3 ms·

It does not appear that Tom's Guide has the right take on what Douglas Leith actually said. https://www.techradar.com/news/google-is-taking-far-more-data-from-

by Bud 5y ago

It does not appear that Tom's Guide has the right take on what Douglas Leith actually said. https://www.techradar.com/news/google-is-taking-far-more-data-from-your-android-devices-than-you-may-think https://www.techradar.com/news/google-is-taking-far-more-dat...

shkkmo 5y ago
The article you linked to seems to do a worse job of summarizing the paper than Tom's Guide. Do you have specific concerns about the characterization of the paper?
wutbrodo 5y ago
Could you clarify what you mean? I don't see anything in this article contradicting what the Tom's Guide article says.
epwr 5y ago
And what exactly is the difference? The framing? None of the facts in the two articles seem to contradict each other.
pixelgeek 5y ago
I believe that what they are trying to say is the the articles are the same but Tom's Guide has used the Apple-bait headline to try to get more clicks.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > but Tom's Guide has used the Apple-bait headline to try to get more clicks. As opposed to the Google-bait headline in the article above from Tech Radar? Apple has spent millions of dollars running "Privacy. That's iPhone." campaigns on every platform out there. Given that the facts contradict Apple's privacy-bait campaigns, the title seems apt to me.
  - pixelgeek 5y ago
    Yes but when you write an article with that headline it does seem odd for most of the article to be about how much data Google hovers in, no? The permalink for the article is far more innocuous. 'https://www.tomsguide.com/news/android-ios-data-collection https://www.tomsguide.com/news/android-ios-data-collection' Using headline like that to drive traffic is as old as John C Dvorak. Who is a hack but I remember his name well enough to know his middle initial so clearly this tactic works :-)
  - IX-103 5y ago
    To be fair, Apple has improved it's privacy story (at least with regards to noon-Apple entities. They stopped giving every app on your phone the same ID for targeting/tracking (Android may follow, eventually). This pissed off Facebook since they can't use your account for targeting in your other apps. Safari has also led the way (at least as far as mainstream browsers are concerned) with ITP. It even has some ML-based bounce tracking protection. I haven't done any practical tests of that, but it should be a lot better than the disconnect.me lists used by other browsers -- when I compared the domains I got redirected through during normal browsing with the disconnect.me list, only 10% were even present (none of the 100+ "3 random word" domains were listed).
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Apple's privacy is one of give and take. You give a little extra to Apple, both in money and privacy, and you get less tracking from everyone else. This is a positive risk model shift for many users, while others want less "give" (which will require less "take", as in, you will likely end up with a less 'convenience-focused' product).
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The tech radar article convienently leaves out the details that show Apple in a bad light and redirects all of the attention to Google. So while both articles have biased titles, at least Tom's Guide provides a more accurate article.

by Bud 5y ago

shkkmo 5y ago

The article you linked to seems to do a worse job of summarizing the paper than Tom's Guide. Do you have specific concerns about the characterization of the paper?

wutbrodo 5y ago

Could you clarify what you mean? I don't see anything in this article contradicting what the Tom's Guide article says.

epwr 5y ago

And what exactly is the difference? The framing? None of the facts in the two articles seem to contradict each other.

pixelgeek 5y ago

I believe that what they are trying to say is the the articles are the same but Tom's Guide has used the Apple-bait headline to try to get more clicks.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> but Tom's Guide has used the Apple-bait headline to try to get more clicks. As opposed to the Google-bait headline in the article above from Tech Radar? Apple has spent millions of dollars running "Privacy. That's iPhone." campaigns on every platform out there. Given that the facts contradict Apple's privacy-bait campaigns, the title seems apt to me.
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  Yes but when you write an article with that headline it does seem odd for most of the article to be about how much data Google hovers in, no? The permalink for the article is far more innocuous. 'https://www.tomsguide.com/news/android-ios-data-collection https://www.tomsguide.com/news/android-ios-data-collection' Using headline like that to drive traffic is as old as John C Dvorak. Who is a hack but I remember his name well enough to know his middle initial so clearly this tactic works :-)
- IX-103 5y ago
  To be fair, Apple has improved it's privacy story (at least with regards to noon-Apple entities. They stopped giving every app on your phone the same ID for targeting/tracking (Android may follow, eventually). This pissed off Facebook since they can't use your account for targeting in your other apps. Safari has also led the way (at least as far as mainstream browsers are concerned) with ITP. It even has some ML-based bounce tracking protection. I haven't done any practical tests of that, but it should be a lot better than the disconnect.me lists used by other browsers -- when I compared the domains I got redirected through during normal browsing with the disconnect.me list, only 10% were even present (none of the 100+ "3 random word" domains were listed).
- judge2020 5y ago
  Apple's privacy is one of give and take. You give a little extra to Apple, both in money and privacy, and you get less tracking from everyone else. This is a positive risk model shift for many users, while others want less "give" (which will require less "take", as in, you will likely end up with a less 'convenience-focused' product).
shkkmo 5y ago
The tech radar article convienently leaves out the details that show Apple in a bad light and redirects all of the attention to Google. So while both articles have biased titles, at least Tom's Guide provides a more accurate article.