Need? Oh but they would have in a heartbeat, but just didn't have the tech.Ah, to go back to the days when advertisers just advertised products and didn't need to track your every bowel movement.
Need? Oh but they would have in a heartbeat, but just didn't have the tech.Ah, to go back to the days when advertisers just advertised products and didn't need to track your every bowel movement.
I'd think it'd help further-reduce fingerprinting/profiling, which would be nice. Just a stab in the dark, Apple probably doesn't want to set a precedent of preventing site/app owners from doing tracking within their own site/app, because certainly Apple does their own share of that. It'd almost certainly bring more anti-trust legal problems. They likely wouldn't state either as their reason, though. It'd be like admitting they removed chargers to improve profits, and not "for the environment." Their stated reason would probably be that they don't want to risk interfering with any site or app's core functionality by blocking native trackers within that site or app.I get what you're saying, they're all their own exclusively. U-Origin on FF lists a huge plethora of them that were effectively blocked w/out breaking the page. I just wonder why Safari's security feature globally issues them all a free pass?
That's cool. I don't completely disagree with that. Just commenting that people are really, really, really angry.Maybe some of us really hate Facebook? They are a disgusting vile company and should be shut down.
They will get away with it probably, Apple is at fault here too because it’s happened on their watch as wellOuch, this one will likely hurt.
In these days of data mining and companies willingly selling/sharing what they have, you no longer have to opt in, it is done for you.luckily, no one is forced to use it.
Look at that face and tell me he's not a lizard person.
Wake me up as well when there's a lawsuit against them pre-installing hidden apps and services on Android phones.meh. Wake me up when there's a lawsuit against their apps using the microphone even when the user isn't using the app.
This is it! Unless mindlessly accepting all cookies, it doubles the time in DE every new page to selectively choose "necessary" or "reject all". I think most just give up or just aren't aware what their consenting to in the first place.I am surprised the EU isnt more up their A anyway ... while they bother small companies with (I would argue) over the top GDPR things. Money talks I guess
Sadly, what you're saying, is quite the likely scenario.I'd think it'd help further-reduce fingerprinting/profiling, which would be nice. Just a stab in the dark, Apple probably doesn't want to set a precedent of preventing site/app owners from doing tracking within their own site/app, because certainly Apple does their own share of that. It'd almost certainly bring more anti-trust legal problems. They likely wouldn't state either as their reason, though. It'd be like admitting they removed chargers to improve profits, and not "for the environment." Their stated reason would probably be that they don't want to risk interfering with any site or app's core functionality by blocking native trackers within that site or app.
In a world where this happens, the lawyers will surely become kings over all....Apple also needs to be sued whenever they implement features or commit errors that compromise privacy. And since Apple admits that privacy is a human right, they should be brought up on human rights charges in addition to consumer protection charges.