U.K. Court Reinstates Lawsuit Accusing Google of Bypassing Safari's Privacy Settings to Track iPhone Users

I7guy said:
There you go again ignoring the facts. Apple uses standard html, probably JavaScript along with AI to determine which streams to allow, and google coded an exploit.

it’s hyperbolic to say Apple enables you to steal as this is your device and you are entitled to determine what you can see. Different than google who placed cookies against safari restrictions.

There is some disjointed logic taking place.
Click to expand...

Let me illustrate it for you.

Apple has its news content service, Apple News. The "free" version gives you access to some content. That content/service is paid for with advertising. Interestingly, Apple doesn't allow ad blockers to work with its News app. If one tries, you are in violation of Apple's UAL. You are circumventing Apple's business model and conditions for your side of the bargain. If Apple's advertisers thought readers were preventing ads from being viewed, they would abandon the app.

And if you were clever enough to block those ads anyway because "it's your device" (Yes, your device. Not your website), it wouldn't be unreasonable for Apple to thwart your hack with another.
 
eicca said:
The amount of times Google has shown me suggestions for things that have come up in conversations with friends, that I've NEVER ONCE typed into any search bar, is astounding.

Just in the last week, Google suggested:
-Rolls Royce Merlin Engines
-Anne Akiko Meyers
-Theremin
-Identifying types of wasps

I've never searched for ANY of these and never seen any recommendations of the sort until I spoke those words aloud.
Click to expand...

I just received a baron fig pen as a gift over the weekend. I am on a new iPhone 11, brand new install without ANY google apps installed. I have never searched for baron fig, as I didn't actually know what the company was about until this weekend. Just got this attached ad right here on MacRumors while reading this article.

So creepy.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-10-02 at 2.07.15 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-10-02 at 2.07.15 PM.png
    456.2 KB · Views: 135
Defthand said:
Let me illustrate it for you.

Apple has its news content service, Apple News. The "free" version gives you access to some content. That content/service is paid for with advertising. Interestingly, Apple doesn't allow ad blockers to work with its News app. If one tries, you are in violation of Apple's UAL. You are circumventing Apple's business model and conditions for your side of the bargain. If Apple's advertisers thought readers were preventing ads from being viewed, they would abandon the app.

And if you were clever enough to block those ads anyway because "it's your device" (Yes, your device. Not your website), it wouldn't be unreasonable for Apple to thwart your hack with another.
Click to expand...
Apple is not placing any item on your phone that you didn't request. That is in direct contrast to google, which in the previous years has coded an exploit to bypass security settings and place tracking cookies on your phone.

Your logic is illogical if you believe your scenario illustrated is equivalent to what google did.
 
falainber said:
In this case, "loophole" is synonym with "bug". Safari developers simply did not know enough about web interfaces and overlooked some scenarios.
Click to expand...

So if I break a window in your house (a loophole) and steal all your stuff, then its your fault for not having unbreakable windows right? You simply did not know enough about windows and overlooked some scenarios.

Or, lets make it even simpler. You made a door, but you didn't check some obscure scenario where if I turned the handle juuuuuuuust right while inserting an incorrect key and tapping on the hinge it would unlock? Its ok if I steal all your stuff right? Its your fault for not having impenetrable unbreakable security. I just exploited a "loophole" after all. You simply did not know enough about home security and overlooked some scenarios.
 
"Don't be evil" my ass. Isn't it ironic how the crooks that virtue signal the hardest are actually always the worst and most morally bankrupt?
 
I7guy said:
Apple is not placing any item on your phone that you didn't request. That is in direct contrast to google, which in the previous years has coded an exploit to bypass security settings and place tracking cookies on your phone.

Your logic is illogical if you believe your scenario illustrated is equivalent to what google did.
Click to expand...
Apple doesn't have to hack their own news app to ensure its advertisers' ads are seen. They don't have to thwart other news apps or browsers because its service is restricted to its own app. Apple is able to preserve its business model without interference from you and third parties. It can serve you ads just as Google does and you can't change a thing about the arrangement.

Prior to 2012, it wasn't common knowledge that you were being tracked as you surfed from site to site. Google and others didn't consider the practice controversial because marketers had been surveilling consumers for decades, especially as credit card transactions and barcoding became the norm. If Google had the foresight to predict today's backlash in public opinion, it could have prevented it by offering its surveillance as a benefit or service—a personal conceige for Internet shopping and entertainment. Which is an actual role it performs.

My question to you: What are you willing to offer/allow Google and marketers in exchange for financing your Internet activities? The current arrangement avoids most of the objections: consumers don't feel content/services are worth subscribing to, or are too numerous to afford. Consumers dismiss pay-per-view solutions. Consumers can't imagine a world without search engines, yet they resent the ads that fund them.
 
Defthand said:
Apple doesn't have to hack their own news app to ensure its advertisers' ads are seen. They don't have to thwart other news apps or browsers because its service is restricted to its own app. Apple is able to preserve its business model without interference from you and third parties. It can serve you ads just as Google does and you can't change a thing about the arrangement.

Prior to 2012, it wasn't common knowledge that you were being tracked as you surfed from site to site. Google and others didn't consider the practice controversial because marketers had been surveilling consumers for decades, especially as credit card transactions and barcoding became the norm. If Google had the foresight to predict today's backlash in public opinion, it could have prevented it by offering its surveillance as a benefit or service—a personal conceige for Internet shopping and entertainment. Which is an actual role it performs.

My question to you: What are you willing to offer/allow Google and marketers in exchange for financing your Internet activities? The current arrangement avoids most of the objections: consumers don't feel content/services are worth subscribing to, or are too numerous to afford. Consumers dismiss pay-per-view solutions. Consumers can't imagine a world without search engines, yet they resent the ads that fund them.
Click to expand...
The situations aren't equivalent and this thread isn't about the business aspect of advertisements and how websites are funded. It's about a lawsuit against google for doing what they did, which is nowhere near what Apple is doing. Now I would say if theoretically you had an android phone and visited the apple website and they found a way to bypass security and install tracking cookies, that would be a near equivalent action to what google did.

However, tour response is a distant, not following in a logical way, to the reply to the actual topic at hand, which is a lawsuit against google.
 
Defthand said:
There you go again with your double standards. Apple makes it possible for you to disregard a website's business model and still benefit from that provider's content on your own terms. Apple is not protecting you from outside parties. Apple is effectively enabling you to steal. Imagine Apple's reaction if you tried to circumvent their software and services UAL's.

The fact that a foreign government is suing—rather than Apple—is more telling.
Click to expand...

And there you go with deflection again.

Google specifically told users they weren’t being tracked. This wasn’t some vague language buried deep in their TOS. They told users that Safari by default already blocked tracking and they’d be required to opt-in. Then they turned around and tracked anyway. That’s the real issue - that they lied about what they were doing. It’s not about being sneaky with web standards or loopholes. Its about lying to users and telling them one thing while doing another.

Try to stay on topic.
 
Google is certainly collecting everything they can get their hands on, whether legal or illegal. It is dangerous to use Android with Google as they get all your private data. I prefer using /e/ , which is ungoogled Android and doesn't send data to Google. It is open source and done by e foundation.
 
realtuner said:
And there you go with deflection again.

Google specifically told users they weren’t being tracked. This wasn’t some vague language buried deep in their TOS. They told users that Safari by default already blocked tracking and they’d be required to opt-in. Then they turned around and tracked anyway. That’s the real issue - that they lied about what they were doing. It’s not about being sneaky with web standards or loopholes. Its about lying to users and telling them one thing while doing another.

Try to stay on topic.
Click to expand...
I'm quite on topic. The problem is your myopia. You and i7 are limiting yourselves to the simpliest understanding of the events. You aren't allowing yourselves to be the Devil's advocate before forming an opinion because you're already prejudiced.

What is this contract that you say Google had with websurfers? To my knowledge, Google's privacy settings are limited to Google's account holders. Were these Safari users with Google accounts? If so, what of the Safari users who didn't have accounts and were tracked similarly? Was Google's exploit illegal under those conditions? No. There were no U.S. laws that forbid it. In fact, anyone who has toggled on the Do Not Track request in a browser knows how pointless that setting is. Websites and their affiliates are under no obligation to honor it.

Ultimately, Google's solution to Safari's tracking preference wasn't aimed at circumventing Google account holders' privacy settings. It was a workaround to Safari's wholesale blocking. Google doesn't have a contract with Apple's customers, and Apple can't sue Google for not complying with Safari's privacy features.

Google's business model may be worrisome and annoying to websurfers, but it was not regulated until recently, and only then in certain countries. Even the ethical or moral questions haven't been addressed officially.
 
Defthand said:
I'm quite on topic. The problem is your myopia. You and i7 are limiting yourselves to the simpliest understanding of the events. You aren't allowing yourselves to be the Devil's advocate before forming an opinion because you're already prejudiced.

What is this contract that you say Google had with websurfers? To my knowledge, Google's privacy settings are limited to Google's account holders. Were these Safari users with Google accounts? If so, what of the Safari users who didn't have accounts and were tracked similarly? Was Google's exploit illegal under those conditions? No. There were no U.S. laws that forbid it. In fact, anyone who has toggled on the Do Not Track request in a browser knows how pointless that setting is. Websites and their affiliates are under no obligation to honor it.

Ultimately, Google's solution to Safari's tracking preference wasn't aimed at circumventing Google account holders' privacy settings. It was a workaround to Safari's wholesale blocking. Google doesn't have a contract with Apple's customers, and Apple can't sue Google for not complying with Safari's privacy features.

Google's business model may be worrisome and annoying to websurfers, but it was not regulated until recently, and only then in certain countries. Even the ethical or moral questions haven't been addressed officially.
Click to expand...
The problem is not one of myopia, it’s one of deflection. It’s not a problem of finances it’s a problem dealing with lying and exploits. But I guess horses for courses.

Google paid $22.5 million according to the article, not quite equivalent to the Apple news example as you alleged.

Apple is not suing google, the appeals court reinstated a class action lawsuit. What the outcome is obviously is unknown at this point. But an innocent company does not pay an FTC fine.
 
Last edited:
clever Google... They ARE an a adverser/tracking company after all, so they would more be inclined to get around stuff like this, since it goes against their business, I'd argue..

.. Perhaps they thought they needed more profits so the desktop tracking/privacy invasion was not enough.

Chrome on iOS should be next..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top