You're really putting a lot of faith in Google there. People should watch the House Antitrust Tech hearing that happened recently with the Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook CEOs. I'll put it this way: Apple came off the best while Google came across FAR worse than anyone, to an extent it made the CEO look like a massive liar and the company itself a bad actor to be avoided.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms Commitment to App Tracking Transparency in Letter Condemning Facebook's Data Collection [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t think this is the same thing. But even if it was, iOS is still going to give you the option to allow tracking if you want to. I would expect your banking apps to notify you if this permission is needed, and they’ll have the ability to explain why they need the permission in the dialog box that opens.
There should be no reason for cross-site tracking at all. If they are utilizing that, it's for some other reason than processing a bill payment, I promise you that.
I might, since I like companies selling me stuff to understand, what I am into.
Why is it worded "Ask App Not to Track"?
It should (if the question is needed at all) say "Refuse Any Attempt by App to Track". A very definite, positive statement. Not a "Please would you mind not tracking me to death".
Yeah the wording makes it sound like that option is doing absolutely nothing.
That’s because essentially it is. The site or app doesn’t need to offer the do not track option. It’s essentially only used by the good guys and therefore almost pointless. Moreover, some privacy advocates actually recommend disabling the feature as it potentially sends unnecessary fingerprinting information.
Do Not Track - Wikipedia
I don't like the wording... 'Ask App Not to Track'
Does that mean the app can ignore your request? It seems to me that this wording means its up to the app to decide. I would of preferred soemthing 'Deny app to track'.
Does that mean the app can ignore your request? It seems to me that this wording means its up to the app to decide. I would of preferred soemthing 'Deny app to track'.
Awesome. So this is doing nothing other than telling us what we all already know. Apple needs to build cross-trackingThat’s because essentially it is. The site or app doesn’t need to offer the do not track option. It’s essentially only used by the good guys and therefore almost pointless. Moreover, some privacy advocates actually recommend disabling the feature as it potentially sends unnecessary fingerprinting information.
Do Not Track - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
blocking options right into the OS. iOS needs a customized firewall option as well. It's pretty stupid that we still can't block apps from using WiFi ... only cellular. For as much as Apple touts privacy, they sure aren't giving us very many privacy options.
Yes. It’s pointless.
Actually Apple were one of the first to implement it, and then the first to suggest scraping it when it wasn’t widely useful. Apple safari is actually pretty privacy friendly.
It’s takes a lot of cues from tor, as in, everyone appears the same when surfing the web. It’s useful against fingerprinting which is a key metric in online tracking. The premise is if everyone looks the same then no one can distinguish you. Obviously it’s nothing like the security, anonymity or privacy of tor - but it’s not a bad effort for such a mainstream generally non privacy focused browser.
Last edited:
Unobtrusive ads are fine, the tracking isnt. Although Facebook are another thing, those ***** are tracking you to get paid for any motive, no matter how bad the outcome.
I heard Joe Ressington on a Linux podcast put it best - just match the ads to the page, that’s about as accurate as it needs to be. If I’m on an Apple website, show me various Apple accessory ads. If I’m on a cat website show me cat toys.
**** ‘em.
I heard Joe Ressington on a Linux podcast put it best - just match the ads to the page, that’s about as accurate as it needs to be. If I’m on an Apple website, show me various Apple accessory ads. If I’m on a cat website show me cat toys.
**** ‘em.
But the reaction of these leech-like companies sure makes it seem like it will make a difference, for our privacy and against their power to track our online activity.
Now maybe it's all one big kabuki-*ss good-cop-bad-cop ruse, but Apple is the only major company that has made any effort to enhance user privacy, so I'm quite happy to stick with them on this until further notice.
But not when they appear exactly where you would click were the advert not there. That is, a direct attempt to make you visit their site by deceit.
All of this privacy awareness stuff, even being taken to court, has done absolutely nothing to curb their evil practices. They get fined hilariously tiny amounts that do nothing to them and business goes on as usual. If they were fined 400-500 billion dollars or something when they do this each time it would stop immediately. Because they'd go bankrupt. There's no threat whatsoever. They get slaps on the wrist and that's it. They don't care.
Lol no kidding.
apple acting as a savior with point a finger at Facebook but accepting $10B from Google on the other hand so they can grow their ad revenue and avoid a “worst case scenario”
My life is wonderful because I never signed up, never used their apps, pretty much never visit any of their sites.
Absolutely.
That, and that alone, gets you 85% of the way to well-targeted ads, and the unobjectionable revenue that these generate, with no, zero, NONE invasive tracking.
It's that last 15%, allowing advertisers to push you a Gram-tastic getaway to Haiti that their data shows you dream of (or searched on) while you read articles on artichoke-based home remedies... that's the basis on which these empires of invasiveness justify building fearsome, unauthorized, unconstrained profiles based on every activity, online or off, that they can possibly scrape. All pretended to be legitimate with the laughably unconvincing assertion of "Wull, who doesn't want ads that are targeted to those things that you're interested in?" (*me, raising my hand, not giving an ats rass if I never again seen another ad targeted towards me and my online activity).
I've been Facebook-free for the past seven months, among my most enjoyable, productive months ever.
They're overreaching, and their never-very-convincing facade of beneficence is crumbling.
Those ****ing ghouls.
And Facebook and Twitter especially, if users decide to seek out another, similar no-cost social networking alternative, at some point in the future, could easily burn to the ground almost overnight as the network effect that giveth similarly taketh away. And I'll just be there, hoping to get a nice golden toast on my marshmallows. 🔥