9 ms·
It's a good article in many respects, but its logic unwittingly falls down when they try to have it both ways, advocating for an outcome that is functionally im
by simondotau 4y ago
It's a good article in many respects, but its logic unwittingly falls down when they try to have it both ways, advocating for an outcome that is functionally impossible. From the article—
"It’s great when Apple chooses to defend your privacy. Indeed, you should demand nothing less. But if Apple chooses not to defend your privacy, you should have the right to override the company’s choice. Facebook spied on iOS users for more than a decade before App Tracking Transparency, after all."
The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code. It's not an API or operating system feature which shields users against tracking. Enforcement is purely the threat of retribution by Apple, made legal by the terms of the agreement which all developers sign. Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution means that a wilful breach of Apple's privacy policies is a dangerous path for any developer to take.
I cannot see any plausible scenario where an Apple made impotent through legislation could possibly result in a net gain of privacy control for consumers. And even if there is a better way, how about we get that working BEFORE tearing down the current imperfect system?
That paragraph is a layer cake of wishful thinking. How does the EFF propose to enforce a consumer right to override Apple's choices over privacy within iOS? This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, eliding reality on so many levels. The notion of consumers self-policing their own privacy is a nice sentiment, but as an idea that must be implemented in reality... rather optimistic.
- Jcowell 4y agoExactly. The US needs strong, sensible, strict privacy laws before they pass legislation that would be detrimental to millions of Apple consumers who bought the iPhone for Apple’s monopoly.
- corrral 4y agoYep. Buying iDevices is the libertarian dream of buying into private regulatory environments. I hate it, but it's the best we have until/unless government improves our terribly weak consumer protection & privacy laws. I really hope the option's not taken away, nor Apple's position as a regulator significantly weakened, until/unless government steps in and solves the problems Apple's currently solving. At that point, sure, break them up, ban app store platform monopolies, whatever, fine, go for it. But please not yet.
- smoldesu 4y ago> Buying iDevices is the libertarian dream of buying into private regulatory environments. I bet Libertarians would love to hear that, but even they probably wouldn't put their money into a company that has time-and-time-again been proven to be in the Governments pocket via PRISM, iCloud data requests and Greykey Bruteforcing. Sounds like a libertarian nightmare to me: you give your data to a private company, but they immediately betray you and share that information with the government. ...that of course doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't be regulated into the ground. It does imply that they won't be regulated though, as long as egregious data collection continues to appease our private and national interests.
- bigfudge 4y agoThe GP didn't claim this was a perfect or even good solution though: just the best currently available. That your vendor will sell you out to law enforcement/intelligence agencies is a given for ALL large tech companies. None has a clean record in this regard. I also wouldn't be super confident that an EFF approved stack would actually keep you safe from a nation state interested in your stuff. What you _can_ buy from apple though is i) services where your data are not monetised to the highest bidder and ii) being part of a non-ad-supported culture which seems like a prerequisite for a functioning public discourse and political economy.
- woojoo666 4y agoA libertarian dream would have free markets, and the article above shows that whatever market that Apple operates in is nothing like a free market
- stjohnswarts 4y agoIt still is a free market, you can buy an android if you don't want apple's privacy "guarantees"
- seoaeu 4y ago“The USSR is a free market, you can just move to America if you want to buy something that isn’t for sale there”
- swagasaurus-rex 4y ago> The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code Wait - why not? Apple controls iOS, they control the sandbox apps run in. Of all protections, app tracking seems like they aren't really fixing the problem by using monopoly power and threatening to pull apps.
- whimsicalism 4y agoIt is pretty difficult to ensure that tracking IDs are not passed between apps with a sandbox. The legal enforcement is a much bigger deal on these things.
- kec 4y agoHow do you keep an application from taking an entitlement it shouldn't have (such as location or bluetooth access for fingerprinting) via code? Sandboxes can be enforced via entitlement checks in code, but the act of holding an entitlement is policy.
- hermitdev 4y agoSurely the entitlements are enforced via code on iOS, right? It cannot be on the honor system.
- kec 4y agoUsing the entitlements are enforced at runtime yes, but granting them in the first place is enforced at app review time. If an app asserts an entitlement the developer can't justify it will fail review.
- sitharus 4y agoThe usual way - entitlements are held in a kernel data structure, and the kernel and associated system services won't allow access to APIs when the entitlement isn't there. Try it on iOS, if you don't have the right entitlements system API calls will fail.
- deleted 4y ago
- skohan 4y agoYou're basically describing GDPR right? By having state regulations, there's an agreed upon standard which is not up to the discretion of any one corporation, but rather subject to the democratic process.
- simondotau 4y agoApple has implemented policy at scale, with a threat of enforcement which has been effective against the largest companies. On the other hand, the GDPR gives end users the privilege to engage in a legal fight with a multi-billion dollar app developer, assuming that they can even prove the existence of such tracking in the first place.
- skohan 4y agoI work in Europe and can assure you people take GDPR very seriously.
- simondotau 4y agoI'm sure they're all very animated about any instances of tracking that they're aware of.
- skohan 4y agoNo I am saying from the inside of a tech company, it's taken very seriously, audits are strict, and non-compliance comes with a very harsh punishment which can kill companies
- Nextgrid 4y agoNowhere near seriously enough, considering Facebook is bitching about Apple forcing them to do what the GDPR already required them to do anyway (so they're basically admitting they would like to breach it if it wasn't for Apple getting in the way).
- dillondoyle 4y agoBesides laws regulating tracking (good or bad). There could still be a net benefit while also increasing choice and competition. By allowing 3p app stores. each app store competitor could create their own privacy policies, quality requirements, or maybe manual curation. whatever differentiation. Apple would still surely capture a large % of average consumers whose privacy would be protected. But those who care could seek out and customize their experience and chose a different privacy policy.
- simondotau 4y agoYou're being optimistic. The realistic scenario is that stores could compete on price. (Even though they would still be required—per Apple's developer agreement and the recent court ruling—to withhold a percentage of each purchase/IAP as a license fee for use of Apple's intellectual property.) The only thing other than price is the opportunity to attract less scrupulous developers in a race to the bottom with respect to policy enforcement.
- initplus 4y agoThe immediate result of this is that publishers who don't want to play by Apple's privacy laws will only host their apps on alternative app stores. Want Facebook on your iphone? It'll only be available on the app store that has less strict privacy protections. It's not seeking out and customizing my experience if the only choice is "have my privacy violated, or don't use the service. That's the experience that already exists on platforms with less strict privacy protections.
- simondotau 4y agoAnd this isn't going to be like alt stores on Android today. If the requirement for alternative stores is enshrined by laws written by Apple's competitors, you'd better believe it's going to be a lot more seamless than that. If this dystopia of Government control over my phone comes to pass, I personally predict that we'll see companies like Google, Meta and Adobe run company stores as the exclusive way to load their apps.
- onphonenow 4y agoWe ALREADY know how EFF / the govt protects privacy outside of Apple - they don't period. You are scammed and ripped off everywhere online with no consequence. Ironically, it's because Apple have kept EFF / Govt OUT and enforced their own rules in this walled garden that we all are rushing into it. We wouldn't need to if EFF / govt / developers did a fairer job outside of Appleworld.
- cgrealy 4y agoWhy do you keep writing "EFF / govt" as if they are somehow equivalent or related? The EFF are a non-profit that has nothing to do with the US or any other government. They have no power to do a "fairer job", they're an advocacy group, not a regulator. That's like complaining that Greenpeace haven't set decent climate change policy.
- onphonenow 4y agoBecause the EFF reliably argues that what apple is doing is "bad" and we should open things up so default (govt) laws apply instead of the apple walled garden rules. What has happened is apple has taken on things that EFF / govt have failed to succeed at in the broader internet / app / tech space. They are leveraging their market power to demand concessions that users would NEVER get negotiating individually, and that govt has completely ignored in the online marketplace world. These are things as simple as crystal clear trial terms where ongoing monthly cost is in EXACT same font as promo rates and much more. Why isn't that the rule everywhere? Even if it was the rule, where is the enforcement? We see overseas call center scammers ripping off folks blatantly day and night - crickets. So the moralizing from these folks who seem to do nothing to solve real programs is tiresome. The market is speaking, and it's away from trust in govt and eff and into trust in Apple with correspondingly insane profit margins to apple as trust is substituted. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I'd like to see a LOT more done by govt against MANY MANY pure online scams and bad behavior. Instead, EFF and the govt are fixated on folks like apple that frankly are showing the EFF up horribly by creating spaces online that users like. And yes, that includes the CSAM content stuff that EFF freaked out about. Average users will WANT these controls for their kids etc.
- neura 4y agoThis! SO much, this! This is precisely how I feel about the situation. The EFF article doesn't seem to provide a solution that keeps the privacy control still in favor of the user while breaking down Apple's monopoly of an app store. Until there's a proposal that includes incentive for companies to protect their customer's privacy (as you pointed out, this is not something you can just control with code, this is something the company has to actively pursue and enforce) while enforcing the freedom of choice and inability for Apple to force high commissions to make apps available or sell anything, really... then what we have is still going to serve a large part of the market in a net positive way.