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 Software Chief Craig Federighi Defends App Tracking Transparency Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I expect they buy the same info from the same app. More importantly, I expect the military and secret police of Muslim countries do too.It's not just ads and commerical aspects:
How the U.S. Military Buys Location Data from Ordinary Apps
A Muslim prayer app with over 98 million downloads is one of the apps connected to a wide-ranging supply chain that sends ordinary people's personal data to brokers, contractors, and the military.www.vice.com
While that refers to the US military and some here might feel OK with that, would you be comfortable with the Russian or Chinese buying this data as well?
I still want them to address the OCSP scandal. Other than that, they are good in this regard.
Exactly!
I have blocked all YouTube ads on my devices now because I'm sick of them forcing us to watch them (I notice they're slowly removing the skip ad button and increasing the length of ads)... Yes I watch YouTube, but I don't care if the YouTubers don't make any money and have to get real jobs, doesn't bother me at all if they all disappear and YouTube crashes and burns. I'll watch it for free using the AdBlockers and if it disappears I'll move on to something different!
If that was the case they would do it now and not pay google. It amazes me the lack of understanding, simply because Tim Cook says so.
This thread...
People are not against ads. People do not want to be tracked. Why is this so hard to accept and understand?
People are not against ads. People do not want to be tracked. Why is this so hard to accept and understand?
I said if tracking was outlawed. As long as there is tracking, of course more ad money will go to those who do tracking, and hence not doing tracking is detrimental to ad revenue. But if tracking were outlawed, the balance would be restored.
macOS Big Sur telling Apple what app you've opened isn't a security or privacy issue | AppleInsider
Even before Apple confirmed that Gatekeeper "calling home" wasn't associated with user information on Sunday night, privacy concerns of bad actors theoretically monitoring app launches with that data are not an issue as one researcher has suggested. Here's why.
This.
Costco could undoubtedly make more money if they hired car thieves to prowl your car while you were shopping and then re-sold what they found in the cars.
But they can't because doing so is so predatory and despicable that it is recognized, and codified, as illegal.
And so should be prowling your online activity and re-selling what they find there.
Facebook, Google, etc. definitely make a lot more money by disregarding any and all notion of respect for privacy, but if they were compelled by law to operate in a manner that protected user privacy, they could still easily be profitable by continuing to display advertising targeted based on the currently viewed content, and not targeted based on surveillance of every possible past activity they can acquire.
This is utter rubbish as far as I am concerned because only a few days ago Macrumours reported on the fact that Apple has allowed advertisers to track and snoop on iphone users https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-identifier-service-for-advertisers.2268685/
If privacy was a 'core value' as Federighi put's it, Apple would have never allowed "Identifier for Advertisers" (IDFA) service to exist in the first place.
Totally agree it's not ok that Apple is doing that, but it's also nowhere near as bad as what Facebook, Google et al are doing. IDFA identifies devices only, not people per se. Facebook/Google know your personal details. It's simply not the same thing.
You need to read the linked post more carefully because you missed this bit
IDFA does a hell of a lot more than just 'identify a device'. Saying that Google and Facebook are worst does not excuse Apple. The main issue at hand here is that Google and Facebook do not bang the drum of privacy rights and protection as much as Apple does and here we have Federighi saying in an interview that Apple has supported privacy since the beginning of the company, knowing full well it is a lie because of what they allow advertisers to have access to due to IDFA.
When you're arguing against a straw man scenario, one that nobody is advocating and nobody is suggesting, such as an end to online advertising, it's simply not convincing in the slightest.
Developers, content producers, anyone and everyone will still be perfectly free, under any reasonably suggested effort to protect user privacy, to continue to sell and display ads in any such way they wish.
Just like OCSP was actually about verifying developer signing certificates and not about tracking users, sometimes people misunderstand thread titles. Don't feel bad.
But to answer your question yes, Apple is going to introduce an opt-out option for those who have their own systems and practises in place to deal with hijacked certificates (see "Privacy Protections" at the end of the page):
Safely open apps on your Mac - Apple Support
macOS includes a technology called Gatekeeper, that's designed to ensure that only trusted software runs on your Mac.
I already do.
And a quick update from the lockdown app on my iPhone, and this is just over noon here.
It’s getting ridiculous!
Two things:
First, as I said previously, I don't like IDFA either.
But secondly, and this is even included in your cited bit, IDFA identifies a device, and the behaviors associated with that device. It does not identify a *person*. Your Facebook account contains personally identifiable information, like name, birthday, gender, etc. Facebook shares all of this. IDFA does not.
Now whether or not that's "ok" is a matter of opinion, and again, I agree with you that it's being misused. I also agree that anyone implying IDFA is a beacon of user privacy is being disingenuous. But comparing IDFA to FB is not apples-to-apples.
I guess most folks in this discussion are missing the big picture.
Yes, we all know ads are the way to keep certain services alive as “free”.
Yes, we all know sites want to know more about you to offer you ads on what your interests are.
Yes, we all know sites such as Facebook and Google’s AdSense go greater lengths to collect information about your interests, including outside their own services.
Yes, we all know these two aforementioned services do sell your data to other companies as packages for targeting audience.
The questions are, is it illegal to run ads? No. Is it illegal to harvest data on you? No. Is it illegal to sell your data without your consent? No. Is it wrong to want to opt out from this massive data harvest and personal data sell? No.
Just like the “do not call” database, except these companies gives a rats ass to the “do not track”, and could care less since there’s no “do not resell me”.
Yes, we all know ads are the way to keep certain services alive as “free”.
Yes, we all know sites want to know more about you to offer you ads on what your interests are.
Yes, we all know sites such as Facebook and Google’s AdSense go greater lengths to collect information about your interests, including outside their own services.
Yes, we all know these two aforementioned services do sell your data to other companies as packages for targeting audience.
The questions are, is it illegal to run ads? No. Is it illegal to harvest data on you? No. Is it illegal to sell your data without your consent? No. Is it wrong to want to opt out from this massive data harvest and personal data sell? No.
Just like the “do not call” database, except these companies gives a rats ass to the “do not track”, and could care less since there’s no “do not resell me”.
There is nothing wrong with targeted ads when you know full well it is being done and you still agree to use the service. Facebook is not lying and saying we are not targeting you and then still doing it. It has been written about in countless articles on the internet. Every single "online journalist" who wants to get their name out there as a "privacy advocate" has written at length about Facebook's ads practices. Everyone knows it goes on. And yet everyone still uses Facebook. I really do not see the problem here. Obviously people who use Facebook are fine with their business practices. Facebook is not an essential service like housing or utilities. Facebook is a form of positive feedback and attention seeking that humans crave so they will use the service no matter what Facebook does. At some point, everyone needs to stop complaining about it and accept that they are complicit in it every time they use the app or login to the website. If everyone boycotted the app and stopped using it out of their self righteous indignation it would take Facebook probably 1 day to change their practices; but we know that will never happen and humanity as a whole would have withdrawals if they couldn't get their daily Facebook fix. And stop acting like Apple is some kind of savior. Apple hates every single company out there that isn't Apple. Apple's dream scenario would be an iOS ecosystem where only apple apps would be allowed. A lot of Apple's shady business practices are much, much worse than targeted ads. I think Apple being complicit with an authoritarian government like china and helping them to suppress their people is much worse than Facebook wanting to target its free users with ads. There are a lot of things Apple could do to improve labor practices and such but if it would drop their profit margin by even 1% they will never do it. And if you really think Apple cares about user privacy, then please explain the revelations coming out about Big Sur and its privacy implications.
So since you admit you enjoy YouTube but you don't want to watch any ads, do you subscribe to YouTube Premium? With YouTube Premium you can watch all the videos you want ad-free. As you so eloquently said you don't care if YouTube burns and then you will just move on the next thing. And then when the next YouTube can't turn a profit and starts showing ads you will watch it burn then move on to the next one. See a problem here. I know a certain portion of our leaders today tell us that everything should be free and absolutely everything we enjoy is a human right and should also be free, but that's not how the world works. It costs money to provide all these services and since most people do not want to pay for anything they have to show ads. And if they need to show ads to stay in business they should be able to harvest whatever info they can legally to show relevant ads and make revenue. Our society is such an instant gratification me me me me me society that is really is sad to see what we have become. I want awesome services that appeal to me and I enjoy watching them but I am not willing to pay anything for those services and you better not dare try to show me targeted ads or I will scream about my privacy. That is the world we live in now unfortunately.
I suspect the main picture is that Apple wants to regain control over app distribution.
Currently, the primary way of discovering new apps (especially mobile games) is via ads outside of its App Store, especially facebook. We know Apple is obsessed with controlling every aspect of the user experience, and this probably extends to which apps are popular, because it has ceded editorial control to ad platforms.
Depreciating IDFA helps Apple regain some of that control, by making it less effective for developers to advertise elsewhere.