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.
Apps Continuing to Track Users Despite Apple's Privacy Prompt
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
**** Apple, there’s no reason not to make a fuss about it. Apple wants to use privacy to market their products, that’s all very well, but it’s to be expected that they back it up. Anything that moves privacy forward is good IMO.
This has been explained countless times by a lot of people from the security industry. It's not because they listen to your conversations. "Hey, I just got an add for a bicycle and I haven't even searched for it or mentioned it anywhere. I guess my phone can read my mind". you are trying to see a pattern to confirm your belief that they are constantly listening to you, without understanding how the online advertising industry actually uses your data, correlates it with data it bought from other sources and then proceeds to match it with other people using the same IP as you, knowing who your family members are and what they search for etc. And then lets not forget that a lot of advertising being shown to you is still not related to anything you searched for or talked with somebody about. I see ads every day for things that I have absolutely zero interest in - That doesn't mean they listende to a private conversion I had 2 years ago when I mentioned a single word to a friend.
Apple can ban the practice as a requirement to use their app store and if they refuse their app gets removed.
Tracking is far from only done on social media. It's done on a majority of websites. Any website that shows ads usually does this through a third party ad network. They log as much data as they can and then they resell this data to other people, who then in turn use it to predict when you are likely to be in the market for a product or service. This can then be in the form of showing you ads for stuff they think you might want or your bank buying this data and sending you a reminder about a car loan. This is why it's so insanely important to always say no to cookies on all websites(Problem being a lot of websites still set a ton of cookies even when you say no), really be critical about which services you sign up for and make sure you disable any kind of tracking you can on any account you have - Both online and in the software you use.
This shows a severe lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
There are two ways Apple enforces their ATT policy.
- At a system level by blocking access to the advertising identifier (IDFA/IDFV)
- At a policy level by rejecting or removing apps that don't follow the policy
If you tap "Ask App Not to Track" then iOS denies that app your IDFA, period.
The reason why that alert is using the language "Ask" instead of "Deny" is because there are other ways for apps to track you (as this article explains), for example by IP-address.
Apple has 0 control upfront on these other ways of tracking you, meaning they can't "tweak permissions accordingly". So instead of lulling you into a false sense of security by using language like "Deny", they use the language they currently use.
That said, the guidelines explicitly forbid app developers from using these alternative means of tracking you when you've tapped on "Ask App Not to Track". And that's where the second way of enforcing kicks in.
Number 2 will always be an after-the-fact matter. Take IP-address for example, these are always exchanged when communicating with servers on the internet, Apple, and more specifically, App Review, don't have insight into what a company does with your IP-address when you use their service.
So the way it's currently enforced at a policy level is to require apps to have a privacy policy, that gives Apple to the chance to go over that privacy policy if so desired.
Apple also requires developers to fill in their privacy nutrition labels. Certain labels will automatically trigger a reject if your app doesn't ask for ATT permission while you indicate in your labels that you're using certain information for tracking.
But biggest part of the policy level enforcement will happen after discovering that a developer is still illicitly tracking the user.
I agree on that sentiment, but this has just been reported so at least let's give Apple a chance to actually react to this. They have done so in the past and I'm fairly confident that they will do it again.
The problem is people think it's just a matter of enforcing rules without understanding how difficult it is to find out if somebody is tracking a user.
Most apps and software today talk to a lot of external API's all the time - Whether that is to share game data in a multiplayer game or a piece of software on your Mac that checks if the serial number is valid. Every time this is done then that API can see information such as your IP address, basic device info etc. Unless Apple starts proxying every single internet request from every single Apple device, then it's 100% impossible to prevent tracking of this kind of information. And if Apple had to proxy every single request they would most likely have to be responsible for more than 50% of the internets bandwidth usage which again is just insane and impossible.
So before lynching Apple who is actually trying to do something about a problem that has been here for 20 years, then lets start by blaming the app developers and social media that actually constantly misuse our data and try to bypass rules or laws about it.
Oh yeah, and please hold all other companies to the same standard you're trying to hold Apple to.
Last edited:
Ban targeted advertisement.
Apps should simply give IOS their advertisements rules (what kind of ads they want to display) and then ads should be served by IOS, tailored by application but identical to all users in the same market (and by market, i mean pure geography , with the smallest subset in the several square kilometers (bigger depending on population density).
Apps should simply give IOS their advertisements rules (what kind of ads they want to display) and then ads should be served by IOS, tailored by application but identical to all users in the same market (and by market, i mean pure geography , with the smallest subset in the several square kilometers (bigger depending on population density).
Anyone opting out of tracking right now is basically having the same level of data collected as they were before. Apple hasn't actually deterred the behavior that they have called out as being so reprehensible, so they are kind of complicit in it happening," Seufert explained.
This is a crap comment, imo. This is like saying because the crooks are one step ahead of the cops, the cops are complicit in the crimes committed.
Also, how is Google lying about what Google itself was doing at all analogous to third parties circumventing apple’s policies?
What a clickbait headline!
Apple is not doing the tracking, but rather individual apps _can_ still track, according to this.
I see this as a matter of interpretation. The button is clearly labeled "ASK App Not to Track". It's up to the app to actually honour that request.
We already know that nefarious app developers will always find a way around the rules and regulations, so Apple is protecting themselves by not promising a complete blocking of tracking. Apps need to get on board, too.
Am I way off left field here? This has always been my belief... an honour system.
Apple is not doing the tracking, but rather individual apps _can_ still track, according to this.
I see this as a matter of interpretation. The button is clearly labeled "ASK App Not to Track". It's up to the app to actually honour that request.
We already know that nefarious app developers will always find a way around the rules and regulations, so Apple is protecting themselves by not promising a complete blocking of tracking. Apps need to get on board, too.
Am I way off left field here? This has always been my belief... an honour system.
I can see both sides of it. The lawsuits and end result can give Apple ammunition to take a more aggressive stance against developers who are ignoring the changes. Prior to introducing the feature Apple was walking a tight road of potentially being cited for monopoly abuses. This could give them an out while still allowing them to punish rogue developers.
That is nonsense!
The requirements and obligations are defined by the developers agreement, not by the wording in the prompt!
I wouldn't mind that but the next thing you will read then, is how unfair it is that Apple is forcing users and developers to use their tools and systems and not allow the developers to choose themselves. Just like Epic and many others are now whining about Apple taking a cut for being in the app store and requiring the app store payment service to be used.
And then you forgot that a lot of tracking is not just being done by ads, but by Facebook pixels and a lot of other tracking software installed on websites and phones.
If an app is not adhering to the rules, uninstall it!
You have full control over the privacy settings on a per-app basis in the Settings app.
Where were you when you said that? In your home? Do you have any Alexa devices? Any android phones? Were you around your friends who did have social media apps? Where did you get the idea to joke about dog food, did you see it online anywhere recently? There could be many many other factors other than your iPhone is listening to you.
there is no honor among those rogue developers. It's a game of whack-a-mole.
More to the point, we should look at the cost for society of targeted advertisement (i'm looking at the cancerous growth that is Facebook),
Apple is protecting themselves. They can not _promise_ a complete protection against tracking. If they did and nefarios apps still did some form of tracking, Apple could be held liable.
It's smart of them to not make this promise. It's an honour system that app developers must abide by, too.
The problem is how Apple's advertising of their App Tracking Transparency feature is being interpreted.
E.g. from their own Privacy page:
A "layman" user reading that sentence would likely assume that App Tracking Transparency can prevent those apps from tracking activity. Only a more savvy user would maybe notice that "not being allowed" is a very different thing than "being prevented".
I don't think Apple is technically lying in its advertisement of App Tracking Transparency, but false advertising doesn't require the advertising to be false, it can also be merely misleading.
It is funny how this "news" is based on so many quotes from ad/marketing guys! Really, Financial Times...!?
Exactly. Even the wording of the prompt itself is about tracking "...across other companies' apps or websites". The user is not necessarily opting out of tracking by the primary company for their own use. Especially if signed in/identified.
This is not to necessarily take a stance on this myself, but Apple/the media/competitors so seem to sell this as "big move to fully stop tracking" (and it certainly improves privacy a bit taking ad identifiers out of the mix) but ... this change wasn't that. It is a very specific type of tracking users are opting out of. So someone is failing here at expectation setting ... or perhaps of meeting consumer's expectation around what they define as privacy.
Anyway, no surprise form me that other tracking is still happening as it is allowed. That's what the Privacy Labels are meant to help disclose – so there's at least transparency now.
With how the rules are today, if the privacy label is at all misleading, then developers should see consequences, sure. But otherwise most developers are probably still operating within Apple's own review guidelines if they are using the label and prompting if they want access to the ad identifier.
(If people have a strong feelings against this broader tracking – which is a totally reasonable viewpoint – then they should provide this feedback to Apple. That will help Apple reconsider their stance for future revisions to the App Store policies.)
Edit: certainly the "Ask app not to track" labelling isn't helping the expectation setting for consumers, even if it is written within the more restricted context of the description right above the button.