18 ms·

If Apple is the only organisation defending our privacy, it is time to worry

222 points by nwotnagrom 5y ago

alfiedotwtf 5y ago
Weird the The Guardian of all people are calling Apple an "organisation" rather than "company". As for organisations that cater to personal privacy, I don't see any mention in the article about Purism, Mozilla, LinageOS, F-Droid, QubesOS etc.
dheera 5y ago
I know HN will downvote the hell out of people who doubt Apple, but Apple is most certainly not defending any privacy with their closed-source OS. For one, it takes quite a bit more on an iOS device to jailbreak it and use an MITM proxy to inspect what apps are doing under the hood than it does for an Android device to do the same. I feel much more peace of mind that I know exactly what apps are sending to their servers and back and that I can inspect it at any time, and Android forks such as LineageOS provide for actually sending fake sensor data back to apps instead of just denying them permissions, which in many cases just cause apps to refuse to function.
- haram_masala 5y ago
  True, it’s very difficult to see what iOS apps and iOS itself are doing. And we can assume that third-party apps are collecting whatever info they can - even after 14.5, when they presumably disclose what they’re collecting. But, can’t we infer from Apple’s earning statements how much they’re monetizing user data? Currently that seems like not much. Then again, they probably wouldn’t have recruited Antonio Garcia if they weren’t interested in milking that particular cow.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    >But, can’t we infer from Apple’s earning statements how much they’re monetizing user data? Currently that seems like not much. That only tells you how they're doing competing against the other ad networks, not how much they're trying to monetize the data. Instead since they couldn't compete, they drew a moat around their devices where other companies can't get the data apple can, now.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    The Journal says Apple’s ads business is estimated at $2 billion currently (but this isn’t reported in their financial statements): https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-privacy-changes-are-poised-to-boost-its-ad-products-11619485863 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-privacy-changes-are-pois... Apple’s services category made $16 billion in revenue last quarter and includes ads in addition to other businesses like music and TV. Apple’s growth story to investors hinges on the services category.
- null_object 5y ago
  > just denying them permissions, which in many cases just cause apps to refuse to function. Factual question: which apps in your experience "refuse to function" when you deny them permission to track you?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - newscracker 5y ago
    That’s a hold out from the Android world, where apps are generally written to expect the user to provide requested permissions. Before Android 6, apps would get all permissions requested for on installation (or the user wouldn’t be able to install the app). From Android 6, when the permission model changed to be similar to iOS to get it at runtime, apps didn’t get written for this new world and would crash or refuse to work. Even today, there are apps that will refuse to function if some (non-critical) permission is not granted.
    - techrat 5y ago
      I deny functions to apps in Android all the time. I've yet to run into an app that will refuse to run unless that denied function is explicitly needed for that app to do what it was designed to do: eg, location for maps.
      - dheera 5y ago
        There are plenty. Try getting a Roborock vacuum cleaner and getting it to vacuum your floor without giving away GPS permissions on your phone, it's impossible unless you take the damn thing apart and solder some wires to the RX/TX and root it with its dev serial port. Wechat also for a while didn't even allow logging in without location permissions. They may have changed that but there are lots and lots of offending apps.
        SilverRed 5y ago
        This is a complex one. I'm almost certain the reason is they want to scan for bluetooth devices to pick up the vacuum cleaner in the app. The problem is that scanning for bluetooth devices basically is GPS because marketers started putting beacons all over the place and using their tracking toolkits in apps to pick up these beacons. So android changed the permissions so you had to ask for location access to scan for bluetooth. So as an app dev, you get the option to ask for location access and make setup easy, or you can direct the user to go to the bluetooth settings and pair with the vacuum and come back to the app to continue.
- newscracker 5y ago
  I’m a bit lost here. If all you want is to do MITM, what stops you from installing a certificate and a “VPN profile” on the iOS device and proxying the communication for analysis with appropriate apps? You don’t need to jailbreak to do any of this, as Charles Proxy for iOS (paid app) [1] shows. Of course, if you need to do more than intercepting network traffic, then it gets a bit more cumbersome on iOS. [1]: https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/ https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/
  - dheera 5y ago
    Most apps now use certificate pinning, i.e. they have the root certificate included in the app and signed as part of the app, so that method won't work. On Android it's much easier to intercept and modify the behavior of apps and tell the system to disregard signatures and things of the sort.
    - theshrike79 5y ago
      > On Android it's much easier to intercept and modify the behavior of apps and tell the system to disregard signatures and things of the sort. This really doesn't increase my confidence in Android as an OS. I'd rather prefer it to be really hard to intercept and modify the behavior of apps and to make the system disregard signatures.
      - dheera 5y ago
        When I say it's easier, that doesn't mean any app can do it in user space, it's only easier because the OS itself is open source, you can modify it to your liking, and there is a decent community around alternate (also open source) images such as LineageOS which can give you very good control over what user space apps can and cannot do. If you use an open source version of Android you can prevent even Google from tracking you. With iOS no matter how hard you try you can't really stop Apple from getting your info.
    - oefrha 5y ago
      Maybe you live in an alternate reality, but in this reality most apps aren’t remotely sensitive enough to use cert pinning. Also, since Android 7, even non-cert-pinned apps simply ignore user/admin-installed certificates; you can’t do anything without (1) rooting and injecting cert into root trust store; or (2) binary patching. Neither is easy, whereas installing a certificate as a profile on iOS is a trivial process.
- slver 5y ago
  OK, how about that: everyone who wants to manually inspect the bytes coming out of their phone 24/7 can use Android, while everyone else can use iOS. (also, iOS supports proxies)
  - dheera 5y ago
    MITM proxies don't work when apps use certificate pinning. Many popular apps do this. > everyone who wants to manually inspect the bytes coming out of their phone == everyone who actually gives a damn about their privacy Do you even know what your phone apps are sending about you? I know what my apps are sending about me. Some of it is pretty scary, honestly.
    - slver 5y ago
      So you like an OS that sends fake sensor data to apps, but you trust it to send real network data to you? What if it doesn't? What if the hardware sends fake network data to the OS? You clearly don't give a damn about your privacy, because everything you do can be subverted through any of those components. People who give a damn about their privacy write their own OS, apps and install it on their custom built hardware that was built into their own semiconductor factories, using personally sourced materials and designs. Yes, I can also play this game.
      - dheera 5y ago
        > on their custom built hardware Sure, make your own phone, I'll very much support and admire you if you do. Until then, since I don't have that hardware engineering prowess, I'm at least a few steps ahead of any iOS user and at least have control over my OS and what my apps do. iOS users on the other hand just surrender their privacy management to almighty Apple and trust that Apple does no evil, and trust that the signed apps they run on their devices do no evil. Yeah, if Qualcomm does evil in their Snapdragons I'm screwed, but at least I've reduced my privacy risks by a few notches, better than nothing.
        slver 5y ago
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
The only reason behind the iOS changes is because Apple failed to compete with Facebook ads. If Apple didn't sell ads using the same data I could maybe believe there privacy bullshit.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  With all due respect that is nonsense. How would they come close to competing with Facebooks ad system which is built into the FB product? The overwhelming majority of Apple revenue and profit is still hardware, app store and music etc. Whatever Tim Cook et al truly think about their customers privacy they can take the "moral high ground" when it comes to privacy because they are in a different business and it doesn't hurt their revenue (and perhaps helps it). https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074
  - jay_kyburz 5y ago
    I don't think its nonsense, I think you didn't read what he is saying. I also believe that if Apple had been successful at building its ad business when it tried to, they would not be talking about privacy now. Apple sees all your data before it is ever sent to Facebook.
    - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
      Sure - if they were arms dealers or a drug company they would be doing other bad things, but their business model doesn’t need targeted ads. People and companies should be judged on their actions not on what you think they would do if they were in some other business.
      - jay_kyburz 5y ago
        Sure, but what we are saying is that Apple _is_ a bad company, and that we don't believe they are on our side. (or that they are trying to protect us.) They are not on our side when it comes to repairing our devices. They are not on our side when it comes to running software we want to on the hardware we own. They are not on our side when it comes to walled gardens. They are not on our side when it comes to how quickly they stop supporting the hardware they sold us. If they _were_ in the business of selling data, they would not be on our side there either.
throwaway481048 5y ago
Apple should not have to lead the charge for user privacy. The government (particularly Congress, in some cases State Legislatures) needs to step up and create modern rules for a modern society. While you can’t “cook up” new laws as quickly as an engineer can a prototype, trusting a private entity - with only the power to regulate its own devices and activity - is foolish, if just merely in scope. The interests of a private org just complicate the picture further.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  EU has GDPR and California has CCPA. Y'all just need to get your elected officials to copy & paste CCPA to a federal level.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    To be fair, the GDPR is only good in theory but its enforcement has been severely lacking, as demonstrated by all the companies suddenly complaining about App Tracking Transparency, despite ATT only mandating what they should've done to comply with the GDPR anyway 3 years ago.
    - theshrike79 5y ago
      Yea, GRPD and the cookie thing could use some extra supervision and enforcement. People are mostly going by hunches and third hand knowledge on these.
unreal37 5y ago
Apple is in it for themselves too. Stop falling for this.
- xvector 5y ago
  Obviously. But just because Apple is in it for themselves doesn’t mean that their customers can’t also benefit. Clearly, it’s mutually beneficial - customers get privacy-focused devices, and Apple gets money from people that care about privacy. All that said, the level of privacy Apple offers in any of its devices is superficial at best. There are way more problems Apple needs to solve before any of its devices can be considered “private.” Your IP still gives away your location, apps can remember if they were installed on your phone, you can’t turn off network or sensors for individual apps, etc.
  - soraminazuki 5y ago
    > Your IP still gives away your location, apps can remember if they were installed on your phone, you can’t turn off network or sensors for individual apps, etc. I agree with your last point, but the first two is asking for the impossible. You'd need multiple technological breakthroughs for that to happen.
    - xvector 5y ago
      > You'd need multiple technological breakthroughs for that to happen. For (1), at the very least, Apple could provide a VPN by default. For (2), why is this the case? Apple mostly just needs to delete content from the Keychain for deleted apps and throw a wrench into some APIs used for fingerprinting.
      - soraminazuki 5y ago
        > For (1), at the very least, Apple could provide a VPN by default Exactly how well a VPN improves privacy is highly controversial to say the least. Quite a few would go as far to say not at all, although I believe it's a bit more nuanced. But most importantly, Apple directing traffic to their VPN by default would be an unwise move on all levels. It would put them in a position to be able to scoop up data on users, regardless of intent. Not only would that be devastating for their reputation, it would actually harm user privacy. If a single company can directly capture almost every single packet flowing in and out of user devices, governments are bound to demand access to it without an option to refuse. Even in the most democratic countries, government agencies aren't known for their restraint when it comes to accessing user data. > For (2), why is this the case? Apple mostly just needs to delete content from the Keychain for deleted apps and throw a wrench into some APIs used for fingerprinting Wouldn't that break iCloud syncing? Besides, preventing turing complete programs from uniquely identifying users on real world devices is an unsolved problem for all I know. It's not as simple as disabling some APIs here and there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zelon88 5y ago
The author gives Apple credit for solving a problem Apple created. Apple doesn't care about protecting you. They care about protecting their own advertising market share. They don't want to stop tracking your iPhone. They want competitors like Google to stop tracking your iPhone (for free). Apple wants to get paid for that. If Apple cared about you then tracking functionality would not exist.
- gordon_freeman 5y ago
  You didn't get it. Apple is not making any decisions on whether to allow apps to track or not. They are simply delegating that choice to their users (and rightly so). The user has power to chose which advertisers he or she can trust showing them the useful ads and allow those apps to track. If ads are not useful or are exploitative of their data then they can chose not to allow tracking. As simple as that.
  - dialtone 5y ago
    Except Apple is putting its own ability to track you under a different opt-out (default opted-in) that isn't set when you first launch the iphone.
  - zelon88 5y ago
    I believe it is you who has a misunderstanding. Let's word this differently. Apple gives apps the ability to track and users the option to disable that feature, but they built it with dark patterns. Now they've removed the dark patterns, but you can still have this awful feature that nobody wants. Why? And why is Apple getting credit for removing dark patterns that they created earlier? Why does this feature exist if 99.999% of people don't want it in the first place?
    - Fezzik 5y ago
      You seem to be implying that when Apple opened their App Store, just 13 years ago in 2008, that it was an intentional decision to allow “dark patterns,” but this really does not seem to be born out by Apple’s practices. After releasing a gigantic/global app store in 2008 Apple has done nothing but reduce and limit the ability of third parties to track iOS users, amongst other actions that are purely protective of users. Furthermore, I see some beneficence in their actions, in that it’s not like there is a huge public uproar directed at Apple compelling them to make these changes (though my hunch is it’s more about cutting away at FB and Google profits than anything else).
harry8 5y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/antoniogm https://mobile.twitter.com/antoniogm That guy was just fired by apple after a staff revolt described as "woke" which made news. Separate to that, his alumn is facebook, specifically ads. Whatever spin they put on it he was literally hired to monetize for apple the private data they hold that belongs to you. There is zero contractual it enforceable commitment by Apple to prevent them from stealing and doing literally anything they like with your data for a reason. They will do it the instant it is worth the reputational hit for officially announcing their privacy marketing is knowingly dishonest. Which it is. If they had any value at all on your privacy it would have contractual protection. Cannot be sold, cannot be provided to a third party without being legal compelled, cannot be used by Apple. It's easy to do this and they have chosen not to. It would cost dramatically less than their "these things are private" ad campaign. Orders of magnitude less. It would get orders of magnitude more reach than their ad campaign. They don't have this in contact for a reason. That reason is bait and switch. Their advertising overtures to privacy are worth even less than Google's lack of them. Apple are utterly foul. The bar is so unbelievably low and apple, google, facebook, and all their ilk compete to get deeper below it and bash us harder. It's our fault. We didn't do... Like they commanded. See what we made then do? /Waves to apple zealots and gravy train riders.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
There's still a huge elephant in the room. How are we supposed to trust Apple, Microsoft or any other tech company when it emerged that they fully cooperated with the NSA and their PRISM program. We have to just assume that's still running. Businesses could keep a lot of secrets from us and they're not transparent or accountable to the public.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Of course they'd have to want to do this.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  I feel despair because my government is supposed to be upholding my fundamental right to privacy but, clearly, the Fourth Amendment is something that can be selectively upheld or discarded. So what’s left? For me to hope that some company will respect my “rights”?
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    >For me to hope that some company will respect my “rights”? Is that reasonable? If the government is your adversary and you suspect they aren't playing fair, then it's only a matter of time before the government puts the pressure on that company as well. Either they play ball, or they fold like Lavabit did. At that point you need to self host all your infrastructure as well as you can, and it becomes difficult to trust anyone else.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  A good stack of Apple's ecosystem is fully encrypted, so that Apple can't give anything to the authorities. For example: Apple Maps retrieves routes in segments, with changing identifiers. Apple can't figure out where you navigated to.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
landryraccoon 5y ago
I see a bunch of comments talking about how Apple is being self serving and not at all altruistic when they defend our privacy. And my response is - well duh. And this is supposed to be a problem how? Apple wants my money and nothing else. They aren't motivated to protect my privacy out of the goodness of their hearts. I am happy to pay money for more privacy. The fact that they only do this because they want my money isn't really the interesting question to me. The interesting question to me is, why is it that they are literally the ONLY large tech company that is willing to offer me this tradeoff? I'm willing to pay a premium of probably hundreds of dollars on a phone because I want privacy, and nobody else will even consider selling me one? How much is my data really worth to advertisers? Like, a hundred bucks a year? Ok sure, where do I pay to get ownership of my data back? Samsung, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft don't sell privacy, or if they do, they're sure doing a bang up job hiding it. None of them have any altruistic motives either, so I can only conclude that they either don't want my money or they're really bad at what they do? Is there really no other company that wants to get in on this privacy game? Because the people who really care about this are probably affluent and willing to pay a lot for it.
- thefz 5y ago
  Two major critiques: 1- Privacy should be the default, free as in beer, not a pay-per option 2- Apple is all willing to break its own encryption to cooperate with law enforcement. See the recent example https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/17/sci_hub_apple_fbi_claim/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/17/sci_hub_apple_fbi_cla...
- r_singh 5y ago
  I have a similar sentiment. But when apple introduced ads to the App Store, a part of me became quite sad. Like no amount of money would ever be enough...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gordon_freeman 5y ago
  The only other company I could think of that is playing in this privacy game is: Signal. And well they are a nonprofit and they prove that privacy is not only made affordable for the rich and affluent and anyone can have private communication whether they donate to Signal or not.
slver 5y ago
While some worry that Apple's the only organization defending privacy, others are attacking it for trying to control its ecosystem (in part so it can defend their users' privacy). That's the world right now.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  For what it's worth, I'm one of the people that's doing both. I want the store monopolies to be greatly reduced for my benefit as the consumer - and yes, I will continue to acquire and purchase things through the app store, in general, because I trust their system a lot; BUT, I also applaud them and primarily purchase their hardware because I appreciate their privacy. It's possible to have nuance in these positions.
  - slver 5y ago
    The mistake that many people do is requesting a systematic change, and then ignoring the systematic effects of it. Maybe in theory "more stores" sounds like "more good" to you as a consumer. But the large mass of consumers are not in a position to judge things like safety, performance, reliability, sustainability. They're only in position to judge things like "$3 is less than $4". So the systematic effect of multiple stores will be that everyone will flock to the cheapest stores, which won't have the means or motivation to do what Apple does. Many of those stores will also be offering pirated applications. So this will destroy many developers who will lose a lot more than 15% or 30% of their potential revenue to piracy, and it will also end up destroying Apple's own store. This is what "be careful what you wish for" means. Eating fast food every day is cheaper and tastes better than whole foods, for you as a consumer. By the time your body is destroyed, it'll be too late to have some important realizations.
    - emptysongglass 5y ago
      Except that we already know what that landscape looks like on Android and... it's fine. Everyone still uses the Play Store.
actuator 5y ago
This is not true. As I have submitted on HN earlier, Apple is using the purchases data to customise ads. https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT208477 https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT208477 You can make a case that the ad targeting is just on App Store, News and Stocks but that is just for now, Apple used to have an ad platform iAd which wasn't that successful, so it was discontinued. Once they milk other revenue streams and are more of a monopolistic power in other web properties(like Maps), I am quite sure ads will make a return. Bottom line is, at this point Apple is also building user profiles like Facebook. Edit: It seems like Ben has deleted his tweet. I will just update the link to Apple's support page and quote the relevant section. """We also use information about your account, purchases, and downloads in the stores to offer advertising to ensure that ads on the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks, where available, are relevant to you."""
- nemothekid 5y ago
  I can't seem to open the Tweet you provided, nor could I find the relevant tweet on the timeline. Can you fix your post?
  - actuator 5y ago
    Thanks for the heads up, just added Apple's support page link.
- Gaelan 5y ago
  That tweet's been deleted, so it's hard to judge it exactly, but my recollection is that someone else pointed out "payment data" here is just App Store, iTunes, etc purchases. "Apple targets ads on the app store based on previous app store purchases" is, IMO, much less of a privacy invasion than "Facebook targets ads based on your friends list, messages, browsing history, real-life purchases, and other things I can't think of off the top of my head". Apple's profile of me, I imagine, is much less detailed than Facebook's, despite Apple's capability to build just as much of one (after all, they own iMessage and my iCloud contacts) if they wanted to.
  - 5y ago
harry8 5y ago
The privacy debacle on tech is yet another case of anyone in pistons of power making decisions about technology knowing absolutely nothing about it. The big consulting firms have monetized this. Silicon valley ad-tech too. I keep hoping it can't last.
gordon_freeman 5y ago
A lot of folks are aligning Apple's motive to somehow gain advantage in ads business as if they'd able to compete with Google, Amazon or Facebook someday in ads biz. I don't think that is their real motive. I believe Apple's real motive with all these privacy centric features such as ATT, Sign in with Apple, Apple card data not being tracked for targeting etc. is to create a privacy centric moat and platform/ecosystem that is simply missing from the market right now and they know that they have real advantages of keeping people in their ecosystem with this moat. I'm actually happy that they are doing this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tboughen 5y ago
  I think you’re right about the privacy moat. But I think it flows from a focus on improved user experience. Ads are terrible for user experience because they slow your browsing, block content from your app, take up space in your start menu and are a malware vector. Once ads are off the table, what else can Apple do?
  - grenoire 5y ago
    God I wish the ads were actually off the table, don't even want much else so as long as I get to keep TLS too.
quanto 5y ago
If Apple offers real privacy now, that's good for them and the consumers who are willing to pay premium for privacy. Two questions: 1. Is there a way to verify that Apple is not using or selling the user's data? 2. What is preventing Apple, after gathering all the users data, from changing its EULA/ToS and starting to sell the user data? Is an average user going to export all the data from Apple and jump to another platform (if there is one offering better privacy)?
- SilverRed 5y ago
  Nothing. So your options are to pick a company that openly tracks you and is funded on tracking. Or a company that tells you it doesn't track you, bases a huge amount of their marketing on that promise and is funded by selling you expensive devices. One option is clearly better from a privacy perspective even if you have no control over what Apple does.
delhanty 5y ago
Apple also has a question mark attached to its commitment to privacy in China. Even though the Twitter thread below is by a NYT reporter, it sounds directionally credible given how embedded Apple is in China, both from a manufacturing point of view and also as a growing market. 2021-MAY-18 "NEW: Apple is jeopardizing its Chinese users’ data and augmenting the Chinese government’s censorship to placate authorities and keep its business running. Here is our multiyear investigation into Apple's Faustian bargain in China: ..." https://twitter.com/jacknicas/status/1394378309325230080 https://twitter.com/jacknicas/status/1394378309325230080
- swiley 5y ago
  They have a big question mark attached to it anywhere. Who do you know doesn't back up their device to Apple?
- isodev 5y ago
  It is unfortunate, but I think that's partially what the article also implies - it can't be up to a single company to fight the good fight. Also, Apple needs to comply with local legislation to be able to provide services in other countries. China also happens to be the country source for most of Apple's supply chain - it's not exactly viable to start fighting the local authorities. Imagine if other big companies with impact in China (like Epic?) choose to align and apply pressure in the name of user privacy (instead of wasting time and money on pointless litigation)... then perhaps, it will be much harder for a local government to get its way.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Google doesn't provide services in China, because to do so they'd have to censor for the CCP, like Apple does.
harlanji 5y ago
Scrub forward until you see a yellow note pad. https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1032025987 https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1032025987 The source to complete it is on my GitHub. My IG of same handle has progress pics, recently marketing and sales. I’m sure there are many more similar projects out there, unsure if like I they are angling for physical communities and local taxes. TDC and iSL have initial docs, and the CarPuter machine is like $750 of parts. I have many app designs up the stack. Captured as video or drawings or in slices as prototypes. City Apper. IG, .com... still turning the lights on. I picture each community having one, like a community center. B corp. If others run with the idea then great. I have some unique work constraints on the .com mockup modeled after a successful real life organization and my own experience bootstrapping and being close to it. I’m my own customer for a few years, now homeless it runs at 4-9W even Twitch streaming screen cap, web cam, and using headset audio. Ie. we can DIY and reasonably commercialize 1-off hardware. My favorite tacos seem more expensive than chain tacos, but are way more nutrient rich thus worth the cost. Decentralized. In line with Internet OG. RSS friendly, merchant integration, XMPP, EmailInABox, iCal, LUKS, GPS, USB 3, LTE modem, CDN caching, ....
thejackgoode 5y ago
I am somehow seeing this as a good/evil cycle -- Google and Amazon, even Facebook at times used to be the good guys. Now Apple and Microsoft are getting higher on the horse. It may revert eventually, I assume "don't be evil" is counter-incentivised by many things. But now the most interesting thing to me is if FB/Google really are pushed by this privacy narrative to change their business model.
nxpnsv 5y ago
Tech has a long tail - if you generalize from the big players track record things may look grim, but that is ignoring the rest of the field. That is to say, no - it is not only Apple who defends our privacy - and yes you should dig deeper when thinking about these things.
littlestymaar 5y ago
Reminder: while it's true that Apple protects your privacy in the context of third party app data collection on your devices, it doesn't make it an “organization defending our privacy either”. They collect tons of data about you, and share them with third parties as they wish and their privacy policy is pretty explicit about it: > Personal Data Apple Collects from You > Usage Data. Data about your activity on and use of our offerings, such as app launches within our services, including browsing history; search history; product interaction; crash data, performance and other diagnostic data; and other usage data > Location Information. Precise location only to support Find My, and coarse location > Health Information. Data relating to the health status of an individual, including data related to one’s physical or mental health or condition. Personal health data also includes data that can be used to make inferences about or detect the health status of an individual. If you participate in a study using an Apple Health Research Study app, the policy governing the privacy of your personal data is described in the Apple Health Study Apps Privacy Policy. > Fitness Information. Details relating to your fitness and exercise information where you choose to share them Financial Information. Details including salary, income, and assets information where collected, and information related to > Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data > Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes. > Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data. source: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
0xPIT 5y ago
I truly wonder why people still believe they have any privacy, any right to privacy, or, that they could do anything about it. Sun Microsystems‘ Scott McNealy was vocal about this already in the late 1990s: „you have no privacy, get over it“ Look, even if you were able to get FAANG et al. to honor privacy, there will always be the one player that does not. Then, the people who write privacy laws have no clue what they are doing. Plus, I’ve seen software professionals copy/pasting encryption algorithms that contain errors from stackoverflow into production code. It’s time to face reality, this ship has sailed, stop whining, finally start adapting to an environment without privacy: Treat all your data as if they would become public one day. Use your energy to teach others to be tech literate to understand what this means, how to deal with this and how to behave.
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  > I truly wonder why people still believe they have any privacy, any right to privacy, or, that they could do anything about it. The GDPR (very good legislation forming one of our rights to privacy), and a host of UK/Europe national Data Protection Acts preceding it would take issue with this statement.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Its enforcement is severely lacking though, to the point where you wonder if the parties supposed to enforce it are actually benefiting from the status-quo.
gampleman 5y ago
I'm surprised to not see too much discussion about GDPR here. But the question I have is under what legal basis do companies use the tracking identifiers? Surely the only legal basis available to them is consent? So Apple has kindly made the consent collection infrastructure part of iOS (and therefore standardised and therefore user friendly). So are the complaints about Apple forcing them to obey the law? That seems pretty strange to me.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I just don't think that there are that many Europeans on HN percentage wise.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    I think there's a lot of people on HN that profit from breaching the GDPR, so it's unlikely to have a good reputation here
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  The whole ATT thing merely forces companies to do what they were supposed to do 3 years ago when the GDPR came into effect, and maybe even earlier if you consider the ePrivacy Directive ("Cookie law"). The regulators should use any company's complaints about the change as evidence of past GDPR breaches, but then again the reason ATT was required and companies complain is that the regulators are so incompetent that the regulation is routinely broken in total impunity even 3 years down the line.

222 points by nwotnagrom 5y ago

Weird the The Guardian of all people are calling Apple an "organisation" rather than "company". As for organisations that cater to personal privacy, I don't see any mention in the article about Purism, Mozilla, LinageOS, F-Droid, QubesOS etc.

dheera 5y ago

I know HN will downvote the hell out of people who doubt Apple, but Apple is most certainly not defending any privacy with their closed-source OS. For one, it takes quite a bit more on an iOS device to jailbreak it and use an MITM proxy to inspect what apps are doing under the hood than it does for an Android device to do the same. I feel much more peace of mind that I know exactly what apps are sending to their servers and back and that I can inspect it at any time, and Android forks such as LineageOS provide for actually sending fake sensor data back to apps instead of just denying them permissions, which in many cases just cause apps to refuse to function.

haram_masala 5y ago
True, it’s very difficult to see what iOS apps and iOS itself are doing. And we can assume that third-party apps are collecting whatever info they can - even after 14.5, when they presumably disclose what they’re collecting. But, can’t we infer from Apple’s earning statements how much they’re monetizing user data? Currently that seems like not much. Then again, they probably wouldn’t have recruited Antonio Garcia if they weren’t interested in milking that particular cow.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >But, can’t we infer from Apple’s earning statements how much they’re monetizing user data? Currently that seems like not much. That only tells you how they're doing competing against the other ad networks, not how much they're trying to monetize the data. Instead since they couldn't compete, they drew a moat around their devices where other companies can't get the data apple can, now.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  The Journal says Apple’s ads business is estimated at $2 billion currently (but this isn’t reported in their financial statements): https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-privacy-changes-are-poised-to-boost-its-ad-products-11619485863 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-privacy-changes-are-pois... Apple’s services category made $16 billion in revenue last quarter and includes ads in addition to other businesses like music and TV. Apple’s growth story to investors hinges on the services category.
null_object 5y ago
> just denying them permissions, which in many cases just cause apps to refuse to function. Factual question: which apps in your experience "refuse to function" when you deny them permission to track you?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- newscracker 5y ago
  That’s a hold out from the Android world, where apps are generally written to expect the user to provide requested permissions. Before Android 6, apps would get all permissions requested for on installation (or the user wouldn’t be able to install the app). From Android 6, when the permission model changed to be similar to iOS to get it at runtime, apps didn’t get written for this new world and would crash or refuse to work. Even today, there are apps that will refuse to function if some (non-critical) permission is not granted.
  - techrat 5y ago
    I deny functions to apps in Android all the time. I've yet to run into an app that will refuse to run unless that denied function is explicitly needed for that app to do what it was designed to do: eg, location for maps.
    - dheera 5y ago
      There are plenty. Try getting a Roborock vacuum cleaner and getting it to vacuum your floor without giving away GPS permissions on your phone, it's impossible unless you take the damn thing apart and solder some wires to the RX/TX and root it with its dev serial port. Wechat also for a while didn't even allow logging in without location permissions. They may have changed that but there are lots and lots of offending apps.
      - SilverRed 5y ago
        This is a complex one. I'm almost certain the reason is they want to scan for bluetooth devices to pick up the vacuum cleaner in the app. The problem is that scanning for bluetooth devices basically is GPS because marketers started putting beacons all over the place and using their tracking toolkits in apps to pick up these beacons. So android changed the permissions so you had to ask for location access to scan for bluetooth. So as an app dev, you get the option to ask for location access and make setup easy, or you can direct the user to go to the bluetooth settings and pair with the vacuum and come back to the app to continue.
newscracker 5y ago
I’m a bit lost here. If all you want is to do MITM, what stops you from installing a certificate and a “VPN profile” on the iOS device and proxying the communication for analysis with appropriate apps? You don’t need to jailbreak to do any of this, as Charles Proxy for iOS (paid app) [1] shows. Of course, if you need to do more than intercepting network traffic, then it gets a bit more cumbersome on iOS. [1]: https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/ https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/ios/
- dheera 5y ago
  Most apps now use certificate pinning, i.e. they have the root certificate included in the app and signed as part of the app, so that method won't work. On Android it's much easier to intercept and modify the behavior of apps and tell the system to disregard signatures and things of the sort.
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    > On Android it's much easier to intercept and modify the behavior of apps and tell the system to disregard signatures and things of the sort. This really doesn't increase my confidence in Android as an OS. I'd rather prefer it to be really hard to intercept and modify the behavior of apps and to make the system disregard signatures.
    - dheera 5y ago
      When I say it's easier, that doesn't mean any app can do it in user space, it's only easier because the OS itself is open source, you can modify it to your liking, and there is a decent community around alternate (also open source) images such as LineageOS which can give you very good control over what user space apps can and cannot do. If you use an open source version of Android you can prevent even Google from tracking you. With iOS no matter how hard you try you can't really stop Apple from getting your info.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    Maybe you live in an alternate reality, but in this reality most apps aren’t remotely sensitive enough to use cert pinning. Also, since Android 7, even non-cert-pinned apps simply ignore user/admin-installed certificates; you can’t do anything without (1) rooting and injecting cert into root trust store; or (2) binary patching. Neither is easy, whereas installing a certificate as a profile on iOS is a trivial process.
slver 5y ago
OK, how about that: everyone who wants to manually inspect the bytes coming out of their phone 24/7 can use Android, while everyone else can use iOS. (also, iOS supports proxies)
- dheera 5y ago
  MITM proxies don't work when apps use certificate pinning. Many popular apps do this. > everyone who wants to manually inspect the bytes coming out of their phone == everyone who actually gives a damn about their privacy Do you even know what your phone apps are sending about you? I know what my apps are sending about me. Some of it is pretty scary, honestly.
  - slver 5y ago
    So you like an OS that sends fake sensor data to apps, but you trust it to send real network data to you? What if it doesn't? What if the hardware sends fake network data to the OS? You clearly don't give a damn about your privacy, because everything you do can be subverted through any of those components. People who give a damn about their privacy write their own OS, apps and install it on their custom built hardware that was built into their own semiconductor factories, using personally sourced materials and designs. Yes, I can also play this game.
    - dheera 5y ago
      > on their custom built hardware Sure, make your own phone, I'll very much support and admire you if you do. Until then, since I don't have that hardware engineering prowess, I'm at least a few steps ahead of any iOS user and at least have control over my OS and what my apps do. iOS users on the other hand just surrender their privacy management to almighty Apple and trust that Apple does no evil, and trust that the signed apps they run on their devices do no evil. Yeah, if Qualcomm does evil in their Snapdragons I'm screwed, but at least I've reduced my privacy risks by a few notches, better than nothing.
      - slver 5y ago

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

The only reason behind the iOS changes is because Apple failed to compete with Facebook ads. If Apple didn't sell ads using the same data I could maybe believe there privacy bullshit.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago
With all due respect that is nonsense. How would they come close to competing with Facebooks ad system which is built into the FB product? The overwhelming majority of Apple revenue and profit is still hardware, app store and music etc. Whatever Tim Cook et al truly think about their customers privacy they can take the "moral high ground" when it comes to privacy because they are in a different business and it doesn't hurt their revenue (and perhaps helps it). https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  I don't think its nonsense, I think you didn't read what he is saying. I also believe that if Apple had been successful at building its ad business when it tried to, they would not be talking about privacy now. Apple sees all your data before it is ever sent to Facebook.
  - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
    Sure - if they were arms dealers or a drug company they would be doing other bad things, but their business model doesn’t need targeted ads. People and companies should be judged on their actions not on what you think they would do if they were in some other business.
    - jay_kyburz 5y ago
      Sure, but what we are saying is that Apple _is_ a bad company, and that we don't believe they are on our side. (or that they are trying to protect us.) They are not on our side when it comes to repairing our devices. They are not on our side when it comes to running software we want to on the hardware we own. They are not on our side when it comes to walled gardens. They are not on our side when it comes to how quickly they stop supporting the hardware they sold us. If they _were_ in the business of selling data, they would not be on our side there either.

throwaway481048 5y ago

Apple should not have to lead the charge for user privacy. The government (particularly Congress, in some cases State Legislatures) needs to step up and create modern rules for a modern society. While you can’t “cook up” new laws as quickly as an engineer can a prototype, trusting a private entity - with only the power to regulate its own devices and activity - is foolish, if just merely in scope. The interests of a private org just complicate the picture further.

theshrike79 5y ago
EU has GDPR and California has CCPA. Y'all just need to get your elected officials to copy & paste CCPA to a federal level.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  To be fair, the GDPR is only good in theory but its enforcement has been severely lacking, as demonstrated by all the companies suddenly complaining about App Tracking Transparency, despite ATT only mandating what they should've done to comply with the GDPR anyway 3 years ago.
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    Yea, GRPD and the cookie thing could use some extra supervision and enforcement. People are mostly going by hunches and third hand knowledge on these.

unreal37 5y ago

Apple is in it for themselves too. Stop falling for this.

xvector 5y ago
Obviously. But just because Apple is in it for themselves doesn’t mean that their customers can’t also benefit. Clearly, it’s mutually beneficial - customers get privacy-focused devices, and Apple gets money from people that care about privacy. All that said, the level of privacy Apple offers in any of its devices is superficial at best. There are way more problems Apple needs to solve before any of its devices can be considered “private.” Your IP still gives away your location, apps can remember if they were installed on your phone, you can’t turn off network or sensors for individual apps, etc.
- soraminazuki 5y ago
  > Your IP still gives away your location, apps can remember if they were installed on your phone, you can’t turn off network or sensors for individual apps, etc. I agree with your last point, but the first two is asking for the impossible. You'd need multiple technological breakthroughs for that to happen.
  - xvector 5y ago
    > You'd need multiple technological breakthroughs for that to happen. For (1), at the very least, Apple could provide a VPN by default. For (2), why is this the case? Apple mostly just needs to delete content from the Keychain for deleted apps and throw a wrench into some APIs used for fingerprinting.
    - soraminazuki 5y ago
      > For (1), at the very least, Apple could provide a VPN by default Exactly how well a VPN improves privacy is highly controversial to say the least. Quite a few would go as far to say not at all, although I believe it's a bit more nuanced. But most importantly, Apple directing traffic to their VPN by default would be an unwise move on all levels. It would put them in a position to be able to scoop up data on users, regardless of intent. Not only would that be devastating for their reputation, it would actually harm user privacy. If a single company can directly capture almost every single packet flowing in and out of user devices, governments are bound to demand access to it without an option to refuse. Even in the most democratic countries, government agencies aren't known for their restraint when it comes to accessing user data. > For (2), why is this the case? Apple mostly just needs to delete content from the Keychain for deleted apps and throw a wrench into some APIs used for fingerprinting Wouldn't that break iCloud syncing? Besides, preventing turing complete programs from uniquely identifying users on real world devices is an unsolved problem for all I know. It's not as simple as disabling some APIs here and there.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zelon88 5y ago

The author gives Apple credit for solving a problem Apple created. Apple doesn't care about protecting you. They care about protecting their own advertising market share. They don't want to stop tracking your iPhone. They want competitors like Google to stop tracking your iPhone (for free). Apple wants to get paid for that. If Apple cared about you then tracking functionality would not exist.

gordon_freeman 5y ago
You didn't get it. Apple is not making any decisions on whether to allow apps to track or not. They are simply delegating that choice to their users (and rightly so). The user has power to chose which advertisers he or she can trust showing them the useful ads and allow those apps to track. If ads are not useful or are exploitative of their data then they can chose not to allow tracking. As simple as that.
- dialtone 5y ago
  Except Apple is putting its own ability to track you under a different opt-out (default opted-in) that isn't set when you first launch the iphone.
- zelon88 5y ago
  I believe it is you who has a misunderstanding. Let's word this differently. Apple gives apps the ability to track and users the option to disable that feature, but they built it with dark patterns. Now they've removed the dark patterns, but you can still have this awful feature that nobody wants. Why? And why is Apple getting credit for removing dark patterns that they created earlier? Why does this feature exist if 99.999% of people don't want it in the first place?
  - Fezzik 5y ago
    You seem to be implying that when Apple opened their App Store, just 13 years ago in 2008, that it was an intentional decision to allow “dark patterns,” but this really does not seem to be born out by Apple’s practices. After releasing a gigantic/global app store in 2008 Apple has done nothing but reduce and limit the ability of third parties to track iOS users, amongst other actions that are purely protective of users. Furthermore, I see some beneficence in their actions, in that it’s not like there is a huge public uproar directed at Apple compelling them to make these changes (though my hunch is it’s more about cutting away at FB and Google profits than anything else).

harry8 5y ago

https://mobile.twitter.com/antoniogm https://mobile.twitter.com/antoniogm That guy was just fired by apple after a staff revolt described as "woke" which made news. Separate to that, his alumn is facebook, specifically ads. Whatever spin they put on it he was literally hired to monetize for apple the private data they hold that belongs to you. There is zero contractual it enforceable commitment by Apple to prevent them from stealing and doing literally anything they like with your data for a reason. They will do it the instant it is worth the reputational hit for officially announcing their privacy marketing is knowingly dishonest. Which it is. If they had any value at all on your privacy it would have contractual protection. Cannot be sold, cannot be provided to a third party without being legal compelled, cannot be used by Apple. It's easy to do this and they have chosen not to. It would cost dramatically less than their "these things are private" ad campaign. Orders of magnitude less. It would get orders of magnitude more reach than their ad campaign. They don't have this in contact for a reason. That reason is bait and switch. Their advertising overtures to privacy are worth even less than Google's lack of them. Apple are utterly foul. The bar is so unbelievably low and apple, google, facebook, and all their ilk compete to get deeper below it and bash us harder. It's our fault. We didn't do... Like they commanded. See what we made then do? /Waves to apple zealots and gravy train riders.

Synaesthesia 5y ago

There's still a huge elephant in the room. How are we supposed to trust Apple, Microsoft or any other tech company when it emerged that they fully cooperated with the NSA and their PRISM program. We have to just assume that's still running. Businesses could keep a lot of secrets from us and they're not transparent or accountable to the public.

Judgmentality 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Of course they'd have to want to do this.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I feel despair because my government is supposed to be upholding my fundamental right to privacy but, clearly, the Fourth Amendment is something that can be selectively upheld or discarded. So what’s left? For me to hope that some company will respect my “rights”?
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >For me to hope that some company will respect my “rights”? Is that reasonable? If the government is your adversary and you suspect they aren't playing fair, then it's only a matter of time before the government puts the pressure on that company as well. Either they play ball, or they fold like Lavabit did. At that point you need to self host all your infrastructure as well as you can, and it becomes difficult to trust anyone else.
theshrike79 5y ago
A good stack of Apple's ecosystem is fully encrypted, so that Apple can't give anything to the authorities. For example: Apple Maps retrieves routes in segments, with changing identifiers. Apple can't figure out where you navigated to.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

landryraccoon 5y ago

I see a bunch of comments talking about how Apple is being self serving and not at all altruistic when they defend our privacy. And my response is - well duh. And this is supposed to be a problem how? Apple wants my money and nothing else. They aren't motivated to protect my privacy out of the goodness of their hearts. I am happy to pay money for more privacy. The fact that they only do this because they want my money isn't really the interesting question to me. The interesting question to me is, why is it that they are literally the ONLY large tech company that is willing to offer me this tradeoff? I'm willing to pay a premium of probably hundreds of dollars on a phone because I want privacy, and nobody else will even consider selling me one? How much is my data really worth to advertisers? Like, a hundred bucks a year? Ok sure, where do I pay to get ownership of my data back? Samsung, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft don't sell privacy, or if they do, they're sure doing a bang up job hiding it. None of them have any altruistic motives either, so I can only conclude that they either don't want my money or they're really bad at what they do? Is there really no other company that wants to get in on this privacy game? Because the people who really care about this are probably affluent and willing to pay a lot for it.

thefz 5y ago
Two major critiques: 1- Privacy should be the default, free as in beer, not a pay-per option 2- Apple is all willing to break its own encryption to cooperate with law enforcement. See the recent example https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/17/sci_hub_apple_fbi_claim/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/17/sci_hub_apple_fbi_cla...
r_singh 5y ago
I have a similar sentiment. But when apple introduced ads to the App Store, a part of me became quite sad. Like no amount of money would ever be enough...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gordon_freeman 5y ago
The only other company I could think of that is playing in this privacy game is: Signal. And well they are a nonprofit and they prove that privacy is not only made affordable for the rich and affluent and anyone can have private communication whether they donate to Signal or not.

slver 5y ago

While some worry that Apple's the only organization defending privacy, others are attacking it for trying to control its ecosystem (in part so it can defend their users' privacy). That's the world right now.

t-writescode 5y ago
For what it's worth, I'm one of the people that's doing both. I want the store monopolies to be greatly reduced for my benefit as the consumer - and yes, I will continue to acquire and purchase things through the app store, in general, because I trust their system a lot; BUT, I also applaud them and primarily purchase their hardware because I appreciate their privacy. It's possible to have nuance in these positions.
- slver 5y ago
  The mistake that many people do is requesting a systematic change, and then ignoring the systematic effects of it. Maybe in theory "more stores" sounds like "more good" to you as a consumer. But the large mass of consumers are not in a position to judge things like safety, performance, reliability, sustainability. They're only in position to judge things like "$3 is less than $4". So the systematic effect of multiple stores will be that everyone will flock to the cheapest stores, which won't have the means or motivation to do what Apple does. Many of those stores will also be offering pirated applications. So this will destroy many developers who will lose a lot more than 15% or 30% of their potential revenue to piracy, and it will also end up destroying Apple's own store. This is what "be careful what you wish for" means. Eating fast food every day is cheaper and tastes better than whole foods, for you as a consumer. By the time your body is destroyed, it'll be too late to have some important realizations.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    Except that we already know what that landscape looks like on Android and... it's fine. Everyone still uses the Play Store.

actuator 5y ago

This is not true. As I have submitted on HN earlier, Apple is using the purchases data to customise ads. https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT208477 https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT208477 You can make a case that the ad targeting is just on App Store, News and Stocks but that is just for now, Apple used to have an ad platform iAd which wasn't that successful, so it was discontinued. Once they milk other revenue streams and are more of a monopolistic power in other web properties(like Maps), I am quite sure ads will make a return. Bottom line is, at this point Apple is also building user profiles like Facebook. Edit: It seems like Ben has deleted his tweet. I will just update the link to Apple's support page and quote the relevant section. """We also use information about your account, purchases, and downloads in the stores to offer advertising to ensure that ads on the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks, where available, are relevant to you."""

nemothekid 5y ago
I can't seem to open the Tweet you provided, nor could I find the relevant tweet on the timeline. Can you fix your post?
- actuator 5y ago
  Thanks for the heads up, just added Apple's support page link.
Gaelan 5y ago
That tweet's been deleted, so it's hard to judge it exactly, but my recollection is that someone else pointed out "payment data" here is just App Store, iTunes, etc purchases. "Apple targets ads on the app store based on previous app store purchases" is, IMO, much less of a privacy invasion than "Facebook targets ads based on your friends list, messages, browsing history, real-life purchases, and other things I can't think of off the top of my head". Apple's profile of me, I imagine, is much less detailed than Facebook's, despite Apple's capability to build just as much of one (after all, they own iMessage and my iCloud contacts) if they wanted to.
- 5y ago

harry8 5y ago

The privacy debacle on tech is yet another case of anyone in pistons of power making decisions about technology knowing absolutely nothing about it. The big consulting firms have monetized this. Silicon valley ad-tech too. I keep hoping it can't last.

gordon_freeman 5y ago

A lot of folks are aligning Apple's motive to somehow gain advantage in ads business as if they'd able to compete with Google, Amazon or Facebook someday in ads biz. I don't think that is their real motive. I believe Apple's real motive with all these privacy centric features such as ATT, Sign in with Apple, Apple card data not being tracked for targeting etc. is to create a privacy centric moat and platform/ecosystem that is simply missing from the market right now and they know that they have real advantages of keeping people in their ecosystem with this moat. I'm actually happy that they are doing this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tboughen 5y ago
I think you’re right about the privacy moat. But I think it flows from a focus on improved user experience. Ads are terrible for user experience because they slow your browsing, block content from your app, take up space in your start menu and are a malware vector. Once ads are off the table, what else can Apple do?
- grenoire 5y ago
  God I wish the ads were actually off the table, don't even want much else so as long as I get to keep TLS too.

quanto 5y ago

If Apple offers real privacy now, that's good for them and the consumers who are willing to pay premium for privacy. Two questions: 1. Is there a way to verify that Apple is not using or selling the user's data? 2. What is preventing Apple, after gathering all the users data, from changing its EULA/ToS and starting to sell the user data? Is an average user going to export all the data from Apple and jump to another platform (if there is one offering better privacy)?

SilverRed 5y ago
Nothing. So your options are to pick a company that openly tracks you and is funded on tracking. Or a company that tells you it doesn't track you, bases a huge amount of their marketing on that promise and is funded by selling you expensive devices. One option is clearly better from a privacy perspective even if you have no control over what Apple does.

delhanty 5y ago

Apple also has a question mark attached to its commitment to privacy in China. Even though the Twitter thread below is by a NYT reporter, it sounds directionally credible given how embedded Apple is in China, both from a manufacturing point of view and also as a growing market. 2021-MAY-18 "NEW: Apple is jeopardizing its Chinese users’ data and augmenting the Chinese government’s censorship to placate authorities and keep its business running. Here is our multiyear investigation into Apple's Faustian bargain in China: ..." https://twitter.com/jacknicas/status/1394378309325230080 https://twitter.com/jacknicas/status/1394378309325230080

swiley 5y ago
They have a big question mark attached to it anywhere. Who do you know doesn't back up their device to Apple?
isodev 5y ago
It is unfortunate, but I think that's partially what the article also implies - it can't be up to a single company to fight the good fight. Also, Apple needs to comply with local legislation to be able to provide services in other countries. China also happens to be the country source for most of Apple's supply chain - it's not exactly viable to start fighting the local authorities. Imagine if other big companies with impact in China (like Epic?) choose to align and apply pressure in the name of user privacy (instead of wasting time and money on pointless litigation)... then perhaps, it will be much harder for a local government to get its way.
- sneak 5y ago
  Google doesn't provide services in China, because to do so they'd have to censor for the CCP, like Apple does.

harlanji 5y ago

Scrub forward until you see a yellow note pad. https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1032025987 https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1032025987 The source to complete it is on my GitHub. My IG of same handle has progress pics, recently marketing and sales. I’m sure there are many more similar projects out there, unsure if like I they are angling for physical communities and local taxes. TDC and iSL have initial docs, and the CarPuter machine is like $750 of parts. I have many app designs up the stack. Captured as video or drawings or in slices as prototypes. City Apper. IG, .com... still turning the lights on. I picture each community having one, like a community center. B corp. If others run with the idea then great. I have some unique work constraints on the .com mockup modeled after a successful real life organization and my own experience bootstrapping and being close to it. I’m my own customer for a few years, now homeless it runs at 4-9W even Twitch streaming screen cap, web cam, and using headset audio. Ie. we can DIY and reasonably commercialize 1-off hardware. My favorite tacos seem more expensive than chain tacos, but are way more nutrient rich thus worth the cost. Decentralized. In line with Internet OG. RSS friendly, merchant integration, XMPP, EmailInABox, iCal, LUKS, GPS, USB 3, LTE modem, CDN caching, ....

thejackgoode 5y ago

I am somehow seeing this as a good/evil cycle -- Google and Amazon, even Facebook at times used to be the good guys. Now Apple and Microsoft are getting higher on the horse. It may revert eventually, I assume "don't be evil" is counter-incentivised by many things. But now the most interesting thing to me is if FB/Google really are pushed by this privacy narrative to change their business model.

nxpnsv 5y ago

Tech has a long tail - if you generalize from the big players track record things may look grim, but that is ignoring the rest of the field. That is to say, no - it is not only Apple who defends our privacy - and yes you should dig deeper when thinking about these things.

littlestymaar 5y ago

Reminder: while it's true that Apple protects your privacy in the context of third party app data collection on your devices, it doesn't make it an “organization defending our privacy either”. They collect tons of data about you, and share them with third parties as they wish and their privacy policy is pretty explicit about it: > Personal Data Apple Collects from You > Usage Data. Data about your activity on and use of our offerings, such as app launches within our services, including browsing history; search history; product interaction; crash data, performance and other diagnostic data; and other usage data > Location Information. Precise location only to support Find My, and coarse location > Health Information. Data relating to the health status of an individual, including data related to one’s physical or mental health or condition. Personal health data also includes data that can be used to make inferences about or detect the health status of an individual. If you participate in a study using an Apple Health Research Study app, the policy governing the privacy of your personal data is described in the Apple Health Study Apps Privacy Policy. > Fitness Information. Details relating to your fitness and exercise information where you choose to share them Financial Information. Details including salary, income, and assets information where collected, and information related to > Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data > Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes. > Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data. source: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/

0xPIT 5y ago

I truly wonder why people still believe they have any privacy, any right to privacy, or, that they could do anything about it. Sun Microsystems‘ Scott McNealy was vocal about this already in the late 1990s: „you have no privacy, get over it“ Look, even if you were able to get FAANG et al. to honor privacy, there will always be the one player that does not. Then, the people who write privacy laws have no clue what they are doing. Plus, I’ve seen software professionals copy/pasting encryption algorithms that contain errors from stackoverflow into production code. It’s time to face reality, this ship has sailed, stop whining, finally start adapting to an environment without privacy: Treat all your data as if they would become public one day. Use your energy to teach others to be tech literate to understand what this means, how to deal with this and how to behave.

TheManInThePub 5y ago
> I truly wonder why people still believe they have any privacy, any right to privacy, or, that they could do anything about it. The GDPR (very good legislation forming one of our rights to privacy), and a host of UK/Europe national Data Protection Acts preceding it would take issue with this statement.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Its enforcement is severely lacking though, to the point where you wonder if the parties supposed to enforce it are actually benefiting from the status-quo.

gampleman 5y ago

I'm surprised to not see too much discussion about GDPR here. But the question I have is under what legal basis do companies use the tracking identifiers? Surely the only legal basis available to them is consent? So Apple has kindly made the consent collection infrastructure part of iOS (and therefore standardised and therefore user friendly). So are the complaints about Apple forcing them to obey the law? That seems pretty strange to me.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
I just don't think that there are that many Europeans on HN percentage wise.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I think there's a lot of people on HN that profit from breaching the GDPR, so it's unlikely to have a good reputation here
Nextgrid 5y ago
The whole ATT thing merely forces companies to do what they were supposed to do 3 years ago when the GDPR came into effect, and maybe even earlier if you consider the ePrivacy Directive ("Cookie law"). The regulators should use any company's complaints about the change as evidence of past GDPR breaches, but then again the reason ATT was required and companies complain is that the regulators are so incompetent that the regulation is routinely broken in total impunity even 3 years down the line.