Apple's Privacy Website Updated to Reflect Latest Measures Taken in iOS 12 and macOS Mojave

[MacRumors]

Apple today updated its privacy website to reflect the latest measures it has implemented in iOS 12 and macOS Mojave to protect customers.

For example, the new page reflects that all apps submitted or updated on the App Store now require a privacy policy, a requirement that went into effect October 3. Apple already required a privacy policy for apps that accessed personal information, but even basic apps that do not share data must have one now.

In iOS 12 and macOS Mojave, Apple's so-called Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature has been improved. Now, when third-party tracking sites attempt to create cookies or store data, they can do so only with your explicit consent.

In macOS Mojave, Apple has made it harder for trackers to create a unique device fingerprint. Meanwhile, automatic strong passwords in Safari on iOS and macOS, which are end-to-end encrypted in iCloud Keychain, make it easier to sign in to sites without using social media logins that can facilitate user tracking.

Apple has also added protections for private data, such as requiring user consent for access to the camera and microphone on macOS Mojave.

Apple has expanded its use of end-to-end encryption to include Group FaceTime and Screen Time on iOS 12, while its use of Differential Privacy now extends to the personalized Memoji features users select to help identify popular features, such as hairstyle, so Apple can expand its choices in the future.

The updated privacy website also indicates that location data sent to nearby emergency services using RapidSOS is deleted after 24 hours.

As always, Apple believes privacy is a "fundamental human right," and aims to "minimize its collection of personal data." Apple says "the customer is not its product," and that its business model "does not depend on collecting personally identifiable information" to help targeted profiles marketed to advertisers.

Apple's privacy page has been updated a week before Apple CEO Tim Cook is set to speak at the 2018 International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners next Wednesday, October 24 in Brussels.

Article Link: Apple's Privacy Website Updated to Reflect Latest Measures Taken in iOS 12 and macOS Mojave

 

[DNichter]

Best out there when it comes to privacy. Huge reason why I continue to buy Apple.

 

[supremedesigner]

This is the main reason I continue using Apple products and services. I applaud Apple for doing their best at this.

 

[212rikanmofo]

Agreed, a lot of people are taking privacy for granted these days and should be a big concern for most. I stand by Apple in that they are a company like no other who are taking a stance to protect us. A company that puts privacy as one of their top priorities has my vote.

 

[JMPATLANTA]

I agree, Apple is the best at this but one issue still bothers me. San Bernardino shooter's phone vs. Paul Manafort's Apple devices. Somewhat of a troubling double-standard. Not going to get into a political debate over this but this does bring up civil liberty and public safety questions that need to be answered and adhered to no matter what. I will not comment further on this.

 

[SteveJUAE]

This seems more like backside covering than real protection. Get developers to write some policy even though it may never be certified or policed, but if it goes wrong Apple are covered

Sounds good in principle but reality may be different IMO and maybe a false sense of security

 

[Defthand]

Apple is trying to market a disadvantage (data collection and analytics) as a feature (privacy). And they're exploiting people's paranoia to keep people in the walled garden. But there's holes in that garden wall that people voluntarily allow to compromise their "privacy". Apple can't protect you from yourself when you surf the web and use outside services like Facebook.

Look, everyone wanted technology to anticipate their needs and advise them on decisions. That takes data. Compare Apple Maps to Google Maps. Following is Apple's data about a diner. Not much better than an ancient Yellow Pages ad.

(Below) Look what's achievable when you allow a service like Google to aggregate people's public habits. In addition to Apple's tech-less information, Google can suggest what time to visit. That is useful information.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Web browsing privacy on the device itself is a fallacy; if the authorities want to know what you've been looking at they will simply subpoena the network carrier/ISP who have the IP address of everything you’ve ever done with your device.

 

[DoctorTech]

Apple is trying to market a disadvantage (data collection and analytics) as a feature (privacy). And they're exploiting people's paranoia to keep people in the walled garden. But there's holes in that garden wall that people voluntarily allow to compromise their "privacy". Apple can't protect you from yourself when you surf the web and use outside services like Facebook.

Look, everyone wanted technology to anticipate their needs and advise them on decisions. That takes data. Compare Apple Maps to Google Maps. Following is Apple's data about a diner. Not much better than an ancient Yellow Pages ad.

View attachment 795860



(Below) Look what's achievable when you allow a service like Google to aggregate people's public habits. In addition to Apple's tech-less information, Google can suggest what time to visit. That is useful information.


View attachment 795862

Thank you for the comparison. I agree there are benefits to sharing data as you have demonstrated. It really comes down to "what else" are / could a company like Google be doing with my data? In other words, if I trust them to ONLY use my data for purposes like your example, I would not mind sharing my data with them. However, they routinely go beyond those uses for marketing purposes and potentially for even less noble purposes. It is a trade off between privacy and convenience and I still lean toward privacy.
[doublepost=1539794207][/doublepost]

Web browsing privacy on the device itself is a fallacy; if the authorities want to know what you've been looking at they will simply subpoena the network carrier/ISP who have the IP address of everything you’ve ever done with your device.

Unless you are using an offshore VPN that does not maintain logs of activity.

 

[now i see it]

With all the hype above, nothing really significant has occurred. Anyone on any version of Apple's OS has always been able to delete cookies with the swipe of a finger (or click of a mouse) at any time.
As for this now ubiquitous privacy policy BS, that's exactly what it is. Nefarious characters will still be nefarious regardless of the mumbo jumbo now required that nobody ever reads. It accomplishes nothing (except give lawyers ammo).
As for signing into other websites using your Facebork ID, that's been lunacy since day one. It's hard believe people fell into that trap- NEVER DO THAT.

 

[az431]

Apple is trying to market a disadvantage (data collection and analytics) as a feature (privacy). And they're exploiting people's paranoia to keep people in the walled garden. But there's holes in that garden wall that people voluntarily allow to compromise their "privacy". Apple can't protect you from yourself when you surf the web and use outside services like Facebook.

Look, everyone wanted technology to anticipate their needs and advise them on decisions. That takes data. Compare Apple Maps to Google Maps. Following is Apple's data about a diner. Not much better than an ancient Yellow Pages ad.

View attachment 795860



(Below) Look what's achievable when you allow a service like Google to aggregate people's public habits. In addition to Apple's tech-less information, Google can suggest what time to visit. That is useful information.


View attachment 795862

Google Maps does provide useful information, which is why I view it on my iPhone without compromising my own privacy.
[doublepost=1539796205][/doublepost]

This seems more like backside covering than real protection. Get developers to write some policy even though it may never be certified or policed, but if it goes wrong Apple are covered

Sounds good in principle but reality may be different IMO and maybe a false sense of security

Policing is done by you. If you don't like the terms of the policy you don't have to use the app. And if you do agree and the policy is breached, you can sue or stop using the app.

If there is no policy, none of the above are options.

 

[m0sher]

I like apples privacy protecting their customers from third-party tracking sites so they can do so only with your explicit consent.

There’s been a lot of shifty apps gathering information lately without our knowledge.

 

[MrJeffreyGee]

I like apples privacy protecting their customers from third-party tracking sites so they can do so only with your explicit consent.

There’s been a lot of shifty apps gathering information lately without our knowledge.

I second this... Especially those apps that come and go. Not necessarily what they are doing with the data when they're active, but when they go belly up. Are they selling that data?

 

[alexhardaker]

Where is this explicit consent for third party tracking sites in safari?

 

[I7guy]

Where is this explicit consent for third party tracking sites in safari?

There is an option in Safari. Open up Settings -> Safari and you can choose your level of protection.

 

[Packers1958]

Well, this article made me laugh. Truly is the joke of the day. But there are plenty of dumb people who will actually believe this lunacy.

 

[DanielDD]

Thank you for the comparison. I agree there are benefits to sharing data as you have demonstrated. It really comes down to "what else" are / could a company like Google be doing with my data? In other words, if I trust them to ONLY use my data for purposes like your example, I would not mind sharing my data with them. However, they routinely go beyond those uses for marketing purposes and potentially for even less noble purposes. It is a trade off between privacy and convenience and I still lean toward privacy.
[doublepost=1539794207][/doublepost]
Unless you are using an offshore VPN that does not maintain logs of activity.

Great! I can free ride on other people’s lack of privacy. I don’t get to have ads on my start menu or pre-installed crap on my devices. Best of both words.
(I just use google services for searching the web)

By the way, I actually think Apple maps are more informative in the example you provided.

 

[MistrSynistr]

Our servers are in CHINA.

Your PRIVACY is PROTECTED.

Choose one.

 

[alexhardaker]

There is an option in Safari. Open up Settings -> Safari and you can choose your level of protection.

Please provide further information

 

[I7guy]

Please provide further information

 

[yadmonkey]

Apple is trying to market a disadvantage (data collection and analytics) as a feature (privacy). And they're exploiting people's paranoia to keep people in the walled garden. But there's holes in that garden wall that people voluntarily allow to compromise their "privacy". Apple can't protect you from yourself when you surf the web and use outside services like Facebook.

Apple also can't protect you when you are crossing the street. At some point, your behavior is on you. For those of us who care about privacy and are smart enough to limit use of sites like Facebook and Google, Apple is a good choice.

Also, calling people paranoid for caring about privacy is disingenuous at best. When people's private data start to inform rate-setting for things like health and life insurance, you are wise to look for safer options.

Web browsing privacy on the device itself is a fallacy; if the authorities want to know what you've been looking at they will simply subpoena the network carrier/ISP who have the IP address of everything you’ve ever done with your device.

Another disingenuous argument. As the article linked above demonstrates, keeping your data private from authorities is just one reason to value privacy. Arguably, keeping your information private from data brokers is and will be much more meaningful to average individuals.

 

[Tech198]

"but even basic apps that do not share data must have one now."

This always puzzled me... If no data is being shared why do apps need a policy for no reason other than its because Apple has one.?.

Apple has one because it collects info from customers.,.. Not all basic apps collect info, or need to

 

[hellopupy]

Apple's efforts are comendable but they don't even understand the right to privacy. They say they believe in the right but its not something you believe in, its a god given, inalienable right and in the 4th amendment already. Its just a fact and annoys me they think its something you need to believe in to be true.

 

[yadmonkey]

Apple's efforts are comendable but they don't even understand the right to privacy. They say they believe in the right but its not something you believe in, its a god given, inalienable right and in the 4th amendment already. Its just a fact and annoys me they think its something you need to believe in to be true.

The Fourth Amendment protects certain rights as they pertain to the conduct of government, not private companies. That is an important distinction. An analogy would be the First Amendment, which tells us that the government cannot compel or prohibit speech (amongst other things). However, a private company can compel or prohibit the speech of their employees within the terms of their employment - without violating the First Amendment.

What Apple is saying is that they believe the virtue of this right extends to their own conduct, which I find to be commendable. What Google and Facebook are doing is immoral, but probably not illegal - not yet at least.

 

[DoctorTech]

The Fourth Amendment protects certain rights as they pertain to the conduct of government, not private companies. That is an important distinction. An analogy would be the First Amendment, which tells us that the government cannot compel or prohibit speech (amongst other things). However, a private company can compel or prohibit the speech of their employees within the terms of their employment - without violating the First Amendment.

What Apple is saying is that they believe the virtue of this right extends to their own conduct, which I find to be commendable. What Google and Facebook are doing is immoral, but probably not illegal - not yet at least.

Very well said.

I 100% agree that the Bill of Rights applies to prohibitions against government action. The question becomes at what point will government intervene to protect people against companies that are exploiting them? Look at the history of West Virginia mining towns in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some of those mining towns were practically built on slave labor when immigrants were met in NY by company employees who directed immigrants onto trains running to WV. When the immigrants arrived in WV they were broke and were offered jobs with mining companies and allowed to shop in the "company store" while waiting on their paychecks that were never enough to pay off their debt to the company. That immoral business model lasted for decades before laws were passed to protect people agains them.

Today nobody forces anyone to use Google or Facebook but I view what they are doing as exploiting people who don't understand the ramifications of the "free services for your personal data" exchange these companies are offering them.