3 ms·

I am sure it is hard to change internal FB momentum. Facebook prioritized user data access at all costs over the last decade. Apple is pressuring all app develo

by fumar 6y ago

I am sure it is hard to change internal FB momentum. Facebook prioritized user data access at all costs over the last decade. Apple is pressuring all app developers to be transparent with consumers and explain what user data is collected. Users can opt out. That is the crux of the issue for Facebook. They want users to continue sharing data and they don't want anyone grant users the option to opt-out. Excuse my rhetoric but that is weak argument for a feature that will benefit consumers. It will not stop marketers from investing in FB ads. But, it does put the onus on FB to develop privacy centric advertising capabilities. That is a good thing.

factorialboy 6y ago
I can't buy the Apple "good samaritan" act. Apple is not fighting for privacy. Only recently, due to an apple service outage, most of this community were reminded that apple logs everything done on their manufactured devices including trivial acts such as opening an app (note I avoided saying "their devices" because it is our device that we purchase). They track what apps you open and use, siri is always listening, they control what apps can be installed via appstores, the entire ecosystem is a lock-in, forget about hardware upgrades or right to repair. Facebook isn't the lesser evil. It is the less potent evil.
- sneak 6y ago
  I'm the author of the article that seemed to alert everyone to Apple logging that app launch data. Apple does indeed care a lot about user privacy. The system that was logging that data was an effort to prevent malware on end user systems. They are taking steps to encrypt the data, and I would be unsurprised if they use bloom filters to keep the list of apps clientside only. The privacy issue with Apple isn't that Apple is some shade of "evil", it's that Apple takes the view that your data is safe with Apple because they won't misuse it, and that they know how to keep it safe. In the age of warrantless FISA orders (known to some as PRISM, which we know thanks to Ed Snowden) mentioned and counted explicitly in Apple's own "transparency report", we now know that that isn't true. Apple knows it, too. If the government can take any of your store user data at any time without a warrant, at what point after you have become painfully and totally aware of this fact do you become complicit in the fact that you are part of the state surveillance apparatus? At what point do you have a moral obligation to stop collecting data from your customers, knowing that if you save it, it will be available to the state, without a warrant, for all time? This is the issue with Apple, not some lack of focus on customer privacy. Apple cares a lot about customer privacy, but they seem to have punted on the fact that Apple having customer data also means that the state surveillance organizations have access to all of that same data, as well. Apple's surveillance-enabling lack of end to end cryptography (or the backdoors they've placed in the end-to-end encrypted parts like iMessage) is the real issue here. I don't think Apple wants to surveil your non-e2e iCloud Photos or nudes in iMessage attachments in your non-e2e iCloud device backup to sell ads or something - but they know or should know that the state does want to surveil this information, and they definitely know that the US government victimized 30,000 Apple users in that fashion last year, without a warrant. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
- fumar 6y ago
  Apple is fighting for consumer privacy in the advertising technology ecosystem. Apple's stance is that your data is safe with Apple. Once your data is outside of Apple walls, it is fair game for hundreds of ad tech companies. These companies might be data brokers that aggregate user behavior, they might be mobile analytics for app developers, it can be google or FB, etc. Advertisers rely on ad tech to deliver relevant advertising and to measure the change or impact on consumer behavior. Today, those capabilities – while technically anonymous, are done at the person level across most of ad tech. At least, that is the goal for most ad tech providers. Apple has made some attempts to keep your data on-device compared to other providers. They are the lesser evil of the surveillance state.
- mithr 6y ago
  That... doesn't really matter when it comes to this issue. However you feel about Apple or Facebook or anything else, what Apple is doing here is saying "you must tell users what you're tracking, and ask them if they're ok with that." That's it. Whatever motivation, good or evil or inbetween, you'd like to ascribe to their actions is besides the point; let's assume that they're doing this out of pure greed or a nefarious long-term goal -- it's still a win for users and their control of their own data. Users can still choose to share everything with Facebook if they so desire -- they'll just be presented with a choice. You avoided saying "their devices" because you believe that when you buy a device you should own it, so I assume you similarly believe that your personal data should be yours to own and control. Facebook is fighting really hard against being forced to even tell customers what information they're gathering, much less be forced to let them choose to not share it. The position that Apple shouldn't be allowed to limit Facebook's freedom to take away your freedom to choose doesn't seem to align. We don't have to agree with everything Apple is doing in order to agree with this one particular thing that they're doing.
- kgin 6y ago
  Apple is implementing a feature that a lot of users want: requiring opt-in for tracking. Facebook wants users not to know when they're being tracked and definitely doesn't want them to have to opt-in to tracking. Facebook knows users don't want to be tracked. Does adding this new feature make Apple a good and virtuous company? I'll leave that for the Tech Vatican when they decide whether Apple gets to go to Tech Heaven. Personally, I don't really care about that, I just want the feature and find Facebook's argument against it to be very weak.
- nojito 6y ago
  >I can't buy the Apple "good samaritan" act. Apple is not fighting for privacy. Why not? Here's Jobs 10 years ago talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
- mr_toad 6y ago
  How is any of that relevant to the subject at hand ? It seems like you’re arguing that Facebook tracking you across multiple websites and selling that data is not so bad because Apple has a closed App Store. How is that pertinent?

by fumar 6y ago

factorialboy 6y ago

I can't buy the Apple "good samaritan" act. Apple is not fighting for privacy. Only recently, due to an apple service outage, most of this community were reminded that apple logs everything done on their manufactured devices including trivial acts such as opening an app (note I avoided saying "their devices" because it is our device that we purchase). They track what apps you open and use, siri is always listening, they control what apps can be installed via appstores, the entire ecosystem is a lock-in, forget about hardware upgrades or right to repair. Facebook isn't the lesser evil. It is the less potent evil.

sneak 6y ago
I'm the author of the article that seemed to alert everyone to Apple logging that app launch data. Apple does indeed care a lot about user privacy. The system that was logging that data was an effort to prevent malware on end user systems. They are taking steps to encrypt the data, and I would be unsurprised if they use bloom filters to keep the list of apps clientside only. The privacy issue with Apple isn't that Apple is some shade of "evil", it's that Apple takes the view that your data is safe with Apple because they won't misuse it, and that they know how to keep it safe. In the age of warrantless FISA orders (known to some as PRISM, which we know thanks to Ed Snowden) mentioned and counted explicitly in Apple's own "transparency report", we now know that that isn't true. Apple knows it, too. If the government can take any of your store user data at any time without a warrant, at what point after you have become painfully and totally aware of this fact do you become complicit in the fact that you are part of the state surveillance apparatus? At what point do you have a moral obligation to stop collecting data from your customers, knowing that if you save it, it will be available to the state, without a warrant, for all time? This is the issue with Apple, not some lack of focus on customer privacy. Apple cares a lot about customer privacy, but they seem to have punted on the fact that Apple having customer data also means that the state surveillance organizations have access to all of that same data, as well. Apple's surveillance-enabling lack of end to end cryptography (or the backdoors they've placed in the end-to-end encrypted parts like iMessage) is the real issue here. I don't think Apple wants to surveil your non-e2e iCloud Photos or nudes in iMessage attachments in your non-e2e iCloud device backup to sell ads or something - but they know or should know that the state does want to surveil this information, and they definitely know that the US government victimized 30,000 Apple users in that fashion last year, without a warrant. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
fumar 6y ago
Apple is fighting for consumer privacy in the advertising technology ecosystem. Apple's stance is that your data is safe with Apple. Once your data is outside of Apple walls, it is fair game for hundreds of ad tech companies. These companies might be data brokers that aggregate user behavior, they might be mobile analytics for app developers, it can be google or FB, etc. Advertisers rely on ad tech to deliver relevant advertising and to measure the change or impact on consumer behavior. Today, those capabilities – while technically anonymous, are done at the person level across most of ad tech. At least, that is the goal for most ad tech providers. Apple has made some attempts to keep your data on-device compared to other providers. They are the lesser evil of the surveillance state.
mithr 6y ago
That... doesn't really matter when it comes to this issue. However you feel about Apple or Facebook or anything else, what Apple is doing here is saying "you must tell users what you're tracking, and ask them if they're ok with that." That's it. Whatever motivation, good or evil or inbetween, you'd like to ascribe to their actions is besides the point; let's assume that they're doing this out of pure greed or a nefarious long-term goal -- it's still a win for users and their control of their own data. Users can still choose to share everything with Facebook if they so desire -- they'll just be presented with a choice. You avoided saying "their devices" because you believe that when you buy a device you should own it, so I assume you similarly believe that your personal data should be yours to own and control. Facebook is fighting really hard against being forced to even tell customers what information they're gathering, much less be forced to let them choose to not share it. The position that Apple shouldn't be allowed to limit Facebook's freedom to take away your freedom to choose doesn't seem to align. We don't have to agree with everything Apple is doing in order to agree with this one particular thing that they're doing.
kgin 6y ago
Apple is implementing a feature that a lot of users want: requiring opt-in for tracking. Facebook wants users not to know when they're being tracked and definitely doesn't want them to have to opt-in to tracking. Facebook knows users don't want to be tracked. Does adding this new feature make Apple a good and virtuous company? I'll leave that for the Tech Vatican when they decide whether Apple gets to go to Tech Heaven. Personally, I don't really care about that, I just want the feature and find Facebook's argument against it to be very weak.
nojito 6y ago
>I can't buy the Apple "good samaritan" act. Apple is not fighting for privacy. Why not? Here's Jobs 10 years ago talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
mr_toad 6y ago
How is any of that relevant to the subject at hand ? It seems like you’re arguing that Facebook tracking you across multiple websites and selling that data is not so bad because Apple has a closed App Store. How is that pertinent?