5 ms·

> That’s an obviously false comparison. You are comparing against a perfect world, not against the real world. No I'm not, I'm comparing against a world where

> That’s an obviously false comparison. You are comparing against a perfect world, not against the real world. No I'm not, I'm comparing against a world where Apple allows sideloading, and this privacy issue exists in both. > because they have told us in public that they would. Source? Apple's new add tracking opt-in thing is on the OS level the same way this location tracking issue is. It would still work if the Facebook app was sideloaded from what I understand.

zepto 5y ago
> Source? You can trivially check this yourself. > Apple's new add tracking opt-in thing is on the OS level the same way this location tracking issue is. This is a complete misunderstanding of how it works. Apple provides a mechanism for apps to use to identify users who opt-in. The only thing preventing developers from just ignoring this and using fingerprinting or other identifiers is the App Store rules. A whole bunch of apps have been banned or otherwise forced to stop doing this. € It would still work if the Facebook app was sideloaded from what I understand. No. If the app were sideloaded, Facebook would just implement a fingerprinting solution or provide their own identifier, and ignore Apple’s mechanism.
- thebean11 5y ago
  > You can trivially check this yourself. I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. > No. If the app were sideloaded, Facebook would just implement a fingerprinting solution or provide their own identifier, and ignore Apple’s mechanism. You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism and maliciously opened your photos to read metadata? Or the one a few years back about playing silent audio tracks to stay open in the background?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. You won’t find a ‘quote’, but it it’s trivial to educate yourself on this mechanism. E.g. Apple’s documentation. Various articles about ad tracking transparency, etc. If you haven’t read the technical materials about the subject, why do you claim to understand it? > You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism and maliciously opened your photos to read metadata? There is no rule against reading the metadata. Yes it’s malicious, but Apple doesn’t currently have grounds for removing the app. The correct solution is to stop leaving the metadata in the file. > Or the one a few years back about playing silent audio tracks to stay open in the background? That one was indeed solved by a rule change. But why do you mention these? Presumably to support your claim that sideloading would be no different from the App Store when it comes to privacy. If you understood the mechanisms, you’d know this was false.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment..
      - zepto 5y ago
        > So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Why would you think that? Anyone following this would know that Facebook said this. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. >Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment.. The reference to Apple’s docs is about the tracking mechanism which you wrongly claimed worked like location tracking. It doesn’t, and you can check this in Apple’s docs.
        thebean11 5y ago
        > because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would > You can trivially check this yourself. > You won’t find a ‘quote’ You're backpedalling and it's really unclear what you're talking about, leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something. If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        >> because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would They have. >> You can trivially check this yourself. You can. >> You won’t find a ‘quote’ You won’t find a ‘quote’ - that was your word. We’re talking about a technical and legal mechanism here. You will find documents. I’ve told you which ones. > You're backpedalling Clearly not. > and it's really unclear what you're talking about, That’s because you haven’t taken the steps needed to understand. > leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something. That’s and unfortunate and incorrect assumption. You can check but you choose not to. Perhaps it’s not trivial for you to check this. Maybe you are unable to make sense of technical and legal documents for yourself. If so, I am sorry to have assumed that you could. > If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it? I have told you where to look. It doesn’t seem like you want to. Perhaps you are unable.

zepto 5y ago

> Source? You can trivially check this yourself. > Apple's new add tracking opt-in thing is on the OS level the same way this location tracking issue is. This is a complete misunderstanding of how it works. Apple provides a mechanism for apps to use to identify users who opt-in. The only thing preventing developers from just ignoring this and using fingerprinting or other identifiers is the App Store rules. A whole bunch of apps have been banned or otherwise forced to stop doing this. € It would still work if the Facebook app was sideloaded from what I understand. No. If the app were sideloaded, Facebook would just implement a fingerprinting solution or provide their own identifier, and ignore Apple’s mechanism.

thebean11 5y ago
> You can trivially check this yourself. I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. > No. If the app were sideloaded, Facebook would just implement a fingerprinting solution or provide their own identifier, and ignore Apple’s mechanism. You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism and maliciously opened your photos to read metadata? Or the one a few years back about playing silent audio tracks to stay open in the background?
- zepto 5y ago
  > I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. You won’t find a ‘quote’, but it it’s trivial to educate yourself on this mechanism. E.g. Apple’s documentation. Various articles about ad tracking transparency, etc. If you haven’t read the technical materials about the subject, why do you claim to understand it? > You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism and maliciously opened your photos to read metadata? There is no rule against reading the metadata. Yes it’s malicious, but Apple doesn’t currently have grounds for removing the app. The correct solution is to stop leaving the metadata in the file. > Or the one a few years back about playing silent audio tracks to stay open in the background? That one was indeed solved by a rule change. But why do you mention these? Presumably to support your claim that sideloading would be no different from the App Store when it comes to privacy. If you understood the mechanisms, you’d know this was false.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment..
    - zepto 5y ago
      > So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Why would you think that? Anyone following this would know that Facebook said this. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. >Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment.. The reference to Apple’s docs is about the tracking mechanism which you wrongly claimed worked like location tracking. It doesn’t, and you can check this in Apple’s docs.
      - thebean11 5y ago
        > because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would > You can trivially check this yourself. > You won’t find a ‘quote’ You're backpedalling and it's really unclear what you're talking about, leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something. If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        >> because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would They have. >> You can trivially check this yourself. You can. >> You won’t find a ‘quote’ You won’t find a ‘quote’ - that was your word. We’re talking about a technical and legal mechanism here. You will find documents. I’ve told you which ones. > You're backpedalling Clearly not. > and it's really unclear what you're talking about, That’s because you haven’t taken the steps needed to understand. > leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something. That’s and unfortunate and incorrect assumption. You can check but you choose not to. Perhaps it’s not trivial for you to check this. Maybe you are unable to make sense of technical and legal documents for yourself. If so, I am sorry to have assumed that you could. > If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it? I have told you where to look. It doesn’t seem like you want to. Perhaps you are unable.