Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UK Network Operators Target iCloud Private Relay in Complaint to Regulator

Pretty tough from many points of view:
- apple has every right to offer this service, it’s novelty is its easy/integrated way of use
- do the carriers have the right to “upsell” my data?
- if not, how much would the service have to cost so that the service provider can live without selling my data?
- if they would be allowed, shouldn’t their service be much cheaper for users -> think of social media business strategy
 
dk001 said:
Is that all or is there some concern that alternative browsers are banned in iOS/iPadOS. Personally I would like to have the actual Edge browser.
Click to expand...
But what does the browser lock-in have to do with Private Relay?
As I understand it, Private Relay is "masking" all network traffic.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: dk001
Bless them, I've just moved the primary DNS in my house away from google too. All secure, nobody mining it, happy days 🙂
 
bsolar said:
Defintely not: the concept of limited liability actually originated in the UK and limited liability companies exist in some form or another in basically any relatively modern jurisdiction.

You are confusing "limited liability" as a concept with "Limited Liability Company" (LLC) as one of the US specific forms, but other countries definitely have the same concept implemented in similar forms.

As example in the German-speaking world they are called "Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung" (GmbH), which literally translates to "company with limited liability".



Limited liability is only an example which highlight the general concept. Usually you are only personally liable of the company's actions if the actions in questions originate from some form of violation of laws or regulations which can be attributed to you, otherwise most forms of company used in business can definitely shield you.
Click to expand...
That’s why I talked about the Limited Liability Company" (LLC). Not my fault it’s the same name.

But yes as it should be, if it can ba teased back to you or you are the man in charge that have the responsibility for it not not happen, you should be liable. Company boards should definitely be held personally responsible for corporate tax fraud when discovered.
 
coredev said:
But "Private Relay prevents network providers from seeing the network traffic from Safari and unencrypted applications."
Click to expand...
There is no mention of other applications on Apple‘s description of the service.

In another page, they mention “When you subscribe to iCloud+, you can use iCloud Private Relay on your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch and Mac to hide your IP address and browsing activity in Safari and protect your unencrypted internet traffic.” Note use of and. Your unencrypted traffic in Safari is protected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Sophisticatednut said:
That’s why I talked about the Limited Liability Company" (LLC). Not my fault it’s the same name.
Click to expand...

Your answer was to my comment, which used the term in the following sentence: "The whole concept of limited liability is a prime example.". I was clearly talking about the concept of limited liability, not any specific form of it. Such concept is not US specific at all.

Sophisticatednut said:
But yes as it should be, if it can ba teased back to you or you are the man in charge that have the responsibility for it not not happen, you should be liable. Company boards should definitely be held personally responsible for corporate tax fraud when discovered.
Click to expand...

This is already the case if it can be demonstrated that they violated the law. Usually the issue is to trace back said responsibility to the correct person though, given the somewhat byzantine organizations companies can implement and the risk of scapegoating, but this is true in general in all organizations, not only companies.

Some regulations for this reason explicitly mandate personal responsibility for some executive roles in case of violations by the company (e.g. FATCA).
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: DrV and frankinnoho
It's worrying when network providers can not be advocates of user privacy, and make users who are look like a problem crowd.
 
MacRumors said:


A group of UK network operators have formally urged the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to regulate iCloud Private Relay, claiming that Apple's privacy service is anti-competitive, potentially bad for users, and a threat to national security.

​
Click to expand...
Mobile UK can FRO

They're whining that they won't be able to monitor our traffic and habits and therefore their ability to ruin our browsing experience with targeted ads that violate our privacy.
 
movielad said:
Does anybody know of a way that consumers can file a response to this request from Mobile UK, because it is all too easy to disprove their claims and Mobile UK does not speak for me as a consumer. They're talking utter bollocks.
Click to expand...
Heres a email i sent to mobile uk. & for ***** and giggles i sent it using a 'hide my email' another feature of icloud+🙂🙂🙂


Please take this email as a request for information your organisation holds as per the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I notice that within your recently published Consultation on its interim report on the mobile ecosystem market study Response from Mobile UK, Mobile UK seem to be making some quite interesting claims and as a iCloud relay user myself i would be interested in how your arrived at such alarming statements.

In particular;

Impact of Apple Private Relay on the mobile ecosystem;
subpoints a,b,h,

Point 16, is incorrect, Traffic is routed through Cloudflare not apple.
Point 23, When did a UK mobile network last produce a competing web browser?
Point 28, "Similarly, a network provider may no longer be able to share consumer insight with 3rd parties that provide digital advertising" Unless the end-user opted in this is banned by the Data Protection Act 2018 anyway so point 28 is irrelevant.


I eagerly await your response
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Roadster Lewis, dk001, beanbaguk and 3 others
DaSal said:
“Network providers would no longer be able to use web traffic data over Safari to develop their own digital products and services that complete directly with Apple. For example, a network provider may no longer have access to information about a user's content viewing habits to develop their own content that competes with Apple TV. Similarly, a network provider may no longer be able to share consumer insight with third parties that provide digital advertizing services in competition with Apple Search Ads...”

Great! ISPs have no business analyzing web traffic data and use that data to develop services. They also have no business sharing it with third parties.

Amazing that these inept lawyers are literally building a case in favor of private relay and against themselves.

Each argument they made was either factually incorrect, completely speculative or actually actively working against the point they were trying to make. I also love the bit where they claim that Private Relay pushes users to other paid browsers so Apple can get commission (which paid browsers would that even be?). No company wants to push users to a competing product, that makes literally no sense.

They’re going to need much better lawyers if they’re going to have any chance of winning. Which they won’t. Because they’re just straight up wrong and with the current privacy-focused climate no judge is going to agree that an ISP has a right to analyzing customer traffic.

Disregarding all of that they have no case to build on at all because Private Relay is off by default. Every consumer that uses it does it by choosing to opt in. In essence that makes it no difference than their consumers using a VPN.
Click to expand...
All of it seems so strange and stupid, I want to believe the lawyers themselves know they will do an entire nation and maybe others, too, harm with a case like this ruled in favour for these companies. They’re gonna get paid anyway, the lawyer always wins.
 
As with everything else in life, if there is a way to abuse/take advantage of something, it will happen. For the most part our personal information was safe but as the world wide web advanced so did those who saw opportunities to take advantage of it. The number of marketing companies and advertising companies exploded. No longer did someone have to create a business and work in an office building, they could create one from the comfort of their own home. All they needed was access to the internet and a standard phone line and they were in business. Advertisers needed people to advertise to, marketeers saw that producers of consumer products needed to get their products noticed by the public and what was the one thing these producers of consumers products have? yep, customer data and what better way to get noticed by handing over that customer data to advertisers. So, marketing companies approach producers and manufacturers with fancy power point presentations of how they can make the company extra millions every year and the price for that, handing over their customer data to the marketing company who would find advertisers.

The problem for us joe public was that in the begining no one asked us if it was ok to trade our personal information, it was taken as granted that companies and businesses could and that is exactly what happened. This also saw the increase in data analytical companies who would also approach producers and manufacturers of consumer products with their own fancy power point presentations explaining how they could let these producers and manufactureres know everything about how their products are percieved by the buying public and how they are used by the buying public and again, no one asked us joe public if it was ok to use and trade our personal information.

Trading customers personal information became so common place that it became the norm and no one questioned it until joe public started getting unsolicited mobile phone calls and text messages, unsolicited emails from companies no one had heard of advertising their goods. The voice from joe public became so low that governments started to take notice but it was too late, all of our personal information was out there, being traded without a care in the world.

Because our persoanl information has been traded for so long without interference or hinderance from others, companies and businesses have felt they have a right to do as they wish with our personal information and when someone comes along to put blocks in place to prevent our personal information from being used, out comes these companies with complaints of bad business practices and all other types of complaints. Facebook and Google have done and still continue to do it and now the UK mobile phone networks are doing it.

Notice how they all talk from the same hymn sheet, 'implementing so n so will be bad for user experience'. They seem to forget one important fact which is that it is us the users, joe public that want these blocks put in place because we are fed up of companies and businesses abusing our personal information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggaenald
me_ said:
Heres a email i sent to mobile uk. & for ***** and giggles i sent it using a 'hide my email' another feature of icloud+🙂🙂🙂


Please take this email as a request for information your organisation holds as per the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I notice that within your recently published Consultation on its interim report on the mobile ecosystem market study Response from Mobile UK, Mobile UK seem to be making some quite interesting claims and as a iCloud relay user myself i would be interested in how your arrived at such alarming statements.

In particular;

Impact of Apple Private Relay on the mobile ecosystem;
subpoints a,b,h,

Point 16, is incorrect, Traffic is routed through Cloudflare not apple.
Point 23, When did a UK mobile network last produce a competing web browser?
Point 28, "Similarly, a network provider may no longer be able to share consumer insight with 3rd parties that provide digital advertising" Unless the end-user opted in this is banned by the Data Protection Act 2018 anyway so point 28 is irrelevant.


I eagerly await your response
Click to expand...
Should’ve probably proofread before sending it but I like it. Don’t hold your breath for a response 😄
 
d686546s said:
I agree with you, but I've never understood why people are surprised that operators are "self-serving." Do you/we actually think Apple is anything but?

Apple is not a knight in shining armour. It is very much using all of its leverage to get you deeper into its ecosystem to spend more money on Apple hardware and services and less on competitors'.

The question is -- and always was -- where is the line? I'm not convinced that Apple has crossed it, at least not consistently, but that doesn't mean that in all of these complaints Apple is always the good guy. Apple has built wonderful things that have improved our lives, but it can also be a nasty bully.
Click to expand...
Self-serving, Other than the whole premise of capitalism , so what? And the customer can turn the feature off completely, or simply choose to get android. Hmmm customer choice, what a concept
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggaenald
bsolar said:
In the example of wage theft the company construct would not protect whoever personally perpetrated the theft. Such protections are valid only as long as the individuals involved didn't break the law.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it isn't any individual perpetrating the theft. It's the company that profits. No one is taking the money from one employee's check and putting it in their own. The company just has policies that make it so the employee works overtime for no pay, or for straight time instead of overtime. There is very little chance they are going to find a culprit that instituted the policies and even if they do, very unlikely they would be charged with a crime. Maybe someone might be demoted or fired, never convicted. The company will say they are sorry and we have dealt with the problem, but will not be punished other than a fine that is essentially a slap on the wrist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back