569f https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/09/03/idfa-st...
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  Yes, but "better" is a qualitative term not a quantitative. That this thing even exists in the first place and was either mandatory or opt-out is still concerning to me. This change moved Apple a little closer to the "good guys" column, but not really into it.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    If by "good guys" you mean champions of privacy, I don't think Apple will ever be that. They're a giant business and that means they're primarily motivated by profit. It's up to the people to be the champions of privacy and help Apple realize that our interests (privacy) are aligned with their interests (profit). (And I say this as someone who's rather anti-Apple for other reasons. Life is complicated and full of compromises.)
madeofpalk 6y ago
But when you follow history of how IDFA was introduced (a replacement for more privacy-invasive identifiers which were available), IDFA makes sense. At least it's completely fair and honest - it is an identifier for advertisers, that user's have control over.