Thank you, Apple. Truly. We need someone standing up for our privacy.
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 Responds to Safari 11 Criticism From Advertising Groups: 'People Have a Right to Privacy'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I applaud Apple for tacking this industry head on and putting privacy over convenience. If certain Apple features will never be as good as the competition because of their emphasis on privacy I’m OK with that. At least we as consumers get a choice in the matter.
On a related note the Equifax data breach has really appalled me and so has the nonchalant response from most of my non-technical friends and family members.
There needs to be some kind of privacy bill of rights that strictly regulates what kind of personal data organizations are allowed to collect, store and/or sell with ones consent and what kind of personal data organizations are allowed to collect, store and/or sell without ones consent along with massive penalties for organizations negligent with the most sensitive kind of data.
Consumers should able to decide which organizations they will allow to collect data that would be an identity thief’s wet dream if it were to be compromised in a hack and which organizations they will not allow.
In the Information Age our personal information has a ton of value to both legitimate organizations and to criminals if that data is compromised and as such each individual consumer should be in the drivers seat.
On a related note the Equifax data breach has really appalled me and so has the nonchalant response from most of my non-technical friends and family members.
There needs to be some kind of privacy bill of rights that strictly regulates what kind of personal data organizations are allowed to collect, store and/or sell with ones consent and what kind of personal data organizations are allowed to collect, store and/or sell without ones consent along with massive penalties for organizations negligent with the most sensitive kind of data.
Consumers should able to decide which organizations they will allow to collect data that would be an identity thief’s wet dream if it were to be compromised in a hack and which organizations they will not allow.
In the Information Age our personal information has a ton of value to both legitimate organizations and to criminals if that data is compromised and as such each individual consumer should be in the drivers seat.
"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice
That is truly hilarious - the consumer can always choose to be tracked - Apple is making it selectable. The lack of choice is when you cannot "Opt Out". So if they truly believed in "choice", they would actually be backing this feature.
That is truly hilarious - the consumer can always choose to be tracked - Apple is making it selectable. The lack of choice is when you cannot "Opt Out". So if they truly believed in "choice", they would actually be backing this feature.
Bravo Apple! And a big middle finger to the advertising lobby and their King Google.
so leave already
I got my new 6S today and reinstalled my apps. Hate that google made gmail require cookies and just deleted the app. the stock Mail app will work just fine.
Ah, the myth of the "Useful Ad." We tolerate ads and appreciate some of the services that are supported by them. But, targeted ads are not useful. In fact, they are often the most annoying ads as they typically show me things that I already bought. I have never, even once, been tempted to buy something due to a targeted ad. Not all ad agencies are slimy, but a lot of them are, and the ones who track in this fashion without permission certainly are. I'll happily watch those companies, and the services that use them, die.
In any showdown between Apple and big surveillance I will back Apple 100%.
[doublepost=1505585444][/doublepost]
I wish Apple would upgrade its stock apps to be a bit more modern, interactive, predictive, like a good assistant should be. Everybody focuses on Siri and it’s AI features, but Apple is failing to leverage this technology for its most basic factory installed apps.
[doublepost=1505585444][/doublepost]
I wish Apple would upgrade its stock apps to be a bit more modern, interactive, predictive, like a good assistant should be. Everybody focuses on Siri and it’s AI features, but Apple is failing to leverage this technology for its most basic factory installed apps.
Good job Apple. I am sick of advertisers. So sick of them. They need to be knocked down a peg
They won't die. In fact, their Primus Leader, Google, will eventually surpass Apple in sheer market value, power, influence, and mega-corporation strength. Just a matter of time.
Well done, Apple. We have enough unwarranted intrusions into our lives in the guise of being helpful when it's all about greed and self-interest, both digitally and non-digitally.
Absolutely wonderful news from Apple. They took the high ground in the battle against Internet snakes and thieves.
I'm looking forward to picking up my iPhone 8+ next weekend.
I'm looking forward to picking up my iPhone 8+ next weekend.
Unfortunately that is true. In the end cheap crap wins. The race to the bottom is not won on the high road.
There's a huge difference between being shown advertising and being tracked constantly.
[doublepost=1505594271][/doublepost]
I'm sure everyone else on that bus is very glad they're blocking your Netflix access. Stream it through LTE data and pay for it yourself instead of making everyone else suffer.yep - but aunt Betty has no idea about VPNs. People can also just install a few extensions on any modern browser and would do exactly the same thing as this and you not stuck with Safari.
But people keep living in a fantasy that these little tokens (that are nothing but PR stunts) are keeping them private. That same tech that blocks Netflix on my NY to Boston GoBus trip keeps track of what else I'm doing on the Bus network. They always find a way - we are walking money
Yeah, it is almost as if marketers would outright lie to you to when money is involved.
Has any noticed that the granularity on tracking seems to be getting worse in Safari over time?
I recall Safari up through the Leopard/Snow Leopard era would reveal every element placed on my machines by every site I ever went to, and it also revealed each file by name. It was easy to sort by type, and then select all the Google "_ut" files for example, and delete them, while keeping the "good" cookies, like those used for forum sign-in.
A few years ago, Apple took that away from us, and we've been restricted to viewing those types with much less info. I can see cookies, cache, and "local storage", and I think that is about it. Even so, we've still been able to select between allowing no cookies, cookies from the current site, cookies from sites I visit, or all cookies. The latest Safari only allows me to enable cookies or not enable them. No granularity whatsoever. Will it be this way once we're on the release version of High Sierra?
On a side note - when I finished my install I did my usual round of examining all my privacy settings to see what Apple helpfully changed. When I went to Safari I clicked the Manage Website Data button to see how long the window took to populate. It came up instantly, but instead of all the saved cookies and cache from my recent week's browsing, it had only three cookies: Apple, Yahoo, and Instagram.
An Apple cookie, I can see that. Its my startup page in Safari. But Yahoo? I have an email account there but I never use their webmail, search, or portal for anything. And Instagram? I don't go to that site. After the first few times clicking on people's Instagram links out of curiosity, and seeing a sea of unrelated images with no supporting text or other context, I gave up on that site. So why, after an OS install, would there be a cookie on my machine for a site I never go to, while all my other regularly used sites were gone?
I just think there is something bizarre about Apple proposing to rescue us from cross-tracking cookies, while taking away our ability to examine and delete cookies and other trackers individually. I'd think they'd want to go down the other road, and allow us to block by type, for example.
[doublepost=1505595374][/doublepost]
Well put.
I am the first person here to criticize government and also the last one to ask for government action. However, I think it is within the purview of the original intent of the federal government - specifically its obligation to prevent fraud, protect private property, and offer redress to persons injured in those areas - to offer us protection from these companies.
I particularly want to call for an action that requires corporations to delete information on people who want no part of the services such companies provide willing customers. I speak of companies like Facebook, Google, and LinkedIn who compile shadow profiles of people who are tangentially related to their willing customers. I had a fairly hairy battle with LinkedIn as I tried to get them to delete my personal information, which they gleaned by convincing their customers to upload contact lists. Facebook and Google both do this as well, and I find it creepy and offensive that they have my name, email address, and telephone numbers, and in some cases my physical address as well, just because my friends clicked "yes" to upload their contact lists. Social sites, to me, are the bathroom stall wall of the internet.
I know the "Do Not Call" list has turned out to be mostly a joke, but since telephone solicitation firms were shady to begin with, what was expected? By contrast, the major internet players have largely positive reputations with the general public, and have mind share they would lose if they fought the feds to keep information they gathered on people who want nothing to do with them.
How hard would it be to have a section on the big social sites where one could go to enter an email address and request that one's information be deleted? A simple return email with "click here to verify" would be all you need to complete the process. To protect active customers from prank-deletes, it would only work for people who don't have social accounts. Likewise, you could have an 800 number specifically for calling to have your phone number deleted.
I recall Safari up through the Leopard/Snow Leopard era would reveal every element placed on my machines by every site I ever went to, and it also revealed each file by name. It was easy to sort by type, and then select all the Google "_ut" files for example, and delete them, while keeping the "good" cookies, like those used for forum sign-in.
A few years ago, Apple took that away from us, and we've been restricted to viewing those types with much less info. I can see cookies, cache, and "local storage", and I think that is about it. Even so, we've still been able to select between allowing no cookies, cookies from the current site, cookies from sites I visit, or all cookies. The latest Safari only allows me to enable cookies or not enable them. No granularity whatsoever. Will it be this way once we're on the release version of High Sierra?
On a side note - when I finished my install I did my usual round of examining all my privacy settings to see what Apple helpfully changed. When I went to Safari I clicked the Manage Website Data button to see how long the window took to populate. It came up instantly, but instead of all the saved cookies and cache from my recent week's browsing, it had only three cookies: Apple, Yahoo, and Instagram.
An Apple cookie, I can see that. Its my startup page in Safari. But Yahoo? I have an email account there but I never use their webmail, search, or portal for anything. And Instagram? I don't go to that site. After the first few times clicking on people's Instagram links out of curiosity, and seeing a sea of unrelated images with no supporting text or other context, I gave up on that site. So why, after an OS install, would there be a cookie on my machine for a site I never go to, while all my other regularly used sites were gone?
I just think there is something bizarre about Apple proposing to rescue us from cross-tracking cookies, while taking away our ability to examine and delete cookies and other trackers individually. I'd think they'd want to go down the other road, and allow us to block by type, for example.
[doublepost=1505595374][/doublepost]
Well put.
I am the first person here to criticize government and also the last one to ask for government action. However, I think it is within the purview of the original intent of the federal government - specifically its obligation to prevent fraud, protect private property, and offer redress to persons injured in those areas - to offer us protection from these companies.
I particularly want to call for an action that requires corporations to delete information on people who want no part of the services such companies provide willing customers. I speak of companies like Facebook, Google, and LinkedIn who compile shadow profiles of people who are tangentially related to their willing customers. I had a fairly hairy battle with LinkedIn as I tried to get them to delete my personal information, which they gleaned by convincing their customers to upload contact lists. Facebook and Google both do this as well, and I find it creepy and offensive that they have my name, email address, and telephone numbers, and in some cases my physical address as well, just because my friends clicked "yes" to upload their contact lists. Social sites, to me, are the bathroom stall wall of the internet.
I know the "Do Not Call" list has turned out to be mostly a joke, but since telephone solicitation firms were shady to begin with, what was expected? By contrast, the major internet players have largely positive reputations with the general public, and have mind share they would lose if they fought the feds to keep information they gathered on people who want nothing to do with them.
How hard would it be to have a section on the big social sites where one could go to enter an email address and request that one's information be deleted? A simple return email with "click here to verify" would be all you need to complete the process. To protect active customers from prank-deletes, it would only work for people who don't have social accounts. Likewise, you could have an 800 number specifically for calling to have your phone number deleted.
That. I bought some very specialised Christmas presents for my daughter, and for two years I was bombarded with ads for similar products. In which I was not interested one bit. For a job, I travelled abroad for two weeks and googled restaurants in that area. Again, for two years whenever I searched for a restaurant, I got links for restaurants 10,000 miles away from my home. I researched a product category, bought what I thought was the best product, and again two years bombardment for similar products. Which i'm not going to buy because nobody needs more than one of these products.
Here's a bizarre one: On MacRumors, they discussed motherboards that are made from two parts with a flexible connection, which is supposed to have advantages when used in a phone. I was interested and looked up their products. Then I got advertisements for them! Their only potential customers are phone manufacturers, or other manufacturers of rugged electronic devices. Not me. There's nothing I could do with their products. If I contacted the company, they probably wouldn't even talk to me. Yet I get adverts.
Big thumbs up to Apple for giving Safari users the option to disable this kind of tracking.
Thanks for the tip! I'm checking it out right now and I like it
Thanks for the tip! I'm checking it out right now and I like it
The effect of this, since there are no websites without cookies, is that you either lose the internet, or you click on "I accept" on every single stupid website. Since nobody wants to lose the internet, all it does is annoy users and make work for website developers.
A proper rule would be that they have to inform you that they want to use cookies, and when you don't accept it, then the website should not use cookies, and provide all functionality that they can provide without cookies.
[doublepost=1505597283][/doublepost]
Well, actually, I don't like ads for tech products. Whatever I look at on the internet, I want it to widen my horizons. I want to learn new things. Tell me about things outside my little niche.
[doublepost=1505597380][/doublepost]
Targeted ads are _not_ effective. Advertising companies may claim it, stupid company executives may believe it, but targeted ads are _not_ effective.
[doublepost=1505597660][/doublepost]
And Apple doesn't, because they are not Google. Apple's products are iPhones, Macs, iPads and some other bits. Google's product is YOU. Apple makes ten times more money because people trust them to look after their privacy then they could make by tracking you.
Anything that decreases the deluge of advertising is good as far as I'm concerned.
Coincidentally, I actually bought from a repeated targeted ad a few weeks ago. I had been searching for a toolbox, so of course I got shown the same Sears ads over and over again for weeks. Then one day it showed a $550 workbench on sale for half price. Score!
Still getting the same ads of course. I need to click that little ad arrow and let them know they're wasting effort.
-> If they really gathered as much info as some here seem to think, they'd know when we bought what we were looking for, and could stop wasting the same ads on us
Still getting the same ads of course. I need to click that little ad arrow and let them know they're wasting effort.
-> If they really gathered as much info as some here seem to think, they'd know when we bought what we were looking for, and could stop wasting the same ads on us
No. Google does not sell your personal data, just as Apple does not sell your personal data. However BOTH Apple and Google collect and use personal data to sell ad slots.
Google is not your enemy in the same way that Apple isn't some benevolent overseer protecting your data from the boogyman.
Their stance on privacy issues is one of the main reasons I switched back to Apple, despite some things that annoy me about them.
Back when the internet was young and still maturing I remember visiting websites and clicking on ads. Then I grew up and they started getting so invasive that it pissed me off. Start reading and a pop up. Start looking at a site and a zindex layer overlays everything. Start reading forget speakers were up and an ad blasts out sounds. The advertisers are making their own graves. I will click on ads that don't invade what I'm doing, but if they take control of what I'm doing, I put blame on both the advertiser, the business and website that has it. I usually neglect those products even if I purchase them often.
Point being. Advertisers are creating their own issues with being so pushy with everything. Why should I sacrifice my bandwidth and browsing experience because an advertiser wants to block my surfing with their stupid ads? I shouldn't and that's why I block them
Point being. Advertisers are creating their own issues with being so pushy with everything. Why should I sacrifice my bandwidth and browsing experience because an advertiser wants to block my surfing with their stupid ads? I shouldn't and that's why I block them
I'm almost willing to use Safari now, after hearing this. Almost... Much of my experience has been in things now loading, and lags, although Firefox isn't winning my heart anymore.