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.
Mozilla Launches Petition Urging Apple to Reset Interest-Based Ad Identifiers on Monthly Basis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How did companies advertise before the Internet? They used TV, radio, newspapers, billboards or even junk mail. In fact, those forms of advertising are still widely used today.
Before we had Google and targeted advertising, companies used to purchase ads on popular websites in the exact same manner they would for magazines (your subscriber base, ad position/size and metrics about the types of people who visit your site are what dictated the price).
Global advertising for 2018 showed 38% was digital (what we're talking about in this article) while the other 62% was traditional advertising. Eliminating tracking won't eliminate digital advertising. It'll just make it slightly less effective (but certainly more effective than all other types).
It's a myth that advertising requires tracking/profiling to be effective.
[doublepost=1555353823][/doublepost]
I might as well leave my car and house unlocked every night, because if a thief wants to steal something they're going to get it anyway, right? That's about how ridiculous your argument sounds.
Advertising is fine. It's advertising with heavy tracking that is problematic.
The issue to me is the persistent database and tracking used for targeting ads. @CollinH and @iBreatheApple mentioned this. If you do not want targeted ads, you should be able to decline them. If you want them, that should be OK too.
There are other things that you can do also. One is use a browser instead of an app, especially one designed and/or configured for privacy. An example: open iOS Safari and go to Google Maps. You’ll get a pop-up that basically says “We’re not getting the best out of your experience, would you like to download the app?’ /H Since it is a map function, they know my location regardless because that’s of course necessary for a map function - and a weather function especially if you want weather alerts.
I believe the advertisers are being taken advantage of also and I’m also surprised that advertisers buy in as much as they do, much of the targeted advertising I see is useless. Example: I was researching a travel camera for a trip, bought the camera, and for weeks I’d see an ad for a different camera from the Big camera company, sometimes 3 of the same ads on the same page. I’m sure that they were charged 3x for that even though it would be difficult to imagine that 3 ads were any more effective than one. They also get charged for ads that aren’t visible and ad views by bots.
There are other things that you can do also. One is use a browser instead of an app, especially one designed and/or configured for privacy. An example: open iOS Safari and go to Google Maps. You’ll get a pop-up that basically says “We’re not getting the best out of your experience, would you like to download the app?’ /H Since it is a map function, they know my location regardless because that’s of course necessary for a map function - and a weather function especially if you want weather alerts.
I believe the advertisers are being taken advantage of also and I’m also surprised that advertisers buy in as much as they do, much of the targeted advertising I see is useless. Example: I was researching a travel camera for a trip, bought the camera, and for weeks I’d see an ad for a different camera from the Big camera company, sometimes 3 of the same ads on the same page. I’m sure that they were charged 3x for that even though it would be difficult to imagine that 3 ads were any more effective than one. They also get charged for ads that aren’t visible and ad views by bots.
People need to remember Apple themselves offer a targeted advertising service to 3rd parties.
Apple's privacy terms and conditions don't say they won't track you, they just say they won't give that information to others.
It's a common problem - they give the service away for free, to capture marketshare, figuring they'll work out a way to make money later, and then, when that day comes, they're kind of stuck, because they've taught their users that that service costs nothing.
I don't have a problem with advertising, I have a problem with two aspects of the current advertising landscape: creepy tracking ("we want to know *everything* about you"), and ads (and ad-related frameworks) that want to run a bunch of javascript in my browser. I wish Safari had a button I could put in the menu bar that just toggled javascript execution on/off for the current tab. With the ability to "open tab in background" with javascript turned off. Lots of times I open a bunch of tabs in Safari or Chrome that are just "things I want to look at in a little while", not all-singing/all-dancing web extravaganzas that I want to interact with right now - yet the javascript gets spun up on them, and tries to eat my CPU.
There have been a lot of apps that start out (when you install them) ad-supported, with an optional IAP for "remove ads". I wouldn't mind seeing more websites/services do something similar: default to ads (without creepy data collection), with an option to remove ads in exchange for payment (not a one-time purchase, probably). The problem is, many services that offer paid options figure their sites are worth $10-$20 a month (frequently they're not), and you hit subscription fatigue really fast. If there were some ubiquitous microtransaction service, that you could toggle on/off per-site, that might be ideal. If I look at a couple pages a month on your site, I'm fine with them having ads. If I'm reading your site constantly I might be happy to flip the "pay this site" switch, that gives them some small per-page payment from me (so, "pay as you go" - the more impact I have on their servers, the more they get from me), in exchange for no ads on their site. Unfortunately for FaceBook, I don't think they could really do this (they might say they're on-board but I don't think I could trust them), as their whole developer culture seems steeped in creepy data collection.
On the question of, "people want something for nothing", I'm kind of the opposite - when I see some exciting new service or site, frequently one of my questions/concerns is, "what's your funding model?", precisely because I find the site/service useful, and want to be ensured that it will stay around (and because I want the developers to do well). There are a few sites/services that I pay for through Patreon for precisely this reason. And for some of them, it's useful for them to know "we have X subscribers at $Y per month" up-front, though I still think a "pay-as-you-go for pages/articles you use" approach would be better.
Ads heh... your info has far more value beyond ads.
[doublepost=1555363286][/doublepost]
No, ridiculous is hyperbolic rhetoric... like the kind in your response. My comment is about paying more attention to more important data privacy - the info that's actually being bought and sold. Worrying about ad profiles is fine, but it shouldn't take on the level of importance that it does. At the end of the day, where is more damage done? Some advertiser recommends Tide Pods or some data broker selling enough info on you for someone to open a credit card, take out a loan, or find someone who may not want to be found. Way down on that spectrum is someone using the info to sell ads space.
I am just trying to say that Privacy matters even if you have nothing to hide.
I share my location on many apps. *shrug* If you happen to write an app and it's something I like and think it makes sense to share my location with you, you can have my location.
And I already get advertising at my doors, although it's typically for the pizza joints and Chinese restaurants in the area -- for most other products, it's not terribly economical to do costly door-to-door advertising.
But, I know you were being facetious.
Yeah, I got you dude. I am just overstating the consequences of oversharing and location tracking. It's called "facebook" effect. You know you share your location with facebook and next day they are already tracking what your spouse is buying in Amazon
Rhetoric?
So I take it you have details on how much data each of the entities you mentioned has in order to make such a claim? I'll be waiting for your detailed analysis.
Yes rhetoric. This is rhetoric: "I might as well leave my car and house unlocked every night, because if a thief wants to steal something they're going to get it anyway, right?" ←language designed to have a persuasive effect, but often regarded as lacking meaningful content. It simply a terrible analogy for what I was discussing.
As for you waiting on a detailed analysis... why would I be providing you one for something that you made up? But I'll tell you what. If you can point to where I made a claim regarding how much data any of those entities has, then I'll provide you with the most detailed analysis you've ever seen.
You stated:
“At the end of the day, where is more damage done? Some advertiser recommends Tide Pods or some data broker selling enough info on you for someone to open a credit card, take out a loan, or find someone who may not want to be found. Way down on that spectrum is someone using the info to sell ads space.”
Yes, rhetoric. Trying to take the reams of data that’s collected on someone (by, say, Google) and then minimizing that data collection by stating all they want to do is sell Tide Pods.
I’m waiting for you to provide details about how each group uses your data so you can make the claim that companies selling ads are “way down on that spectrum.”
If you con't want tracking, just turn it OFF: Turn "limit ad tracking" on, and viola, no more tracking...
Mozilla, the company behind Firefox, today launched a petition urging Apple to reset the unique IDs used to serve interest-based ads in the App Store and Apple News apps on the iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple TV on a monthly basis.
Mozilla takes aim at Apple's recent iPhone privacy ad in a blog post:These identifiers can already be manually reset under Settings > Privacy > Advertising on iOS devices and under Settings > General > Privacy on Apple TV, but Mozilla is asking for "a real cap" with an automatic monthly reset to make it "harder for companies to build a profile about you over time."
"If Apple makes this change, it won't just improve the privacy of iPhones -- it will send Silicon Valley the message that users want companies to safeguard their privacy by default," wrote Ashley Boyd, Mozilla's VP of Advocacy.
Interest-based ads in the App Store and Apple News app are based on information such as your App Store search history and Apple News reading history. Apple makes it easy to opt out, but Mozilla argues that "most people don't know that feature even exists, let alone that they should turn it off."
We'll provide an update if Apple responds.
Article Link: Mozilla Launches Petition Urging Apple to Reset Interest-Based Ad Identifiers on Monthly Basis
Until you realize the same tracking information can build up enough patterns and personal information for identity thieves to do their bidding.
How about every time I open Safari. And clear the cache too, while you’re at it.
For a company that makes such efforts in privacy, it seems like at least an option for each should be obvious.
[doublepost=1555384502][/doublepost]
After thousands of years, this is where our greatest attempts at philosophy die.
For a company that makes such efforts in privacy, it seems like at least an option for each should be obvious.
[doublepost=1555384502][/doublepost]
After thousands of years, this is where our greatest attempts at philosophy die.
Last edited: