6 ms·

French watchdog rejects request to suspend Apple's App Tracking Transparency

76 points by spideymans 6y ago

fmajid 6y ago
It's not a mere watchdog, it's the French equivalent to the FTC.
vorticalbox 6y ago
Do you get the same pop up on apple apps or only on apps you've installed? Because I can see that being classed as favoring apple services and apps of it is the case. Not sure why I am getting down voted, this was a genuine question.
- kovrik 6y ago
  Same popups for all apps (at least for me).
- lstamour 6y ago
  I think for the sake of conversation we would have to draw a dividing line between the operating system Apple makes and the apps Apple makes, even when that line can be very, very blurry. (Pre-installed apps, the App Store itself, etc.) I'm having a hard time with the App Store, both as an example of an app that shows ads and should therefore not be allowed to use the device ID without prompting, but also being the app that manages the apps you run on a device, and therefore might require a device ID to function correctly? But perhaps the answer is simpler than that, and Apple only needs to keyword-match to show ads in the App Store, no tracking ID required? Personally, I would solve this dilemma by eliminating App Store ads. Users want the app they searched for, not the app a competitor is paying Apple to promote...
  - amelius 6y ago
    > Users want the app they searched for, not the app a competitor is paying Apple to promote... But wait, you can apply this line of reasoning to any product that is promoted through ads.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    You don’t need any kind of tracking for App Store ads, because the App Store is already aware of all your purchasing history. Same thing for any storefront: Amazon’s stats based on your history won’t be affected either.
  - Koliakis 6y ago
    > I think for the sake of conversation we would have to draw a dividing line between the operating system Apple makes and the apps Apple makes, even when that line can be very, very blurry. (Pre-installed apps, the App Store itself, etc.) There is no meaningful difference when Apple uses "We already have an app for this" as a justification to remove third-party apps from their platform.
- kergonath 6y ago
  Apple has been asking for permission for privacy-sensitive features for quite a while now, with dialogs that are more intimidation than these.
mig39 6y ago
Weird to see my favourite Newfoundland newspaper on Hacker News. Unrelated fact -- my first job many decades ago was delivering the physical version of this newspaper. I'm happy to see they are still in business, even if this is a Reuters wire story.
neom 6y ago
"French groups IAB France, MMAF, SRI and UDECAM complained to the French watchdog last year, saying the feature would not affect Apple's ability to send targeted ads to users of its own iOS software without seeking their prior consent." What targeted ads are apple sending? iAd was discontinued in 2016, was it replaced with something?
- ruph123 6y ago
  Maybe the App Store’s ads (e.g. when you search).
  - neom 6y ago
    I searched on that to try and find out, and found this: "Ads that are delivered by Apple’s advertising platform may appear on the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks. Apple’s advertising platform does not track you, meaning that it does not link user or device data collected from our apps with user or device data collected from third parties for targeted advertising or advertising measurement purposes, and does not share user or device data with data brokers." https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT205223
    - bryan_w 6y ago
      That's some pretty tricky wording there. They are basically saying that you could target someone who reads something in Apple News for an ad in the App Store. This is behavior that they are preventing other companies from doing effectively by making others go through tracking screens but exempting itself. Despite how much you might trust Apple, you can agree that they should have to have the same tracking restrictions that all other apps have.
      - GeekyBear 6y ago
        > Apple’s advertising platform does not track you This seems pretty straightforward.
okr 6y ago
The french original: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/communiques-de-presse/ciblage-publicitairemise-en-place-par-apple-de-la-sollicitation-att-lautorite https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/communiques-de-pre...
ben_w 6y ago
What Apple is doing sounds like requiring that tracking capability is only given in the case of users who actively agree with a meaningful opportunity to decline. Whenever there is a discussion of GDPR and cookie popups, someone claims that “By using this website you automatically agree to cookies” is against the requirements of GDPR. I am aware that my total lack of legal qualifications can make two unrelated things seem like the same thing, so a question to anyone who knows: Is Apple requiring anything that is not already required by GDPR?
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  Apple gets to force a UI that says allow/decline instead of the usual website ui of “continue/advanced settings”
  - Macha 6y ago
    The ICO indicates the GDPR (Well UK GDPR now they've left the EU, but it hasn't had time to diverge yet) unambiguous consent is satisified by: > Clear affirmative action means someone must take deliberate and specific action to opt in or agree to the processing, even if this is not expressed as an opt-in box. For example, other affirmative opt-in methods might include signing a consent statement, oral confirmation, a binary choice presented with equal prominence, or switching technical settings away from the default. > The key point is that all consent must be opt-in consent, ie a positive action or indication – there is no such thing as ‘opt-out consent’. Failure to opt out is not consent as it does not involve a clear affirmative act. You may not rely on silence, inactivity, default settings, pre-ticked boxes or your general terms and conditions, or seek to take advantage of inertia, inattention or default bias in any other way. All of these methods also involve ambiguity – and for consent to be valid it must be both unambiguous and affirmative. It must be clear that the individual deliberately and actively chose to consent. So allow/decline is a "binary choice presented with equal prominence" as required but "allow/more info" or "allow/advanced settings" is not equal prominence (especially when visual styling emphasises Allow, or more info/advanced settings is buried in text. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what4 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

76 points by spideymans 6y ago

It's not a mere watchdog, it's the French equivalent to the FTC.

Do you get the same pop up on apple apps or only on apps you've installed? Because I can see that being classed as favoring apple services and apps of it is the case. Not sure why I am getting down voted, this was a genuine question.

kovrik 6y ago
Same popups for all apps (at least for me).
lstamour 6y ago
I think for the sake of conversation we would have to draw a dividing line between the operating system Apple makes and the apps Apple makes, even when that line can be very, very blurry. (Pre-installed apps, the App Store itself, etc.) I'm having a hard time with the App Store, both as an example of an app that shows ads and should therefore not be allowed to use the device ID without prompting, but also being the app that manages the apps you run on a device, and therefore might require a device ID to function correctly? But perhaps the answer is simpler than that, and Apple only needs to keyword-match to show ads in the App Store, no tracking ID required? Personally, I would solve this dilemma by eliminating App Store ads. Users want the app they searched for, not the app a competitor is paying Apple to promote...
- amelius 6y ago
  > Users want the app they searched for, not the app a competitor is paying Apple to promote... But wait, you can apply this line of reasoning to any product that is promoted through ads.
- kergonath 6y ago
  You don’t need any kind of tracking for App Store ads, because the App Store is already aware of all your purchasing history. Same thing for any storefront: Amazon’s stats based on your history won’t be affected either.
- Koliakis 6y ago
  > I think for the sake of conversation we would have to draw a dividing line between the operating system Apple makes and the apps Apple makes, even when that line can be very, very blurry. (Pre-installed apps, the App Store itself, etc.) There is no meaningful difference when Apple uses "We already have an app for this" as a justification to remove third-party apps from their platform.
kergonath 6y ago
Apple has been asking for permission for privacy-sensitive features for quite a while now, with dialogs that are more intimidation than these.

mig39 6y ago

Weird to see my favourite Newfoundland newspaper on Hacker News. Unrelated fact -- my first job many decades ago was delivering the physical version of this newspaper. I'm happy to see they are still in business, even if this is a Reuters wire story.

neom 6y ago

"French groups IAB France, MMAF, SRI and UDECAM complained to the French watchdog last year, saying the feature would not affect Apple's ability to send targeted ads to users of its own iOS software without seeking their prior consent." What targeted ads are apple sending? iAd was discontinued in 2016, was it replaced with something?

ruph123 6y ago
Maybe the App Store’s ads (e.g. when you search).
- neom 6y ago
  I searched on that to try and find out, and found this: "Ads that are delivered by Apple’s advertising platform may appear on the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks. Apple’s advertising platform does not track you, meaning that it does not link user or device data collected from our apps with user or device data collected from third parties for targeted advertising or advertising measurement purposes, and does not share user or device data with data brokers." https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT205223
  - bryan_w 6y ago
    That's some pretty tricky wording there. They are basically saying that you could target someone who reads something in Apple News for an ad in the App Store. This is behavior that they are preventing other companies from doing effectively by making others go through tracking screens but exempting itself. Despite how much you might trust Apple, you can agree that they should have to have the same tracking restrictions that all other apps have.
    - GeekyBear 6y ago
      > Apple’s advertising platform does not track you This seems pretty straightforward.

okr 6y ago

The french original: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/communiques-de-presse/ciblage-publicitairemise-en-place-par-apple-de-la-sollicitation-att-lautorite https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/communiques-de-pre...

ben_w 6y ago

What Apple is doing sounds like requiring that tracking capability is only given in the case of users who actively agree with a meaningful opportunity to decline. Whenever there is a discussion of GDPR and cookie popups, someone claims that “By using this website you automatically agree to cookies” is against the requirements of GDPR. I am aware that my total lack of legal qualifications can make two unrelated things seem like the same thing, so a question to anyone who knows: Is Apple requiring anything that is not already required by GDPR?

PurpleFoxy 6y ago
Apple gets to force a UI that says allow/decline instead of the usual website ui of “continue/advanced settings”
- Macha 6y ago
  The ICO indicates the GDPR (Well UK GDPR now they've left the EU, but it hasn't had time to diverge yet) unambiguous consent is satisified by: > Clear affirmative action means someone must take deliberate and specific action to opt in or agree to the processing, even if this is not expressed as an opt-in box. For example, other affirmative opt-in methods might include signing a consent statement, oral confirmation, a binary choice presented with equal prominence, or switching technical settings away from the default. > The key point is that all consent must be opt-in consent, ie a positive action or indication – there is no such thing as ‘opt-out consent’. Failure to opt out is not consent as it does not involve a clear affirmative act. You may not rely on silence, inactivity, default settings, pre-ticked boxes or your general terms and conditions, or seek to take advantage of inertia, inattention or default bias in any other way. All of these methods also involve ambiguity – and for consent to be valid it must be both unambiguous and affirmative. It must be clear that the individual deliberately and actively chose to consent. So allow/decline is a "binary choice presented with equal prominence" as required but "allow/more info" or "allow/advanced settings" is not equal prominence (especially when visual styling emphasises Allow, or more info/advanced settings is buried in text. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what4 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...