[HN Gopher] Proposed class action alleges that Apple tracks user...
___________________________________________________________________
Proposed class action alleges that Apple tracks users despite
privacy assurances
Author : larrysalibra
Score : 309 points
Date : 2022-11-14 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.bloomberglaw.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.bloomberglaw.com)
| tssge wrote:
| No wonder, at work we noticed all of our Macs collected ad
| personalization data by default. Even when installing from fresh,
| there was never a prompt asking whether one consents to ad
| personalization data being collected or not, it was just enabled
| by default in system settings
|
| Also we are within the EU, IANAL but to me this seems like an
| obvious violation of GDPR.
| voidee wrote:
| I'm curious, is there a URL block list for Apple analytics? Or
| would blocking telemetry interfere with receiving updates and
| using services.
| badrabbit wrote:
| Yeah, I don't care what mobile phone it is, I don't trust it with
| respect to privacy.
|
| I have to use a phone for apps like uber and I use one to browse
| random content like HN that has no privacy issue for me if the
| world saw most stuff I read but I have moved away all other use
| cases to a simpler harderned Linux laptop.
|
| It feels a bit weird and more isolated with that plus no social
| media but I have seen improvments in my quality of life and I
| have confidence that the handful of privacy or securiry sensitive
| data or interactions I have are difficult to compromise.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| People were critiquing microsoft for the ads in the start menu or
| wtv menu. How long till we see ads in iphones?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Plenty of ads in core apps already. I would say that App Store
| ads are "ads in the iPhone". You also get a bunch of nags in
| Settings to enable Siri and FaceID features when you get a
| fresh iPhone or apply a major update. _I_ consider these ads.
| Probably the least intrusive type of ad, but still.
| throwaway82388 wrote:
| The most persuasive argument for Apple as trustworthy on privacy
| was weak: that because they didn't monetize data as rapaciously
| as Google or Meta, there was less incentive for them to spy on
| users.
|
| But once they introduced new privacy controls, they seemed to
| suddenly start investing more seriously in their own advertising
| network. That, and the encryption slight-of-hand with iCloud,
| makes the cynic's case for them.
|
| App telemetry, metrics, etc might get handwaved away with a
| sinister phrase, like "essential for improving user experience."
| But placing trust in a company on privacy due to the relative
| lack of financial incentive seems hopelessly naive.
| winter_blue wrote:
| > But once they introduced new privacy controls, they seemed to
| suddenly start investing more seriously in their own
| advertising network. That, and the encryption slight-of-hand
| with iCloud, makes the cynic's case for them.
|
| This might about as clear-cut a case of unfair trade practices
| as there ever was.
| brundolf wrote:
| Imo incentives-based reasoning is the only way of thinking
| about corporate behavior that _isn 't_ naive. What's happened
| here is that the incentives changed, which- maybe you could
| call it naive to assume they wouldn't
|
| But there's also a bias, when presented with only two real
| options, of telling yourself that the less-bad option isn't
| just less-bad, it's actually good. Because it helps you sleep
| better at night and because there's nothing you could really do
| about it anyway. Same thing happens with two-party politics
| kbenson wrote:
| > which- maybe you could call it naive to assume they
| wouldn't
|
| Definitely. I think the correct way to think about public
| corporate behavior is as if they're psychopaths. I don't mean
| that necessarily with the negative popular culture
| connotations, but just that they will always behave in what
| they see as the optimal personal benefit regardless of what
| it does to others.
|
| That's just what a large and for the most part anonymous
| ownership that expects growth coupled with a set of people to
| steer operations that is mandated to work in the best
| interest of those owners results in.
|
| So, think about your relationship with companies as you would
| with a friend you suspect is a psychopath but is amiable and
| somewhat beneficial to associate with at the moment. Just
| because they don't have an incentive to spread all your
| private info around at the moment doesn't mean they won't
| have reason to later, so be careful what you expose, and
| trust them only as far as it makes sense to. They aren't a
| real friend, you're just using each other for mutual benefit,
| and that doesn't generally last forever.
| summerlight wrote:
| Apple always wanted to get into ads business, but the
| contenders were too strong and Apple doesn't have an edge for
| competition unlike Google Search, Amazon Marketplace,
| Facebook's user tracking etc... So instead of directly jumping
| into the business they decided to first level the ground with
| IDFA and ITP. The natural next step would be to monopolize user
| tracking data within the Apple ecosystem. I'm almost sure that
| this is "Manifest destiny" for Apple, but the question is
| "when".
| gw98 wrote:
| Yeah this one has pissed me off generally. I'm slowly working
| out how the hell I get out of the ecosystem but I realise I'm
| heavily locked in and it's difficult so I'm going to have to do
| it very slowly and methodically.
|
| Edit: just bought a desktop PC off ebay which I will install
| Ubuntu on and see how I get on.
| kornhole wrote:
| I sympathize. It is probably the most difficult ecosystem to
| get out of. Nextcloud was one of the most important pieces of
| software for some I know who got off of Apple. You can setup
| your own private cloud or use a community server you trust to
| replace pretty much everything on Icloud: Files, photos,
| music, notes, tasks, contacts, calendar, passwords,
| bookmarks, facetime, and many more. Migrate everything there,
| and then you can switch to any operating systems you want.
| tomrod wrote:
| At least when I de-appled in 2016, the local info database
| was accessible for things like MP3 ID info, but it required
| mapping w/ Python. Moving over to local PC storage was simple
| through USB (Ubuntu or Fedora as OS at that point, no doubt).
|
| I don't know if it is as simple or if they have data checkout
| options. Good luck with it!
| gw98 wrote:
| Oh I'm screwed. I'm fully in on Apple Photos, Music,
| Calendars, Notes, the lot. I will pull things out carefully
| one service at a time over the space of a few months or
| I'll get pissed off and give up.
|
| One thing I am looking forward to is a keyboard that isn't
| shit.
| tomrod wrote:
| Build quality on non-Apple machines have been rough for
| me. I burned through both an XPS 15 (caseflex causes
| restarts with keyboard use) and a Framework (random
| restarts, never could pin down the hardware issue even
| with mainboard replacement). The I've settled on a good
| ThinkPad and, honestly, I set the power settings simple
| and just keep it in a docked state. Never even think
| about it!
| gw98 wrote:
| Yeah I have owned a few thinkpads. I went for a desktop
| because I am totally fucking done with owning laptops
| now. I don't need one so I'm not bothering any more.
| gopher_space wrote:
| You're trading shitty keyboards for shitty trackpads, if
| that matters.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| The new designs have really good keyboards, better than
| the pre-butterfly ones IMO.
| gw98 wrote:
| I have a 14" M1 MacBook Pro. The keyboard is "ok" but not
| great. It occasionally misses keypresses when I'm typing
| fast or hit the edge of a key.
|
| Also I never really got on with the keyboard layout. Some
| things are just better on other platforms like position
| of hash, usage of meta-keys and discoverability. I find,
| despite rarely using it, that I can navigate around
| windows 10 better on a keyboard than I can on a mac.
|
| I mostly use my mac in "desktop mode" with an Apple
| studio display (that's the most difficult thing to give
| up) and a TKL Durgod K320 cherry MX red mechanical
| keyboard so I will reuse the keyboard for "the other
| platform"
| gw98 wrote:
| I've got a nice mouse already (Logitech MX Master 3). I
| don't use a touchpad if I can help it.
| jxramos wrote:
| I've been passively looking for a means to get my Notes in
| some offline format. So far I've just been exporting them to
| PDF which isn't ideal for me, but at least captures the note
| more or less.
| gw98 wrote:
| I just spent the evening turning mine into text files.
| Turns out I don't have any pictures worth keeping in them.
| cowtools wrote:
| not trying to start a distro war, but I would advise against
| using ubuntu for the time being as their custodian has been
| somewhat incompetent in recent years, and they have been
| forcing users to use their "snap" system. It may give you a
| bad first experience.
| gw98 wrote:
| Thanks for the heads up. Have dealt with snap before (and
| eviserated it)
| adra wrote:
| I haven't tried it, but I've heard Pop_OS! is a pretty
| popular distro these days. If you want something really
| lean and unobtrusive (though you may need more up front
| setup), you may want to look at an XFCE based distro (my
| personal favorite).
|
| Just remember, most distros have live usb stick distros
| so you can always try out a bunch before you decide on
| the right one for yourself.
| gw98 wrote:
| Thanks. Pop_OS! is a candidate for testing here already
| if Ubuntu doesn't work out. I picked Ubuntu as a first
| point because I grabbed a Lenovo Neo 50s desktop and that
| supports it out of the box. That will set expectation for
| hardware compatibility and issues for other distributions
| or variants.
| jzb wrote:
| I like Fedora and Pop_OS! I'd recommend Pop_OS! first for
| newcomers but Fedora is great for a work desktop if
| you're reasonably technical and don't mind upgrading at
| least once a year. Pop_OS! offers an LTS edition so you
| can stay with a release for several years.
| ksidudwbw wrote:
| this path has been partially trodden, elementaryOS. The
| first versions were snappy don't know now.
| beckingz wrote:
| What distro would you suggest as a user friendly
| alternative?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| OpenSUSE is nice. It has btrfs/snapper configured by
| default, which makes upgrades low-stress (if anything
| ever goes wrong, just reboot into the snapshot
| automatically created before every upgrade.) It also has
| a decent GUI (YaST) for system administration tasks.
| behnamoh wrote:
| I love OpenSUSE (esp. Tumbleweed), but every time I see a
| tutorial about ML stuff, they are using Ubuntu. I wonder
| if there's any inherent advantage to Ubuntu that other
| distros don't have (e.g., having some libraries
| preinstalled, sane default configs, etc.)
| quesera wrote:
| > I wonder if there's any inherent advantage to Ubuntu
|
| No advantage, but Ubuntu is the most popular distro for
| regular users / tutorial customers. Ubuntu also has the
| widest availability of support resources, even though the
| information is often not Ubuntu-specific.
|
| If you use a non-Ubuntu (or non-Debian-derived) distro,
| you'll need to do a little bit of package-name mapping to
| get the prerequisites installed. This is annoying but
| only has to be done once (take notes!).
|
| The bigger problem I've had with ML libs is that they're
| _very_ picky about version compatibilities. Once you
| settle on a set of working /compatible versions (libs,
| python, python pkgs), make some effort to preserve your
| sources. Package versions can get deleted from the
| official repos, be prepared to build from source, etc.
| yummypaint wrote:
| I have consistently good experiences with distros in the
| redhat family using MATE or other gnome2 style interface.
| Ruthalas wrote:
| Linux Mint has been a good, reliable option for me.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _I 'm heavily locked in_
|
| You should be able to download the music you bought from
| iTunes DRM free. For the movies/etc, just pirate them. You
| already "bought" them so morally you're in the clear. For the
| software/etc, walk away from it. Sunk costs.
| gw98 wrote:
| I have little software investment (mostly pixelmator) but I
| am using Apple Music subscription. I've paid for it for
| over 3 years so I think I've paid enough anyway...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The hard part is if you have a lot of content on icloud.
| Ive yet to find a reliable way to pull content from icloud
| locally. Apples first party download service doesnt really
| work for large icloud accounts, the downloads just fail to
| complete and you have tens or hundreds of gb to download.
| Ive tried third party command line tools and they silently
| crash after a couple dozen files, as in they will just hang
| until I notice they have failed so I cant just automate
| something to restart the script after fail. I'm actually at
| a loss here how to migrate from icloud.
| gw98 wrote:
| Mine is entirely sync'ed to my mac. I just literally run
| iCloud off and I have everything local.
| withinboredom wrote:
| So you have to buy a Mac to get your files?
| gw98 wrote:
| I already have a Mac. I'm trying to get rid of it.
|
| You can download icloud for windows as well. And slowly
| download shit off the web UI.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| FWIW the slight of hand mentioned here isn't in the article. I
| presume it means the fact iCloud backups aren't end to end
| encrypted with your iCloud Keychain passphrase, which was
| reportedly either: A) because apple wanted to be sure you could
| restore a device to which you lost the key (not implausible
| user experience story, but one you could imagine folks opting
| into) B) the FBI complained and they caved C) both A and B
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Note that iCloud backups include the keys needed to decode
| your _ostensibly_ end-to-end encrypted iMessage history.
| Effectively key escrow, but they don 't market it like that.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Is there an example of this resulting in a security breach
| or unauthorized access to someone's iCloud data or iMessage
| history?
| Karunamon wrote:
| That seems like a bad way to think about security
| threats. The fact that the door is open at all is
| severely problematic, regardless of how many people have
| walked through it.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| That wasn't my point. The OP suggested that Apple was
| being deceitful about its position that this posture is
| "for users". To me, the fact that a user can potentially
| (and accidentally) lock themselves out of their own data
| with no recourse is a justification for a more relaxed
| security posture that completely lines up with being "for
| users". If there is no evidence of a security breach as a
| result of this lowered posture, then the lowered posture
| is both "for users" and also worth it. I, personally,
| would rather have the higher security posture but I can't
| see any way for Apple to implement that that wouldn't
| result in someone's grandparent unintentionally locking
| themselves out of years worth of data. I already see it
| when people don't backup their phones (to iCloud, since
| it's so easy) and then lose all their data when they drop
| their phone and it gets run over by a car. Apple must see
| the trade-off as worthwhile to be able to offer users the
| ability to gain access to their data after an extensive
| verification process vs. having the strongest security
| posture possible.
| justapassenger wrote:
| D) Because they'd be kicked out China if they didn't give
| user data to the government
| pfortuny wrote:
| The existence of siri "as it is" (sending the audio/message to
| Apple) is the proof that they do monetize your data. Siri is
| not free...
| whatever1 wrote:
| Facebook was one of the first big companies to implement https
| in a non-payment / checkout page. They also have not suffered a
| data breach as far as I can remember.
|
| So your data is safe with Facebook too.
|
| The only difference that I see between Apple and Facebook is
| that Apple is doing the labeling of its users on device, while
| Facebook does it on the cloud.
|
| At the end the result is the same: targeted ads to specific
| classes of users.
| arm wrote:
| "In the 2010s, personal data belonging to millions of
| Facebook users was collected without their consent by British
| consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, predominantly to be used
| for political advertising.
|
| The data was collected through an app called "This Is Your
| Digital Life", developed by data scientist Aleksandr Kogan
| and his company Global Science Research in 2013. The app
| consisted of a series of questions to build psychological
| profiles on users, and collected the personal data of the
| users' Facebook friends via Facebook's Open Graph platform.
| The app harvested the data of up to 87 million Facebook
| profiles.
|
| [...]
|
| Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at the University of
| Cambridge, was hired by Cambridge Analytica, an offshoot of
| SCL Group, to develop an app called "This Is Your Digital
| Life" (sometimes stylized as "thisisyourdigitallife").
| Cambridge Analytica then arranged an informed consent process
| for research in which several hundred thousand Facebook users
| would agree to complete a survey for payment that was only
| for academic use. _However, Facebook allowed this app not
| only to collect personal information from survey respondents
| but also from respondents' Facebook friends. In this way,
| Cambridge Analytica acquired data from millions of Facebook
| users_."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana.
| ..
| artificial wrote:
| Here's Zynga doing it in 2010 [0]. Obama campaign crawling
| the social graph hoovering up 10s of millions of users [1].
|
| "We ingested the entire U.S. social graph," Carol Davidsen,
| director of data integration and media analytics for Obama
| for America, told The Washington Post this week. "We would
| ask permission to basically scrape your profile, and also
| scrape your friends, basically anything that was available
| to scrape. We scraped it all." [2]
|
| [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-zynga-sharing-
| priva...
|
| [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-harnessing-
| facebooks-soci...
|
| [2] https://reason.com/2018/03/23/cambridge-analytics-dust-
| up-re...
| kjreact wrote:
| > At the end the result is the same: targeted ads to specific
| classes of users.
|
| Is there any evidence that Apple is using the unique
| identifier for advertising? Also isn't the unique identifier
| necessary for users who actually opt-in to tracking?
| kornhole wrote:
| What Apple does with all the data they collect may be one
| of the best guarded secrets in the world. Assuming they
| invest heavily to collect the valuable data and do not use
| it for financial or power gain does not make any sense.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Emmm.. there's a facebook databreach with people's names +
| phonenumbers. I think it was a year or 2 ago.
| [deleted]
| simonh wrote:
| According to Facebook's page for their App they share user's
| contact info, identifiers and 'other data' with third party
| companies. So no.
| kube-system wrote:
| Facebook has had several high profile data breaches, 530
| million users' data in an unsecured database in 2019, and
| several issues surrounding data sharing with third party apps
| on their platform.
| lapser wrote:
| > Apple is doing the labeling of its users on device
|
| Do you have a source for this?
| whatever1 wrote:
| I just opened Apple News, it has a for you page and it
| shows me articles that are interesting to me (tech and
| cars), and a nice ad below them for cheap car loans.
|
| How did the Apple server know what articles to serve me? I
| never asked for them explicitly.
|
| So I was labeled as a user that likes tech news and cars,
| and the server automatically sends me stuff relevant
| (articles & ads) to these labels.
| kube-system wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asident
| i...
|
| Android has one too:
|
| https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/ads/identi
| f...
| justapassenger wrote:
| Controversial statement - with the amount of scrutiny, hate and
| FTC oversight over companies like Facebook I have more trust in
| their privacy than Apple. Apple weaponized privacy to be able
| to enter their competitors market, all while very openly lying
| it's all about the user.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| How is Apple lying that it's all about the user? Their
| support documents clearly outline what is E2E encrypted and
| their explicit justification for not locking iCloud backups
| is specifically because of situations where users are locked
| out of all their information because of a forgotten password.
|
| Unless there's evidence that Apple has sustained a security
| breach as a result of this posture, it seems to me that they
| actually are caring about the user. The only incidents that
| I'm aware of with regard to Apple are social engineering and
| brute-forcing due to weak user passwords. Is there a
| situation or evidence that Apple is lying here?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| "Lying" may be a little extreme. Deceptive, though,
| perhaps.
|
| 1. "We care about your privacy"
|
| 2. Introduce a bunch of privacy tracking controls to
| restrict what other parties and apps can retrieve and use
| vis-a-vis data and you.
|
| 3. Heavily increase your investment in your own ad network
| that is not subject to the same restrictions.
| agd wrote:
| Could you be specific about what tracking restrictions
| Apple imposes on others which they don't follow
| themselves?
|
| My understanding was that Apple asks for user consent
| before letting ad networks track users across many apps
| run by different companies. Apple doesn't do that
| themselves as far as I know?
| dkonofalski wrote:
| 1. It seems to me that they do care about user privacy. I
| haven't seen any evidence yet to suggest that they don't.
| Tim Cook, of all people, has every reason for this to be
| a priority and a truthful statement.
|
| 2. The privacy tracking controls only restrict tracking
| _across apps and websites_. Individual apps are allowed
| to collect data and it would be impossible for Apple to
| guarantee that an app couldn 't collect data since they
| clearly can't be aware of every since implementation
| within the app. Notice what the terms for end-users
| explicitly state since a company like Meta can't get info
| from Apple about users across FB and Insta, for example,
| but may have ways to tie users together based on data
| they're collecting on the platform itself. Apple can't
| really stop that. They can only make it more difficult
| (which they have, as evidence by FB's reaction to the new
| privacy controls).
|
| 3. Where do you get the idea that they're not subject to
| the same restrictions? I don't see any evidence that this
| is the case.
| maskedinvader wrote:
| 3. Every other app has to ask user to "opt in", default
| is "opt out" while for apples own prompt the user has to
| "opt out", default is "opt in". This alone is evidence
| they are not subject to the same restrictions.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Do you have any evidence of this? Setting up an iPhone or
| iPad asks the user to opt-in to Apple's tracking. The
| only reason it would be opt-out is if you opted in
| previously and a software update has revised the
| permissions/tracking for that app. If you've previously
| opted-in, then the default is not opt-in. You're just
| seeing it that way because of your previous allowance.
| halostatue wrote:
| Not quite. Apps subject to ATT rules have to ask
| permission to permit tracking _across_ apps and /or
| websites. All apps have to declare what personal
| information that they're interested in. Here's a link to
| Numbers:
| https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/numbers/id409203825?mt=12
|
| It declares:
|
| Data Linked to You The following data, which may be
| collected and linked to your identity, may be used for
| the following purposes: Analytics
| Identifiers User ID Device ID
| Usage Data Product Interaction
| Diagnostics Performance Data
| Other Diagnostic Data App Functionality
| Contact Info Email Address Name
| Phone Number User Content
| Photos or Videos Audio Data Other
| User Content Identifiers User
| ID
|
| My bet is that the Stocks app says the same thing, and
| that people are confusing OS data collection permissions
| with app data collection permissions.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Unless there's evidence that Apple has sustained a
| security breach
|
| I don't think thats a strong argument. FB's security was
| never actually breeched during cambridge analyitica. It was
| information given to a study by paid subjects, plus
| scraping of their friends graph, plus a fucktonne of PR to
| say how great their data was. Sure they had information on
| n million people. But they didn't have _detailed_
| information.
|
| With apple, they have unrestricted access to the location
| of you, your laptop and tags. With that you can work out
| friendship graphs. Not only that but all the information
| that every app collects plus a boat load more metadata.
|
| If they cared about the user, they wouldn't be collecting
| this information, instead they seem to be wanting to muscle
| into FB and google's advert game.
|
| But, dont get this as me saying meta/google are good. No,
| they are just as bad as apple, but with varying levels of
| PR.
| mindslight wrote:
| This would only make sense if abusing personal data were
| actually illegal. As it stands, the FTC maybe has the power
| to create a slight inconvenience for the legal department,
| and only if something goes really bad to the point of
| creating widespread demonstrable harm.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| > App telemetry, metrics, etc might get handwaved away with a
| sinister phrase, like "essential for improving user
| experience."
|
| I don't get why these are automatically considered sinister.
| Measuring how people actually behave is an excellent way to
| improve your product. If this is done with sufficient care and
| anonymity, with no financial incentive to betray the user, I
| don't see the issue at all.
| jzb wrote:
| A lot of reasons.
|
| People don't like being watched. There's additional cognitive
| load in having to decide all the ways you might later regret
| giving that information away.
|
| Once the information is out the door, it's out. You can't
| recall it. Apple or whatever company can have a change of
| leadership, mission or strategy that's incompatible with your
| values. But they still have your data and likely still can
| claim they have permission to use it.
|
| For those of us who are older, it's also just discomfiting.
| We had at least a plausible illusion of privacy in our homes
| and our comings and goings. Now you have to take drastic and
| active steps to preserve privacy.
|
| That's not to say I am fully against telemetry, but you asked
| why they're considered sinister. I think companies or
| organizations have a lot of work to do in order to comfort
| users.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Because historically it hasn't been 99% of the time. And no
| one cares about securing other people's data.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I'm confused about this entire thread and the lawsuit
| considering that, as far as I can see, Apple's privacy
| statement explicitly says "across apps or websites". There's
| nothing about the privacy policy that states that they can't
| track you within a single app. I don't see any evidence, in
| the video or otherwise, that what's going on and what's shown
| is going against that policy. Maybe I'm naive to think that
| Apple doesn't cross-pollinate this data but I don't see any
| evidence to suggest that that's not the case or that any of
| this is malicious.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| To me it's an issue of consent. And not the "agree to us
| collecting everything or GTFO" kind of consent that companies
| love to stick in their EULAs. Telemetry is fine as long as I
| have the option to disable it completely. If that option does
| not exist, my assumption is that there is a revenue-
| generating reason why this stuff is being collected and it's
| not just being used to "improve user experience".
| ridgered4 wrote:
| > If this is done with sufficient care and anonymity, with no
| financial incentive to betray the user, I don't see the issue
| at all.
|
| Even if a public company somehow managed to pass all of those
| caveats today the moment their leadership changed it would
| all go back out the window. And even a private company might
| go public or change leadership.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I think you're missing a key difference here, though: Apple is
| not selling that data to their advertisers. The key difference
| between Apple's privacy argument and others is that your data
| in the latter case is being sold to those advertisers along
| with the targeting. Apple, on the other hand, is using your
| data to personalize what you see but none of that information
| is sent to Apple and none of it is sold to third parties. All
| the personalization is being done on your devices and you can
| turn it off if you choose to so that you just see generic
| advertisements that everyone else sees.
|
| All together, I don't see how that makes Apple's
| trustworthiness weak in this space. In the current state of the
| internet, advertisement runs everything so they're still
| delivering on ads to their customers without selling your data
| or even giving those third parties a way to track you as an
| individual. That, to me, still equals privacy, at least as far
| as what Apple is saying.
| nicolashahn wrote:
| Meta is also not selling data to advertisers. Advertisers buy
| ads and Meta decides who sees them. Advertisers only find out
| who sees their ads once they click on them.
|
| https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/
| dkonofalski wrote:
| _Now_. This is a policy change that was a direct result of
| the Cambridge Analytica leak. Cambridge explicitly used the
| cross-site and cross-app tracking to build the models that
| they sold to people /companies/governments.
| nicolashahn wrote:
| Facebook was not selling data then either. Users gave
| their explicit consent to Cambridge Analytica to use the
| data in the surveys. The mistake Facebook made was giving
| Cambridge Analytica access to those users' _friends_
| data, which qualifies it as a data breach. Again,
| Facebook never sold data to third parties.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| That's not accurate. Facebook sold the data to Cambridge
| Analytica. You're right that users gave consent for their
| data to be used but the data bundle sold to Cambridge
| Analytica included data that was not collected in the
| surveys. The entire issue wasn't just that FB gave CA
| access to those users' friends data. It's that they
| _sold_ it to CA insomuch that CA was paying FB for that
| additional data.
|
| >"We have to seriously challenge the claim by Facebook
| that they are not selling user data," commented Damian
| Collins MP, chair of the UK Parliament's Digital,
| Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
|
| >"They may not be letting people take it away by the
| bucket load, but they do reward companies with access to
| data that others are denied, if they place a high value
| on the business they do together. This is just another
| form of selling."
| p_j_w wrote:
| >Now.
|
| Now is where we all live. The fact that it wasn't like
| that before doesn't matter THAT much.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| This is not true at all. It matters from both a principle
| standpoint and also a data availability standpoint. If I
| tell you that I won't sell your location info to people
| starting today but I _was_ selling it in the past, how
| difficult do you think it would be for someone to use
| that past information along with current information to
| figure out what your favorite restaurant is or where you
| work?
|
| It matters _very_ much that a company only stops selling
| or tracking your info because they got caught or had a
| data breach. Look at Google right now. They 're being
| sued by several states for tracking location info for
| people and then selling it to advertisers without those
| users' consent. It matters very much to me if Google is
| suddenly claiming that they're privacy conscious because
| their actions explicitly speak to the fact that they're
| not.
| nicolashahn wrote:
| Meta has swung hard in the other direction. Now privacy
| reviews are so comprehensive that development speed is
| significantly hampered. Some teams say they're half as
| productive as they were before the privacy-first changes.
| Meta seriously does not want to make the same mistake
| again. Source: I'm an engineer at Meta.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| If this is true I'd be genuinely surprised. Are you saying
| Apple's model is "Advertise through us. You'll get absolutely
| no feedback on the users who respond to your advertising. We
| will just send you a bill, 'x clicks * y cents/click'."
|
| Without arguing about whether it should or shouldn't be and
| the other deeper considerations, I can't see that as a
| compelling use of marketing dollars.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| There's probably something to be said for targeting simply
| the group of people who are on apple devices, given they as
| a group tend to have higher disposable income. Marketers
| did their work without direct metrics for a long time, it's
| not impossible.
|
| Apple would undoubtably not be able to charge as much as
| they could if they had those sorts of metrics to give, but
| there is a value proposition there.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| No, I'm saying that Apple is promising advertisers
| aggregated data about their ad performance and people
| reached without ever handing over individualized data.
| Apple, like they do with all of their third-party services,
| is acting as the gatekeeper between users and
| advertisers/third parties. They're leveraging user trust in
| their brand/company to say "we'll provide you with data" to
| advertisers while being able to tell users "we don't share
| your individual data with third parties". It's the same
| reason they insist on Apple Pay being the only method of
| payment for apps within the app store. They don't want to
| lose user trust by allowing apps to collect payment
| information from users. Some people think they're doing it
| to take advantage of their position as the device
| manufacturer (not a stretch, in my opinion) but I think
| their consistency across all devices and platforms makes
| the argument that they are actually doing what they're
| claiming for the reasons they're stating.
| tyfon wrote:
| How is this different from what google and facebook does?
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I've responded elsewhere but the big difference is that
| Apple has always operated this way while FB and Google
| have changed their positions. Since they have had prior
| data breaches, it's not difficult for a malicious actor
| to use old data combined with new data to restore data
| models. The only situation where this wouldn't apply
| would be for users whose accounts were created after the
| policy changes.
| LegitShady wrote:
| facebook operates tbe same way you say apple does.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| They do _now_ but only because they leaked a bunch of
| individual user data models in the past. Apple has
| _always_ operated this way so there 's nothing for
| someone to tie together. Facebook's position is basically
| useless when someone can recreate user data models for
| anyone that was on FB before the policy change.
| summerlight wrote:
| There has been some weird misunderstanding on the business
| models of ads network. They have zero incentive to sell user
| data to advertisers or whoever else. That data and model is
| the only meaningful difference between ad networks,
| advertisers and their potential competitors, beside of
| established infrastructures. You don't sell your strategic
| weapons to your enemy right? They may provides some targeting
| and contextual information for bidding, but given that many
| ad networks are moving to automated bidding systems I think
| this also will be gone eventually.
| sirius87 wrote:
| First thought that popped into my head was Zuck in his VR avatar
| chomping on a tub of virtual popcorn reading this saying, "Send
| this man a bouquet".
|
| Won't be long before shady lawsuits along similar lines follow.
| It will soon be more about tapering Apple's ad-network ambitions
| than genuine concern about user privacy.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Not Apple's ad-network ambitions!
| gigel82 wrote:
| I'm happy that these sort of posts are actually getting some
| traction on Hacker News these days. Up until 3-4 months ago, I
| was still getting pummeled with downvotes and flags if I even
| suggested Apple are hypocrites building an ad empire.
| ksec wrote:
| Apple will probably get away with that as it is all in the fine
| print. But,
|
| 1. Let's not forget vast majority ( if not all ) of people on the
| Internet, inclusive but not limited to Main-steam Media, HN,
| Reddit and Twitter who commented between 2017 and 2021 thought
| privacy meant anonymous. And before anyone disagree, very very
| few on HN even bother to downvote or stand up against the notion
| of privacy meant anonymous.
|
| 2. Apple play this card, both in PR and marketing, along with
| media ( Submarine Article or not ) as a tool against Facebook. Or
| Social Media but let's be honest we all know they mean Facebook.
| And of course, for people from US, after 2016 Facebook is the
| most evil company on planet earth. Any Facebook bashing equals
| great.
|
| 3. A lot of people were brought into the idea of privacy meant
| anonymous. So in other settings, Apple use the word
| "personalised" instead of Data Collection, _cough_ , I mean
| tracking.
|
| 4. The good thing about all of these, anything illogical will
| have to unfold some day. ( Just like Crypto ) Apple of course
| collect Data from you. Apple of course has all the Data about
| your usage pattern. So when some people came to realise privacy
| doesn't mean anonymous, I guess they aren't so happy?
|
| 5. Apple's _true_ definition of privacy is that All Apple 's user
| Data belongs to Apple. Any data to third party are by definition
| "Tracking". Since Privacy is a _Fundamental Human Right_ , I
| guess the only choice is to give Apple all your Data?
|
| 6. Most people, especially tech nerds will likely play the I
| trust Apple more than Google card. Because Apple are not in the
| Ad business! - That was 2017 to 2021 if not 2022. They have their
| ads business right infront of you for a long time. They have been
| preparing their Ads business for a long time. Most tech nerds, or
| Apple apologist just turns a blind eye to it.
| nowherebeen wrote:
| > Because Apple are not in the Ad business! - That was 2017 to
| 2021 if not 2022. They have their ads business right infront of
| you for a long time.
|
| If you look at their careers page, they have been hiring quite
| a few adtech talent in Texas for the last half year. I won't be
| surprised they are waiting for their competitors to die off
| before swooping in. Corporate strategy and PR teams deserves a
| raise.
| kjreact wrote:
| > 5. Apple's true definition of privacy is that All Apple's
| user Data belongs to Apple. Any data to third party are by
| definition "Tracking". Since Privacy is a Fundamental Human
| Right, I guess the only choice is to give Apple all your Data?
|
| Are we so naive to believe that we are not be tracked by the
| big tech companies all the time?
|
| If I use Office 365 Microsoft knows about my document writing
| habits and may be privy to company secrets if I had to write
| some sensitive company memos.
|
| Google has the vast majority of my email if not all since so
| much email goes through their mail servers. Even if I avoid
| using GMail, I can't stop my contacts from doing so. Google
| knows all my search habits as well.
|
| Amazon knows my spending habits, the list goes on and on. And
| then there are the traditional means of tracking someone via
| credit card expenditures or your cell phone provider knowing
| your whereabouts and usage patterns.
|
| You give away tracking data all the time. The issue is how
| these companies use that data. If they are doing something
| nefarious like what Cambridge Analytica did then we should be
| outraged.
|
| Otherwise it's just hypocrisy to play the blame game on any one
| company.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >may be privy to company secrets if I had to write some
| sensitive company memos.
|
| This is the thing that has blown me away as I've watch our
| privacy get flushed down the drain. When a handful of corps
| (not to mention Govt. TLAs) have access to everyone's data
| and comms, doesn't that enable them to spot and mitigate any
| possible disruptions to their business by upstarts?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| On the other hand, it's hypocritical for any one company to
| pretend they're better than the others if they still engage
| in the same data tracking behavior.
| yummypaint wrote:
| What are you trying to argue for? That we should all just
| throw up our hands and give up trying to protect our privacy?
| What course of action should be taken to improve things?
| kjreact wrote:
| I'm arguing that the price for our technological
| advancement is the loss of privacy. It's unavoidable. If
| one is not willing to bear such a price then they should
| completely unplug from technology and go live out in the
| woods away from civilization. Because just interacting with
| someone who is plugged in is a privacy risk.
|
| All I hope is that the megacorp that I trust doesn't go and
| sell off all my personal data to some nefarious people.
| What other course of action would you recommend to improve
| our privacy?
| quesera wrote:
| > What other course of action would you recommend
|
| Regulation and enforcement is the only answer.
|
| You cannot blindly trust in the continuing good
| intentions of executives who have as much power as Tim
| Cook does.
|
| Meta and Alphabet are already committed to profiting from
| users' private information. Apple is not, at least not
| yet.
|
| I'd be happy to have laws that enforce (at a minimum) the
| natural implications of the good behavior that Apple has
| claimed in marketing for years. But this would destroy
| Google and Facebook.
| kornhole wrote:
| You are generally right that most of those proprietary
| products and platforms track you to different degrees. They
| are not transparent about how they use it. I can attest that
| many of have been off all of these for years other than when
| we are forced by workplaces to use them. You may be like many
| people who are unaware of the alternatives because they are
| free and not advertised.
| kjreact wrote:
| I am aware of alternatives, but I was trying to come up
| with examples from competing companies that many people
| use. People don't seem to be up-in-arms about all SaaS
| products but just those that are owned by corporations that
| they have a particular bias against.
|
| But my argument is more that we've already given up a lot
| of our privacy by interacting with today's technology.
| ISPs, cellular providers, credit cards, banking, the list
| goes on and on regarding areas where we have give up
| privacy for the sake of convenience.
| kornhole wrote:
| I think you are touching on the aspects of scale (how
| much data collected) and harm (how it is used against
| us). Another important aspect is time since the older the
| data is, the less valuable it is to corporations and
| governments. Debate between which corporations are better
| or worse comes down to trust and PR. Some people believe
| that all publicly traded corporations are structurally
| incapable of protecting users over profits.
| nervysnail wrote:
| roody15 wrote:
| Two weeks ago I attended an Apple Event for Government and
| Education in Chicago. From my perspective was absolutely alarmed
| at how open they were about tracking data and sharing. I think
| their marketing on "privacy" was dishonest at the least.
|
| Apple puts constant pressure on the user to use an iCloud
| account. Apple puts constant pressure to manage apple Devices
| with a MDM profile based system. In both cases user privacy is
| lost.
| amf12 wrote:
| > I think their marketing on "privacy" was dishonest at the
| least. > Apple puts constant pressure on the user to use an
| iCloud account.
|
| I do think Apple's use of the term "privacy" is not completely
| honest. But we should note the difference between privacy and
| anonymity. Using iCloud provides privacy for the user; that is,
| Apple won't access your iCloud data. It is not however
| anonymous.
| pannSun wrote:
| > The researchers uncovered these findings using a jailbroken
| iPhone running iOS 14.6. Notably, while the team discovered
| similar iPhone activity on a non-jailbroken phone running iOS 16,
| the data was encrypted and it was therefore not possible to
| determine exactly what it contained.
|
| And this is why "security" to prevent user control or even
| knowledge of "their" devices is so important.
| runjake wrote:
| My hope is that this case or another uncovers just _how much_
| user tracking Apple does. It is _a lot_ more than people know.
| And the efforts to "de-anonymize" collected data are laughable
| and not de-anonymized, and there is no real oversight for
| compliance. But that's all I am going to say on that.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Do you have evidence for these claims? I'm not sure I
| understand how any user data can be de-anonymized when all the
| user tracking is done on-device and never leaves said device.
| tarentel wrote:
| I don't think it's surprising to anyone how much apple tracks
| its own users. They actually have a page on it and what they're
| tracking, https://www.apple.com/privacy/labels/. It's also
| clearly stated that a lot of data collected isn't anonymized at
| all.
|
| You're right there is no oversight for compliance to their own
| terms and that is the real issue. It is also an issue if
| they're getting a competitive edge by bypassing their own
| rules. It wouldn't be surprising to me if they were but based
| on the articles there isn't a whole lot of proof.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > It is also an issue if they're getting a competitive edge
| by bypassing their own rules.
|
| And it's not like that would be the first time they've done
| that. Pretty common on all sorts of levels.
|
| My "favorite" was the ability of Apple apps on macOS to
| bypass most of the TCP/IP stack and send traffic directly,
| regardless of on-device filtering or firewalling. Apple
| claimed it was "a temporary measure while they dealt with
| updating software", but I'm still at a loss to explain why an
| app like TextEdit would have ever needed a kernel network
| extension in the first place. That to me was almost certainly
| a post-facto attempt at justification when they were caught
| with their hand in the cookie jar.
| runnerup wrote:
| I'm somewhat surprised. I had bought into the "all machine-
| learning is done on-device" messaging and thought that Apple
| Maps was taking pains to anonymize data by only sending small
| chunks of your route data for traffic congestion
| analysis/etc.
|
| When Apple was starting their machine learning division I'd
| heard they had trouble retaining top talent because the
| engineers would show up and "okay! where's the data?" and
| Apple would reply "uhh, we don't have any it all stays on-
| device".
|
| But with Apple getting into advertising I don't think this
| could stay this way, if it ever actually was in the first
| place.
| fibers wrote:
| then what is the point of having such a powerful processor
| on device?
| kernal wrote:
| What an odd take for Apple. If they really respected user privacy
| they would cancel their ad business stop the collection and
| monetization of user data. Their insatiable quest for revenue has
| destroyed the primary reason you should buy an Apple product.
| Apple has crossed the Rubicon and their image is forever
| tarnished for the sake of adding additional percentage points to
| their quarterly revenue.
|
| What once differentiated Apple from Google, Amazon and Facebook
| no longer exists. I can't imagine Steve ever going down this
| road.
| zahma wrote:
| Obviously the case even without Mysk's research. Apple's vision
| for the future is the walled garden of tech utopia. It makes
| sense that they want data to retain users and lock them in
| further to the brand. It's so devilishly hypocritical to track
| users and pass it off as normal business practice when they have
| clearly positioned themselves as the defenders of user privacy
| against the likes of Alphabet and Meta. Alas, I'm typing this in
| an iPhone because I don't know of another viable option for now.
| simonh wrote:
| The distinction is that Apple doesn't monetise your data by
| sharing it with third party companies.
|
| Personally I'm fine with a company I choose to do business with
| storing information about me and about how I interact with
| their services. It just seems obvious that they will need to do
| this in order to provide their services. I understand that some
| of this info may be more than the strictly necessary minimum,
| but I have no evidence so far that any of this info has been
| used for purposes I consider nefarious. If they do, ok I'll
| reconsider.
|
| I do understand the argument that they're providing an option
| to opt out of tracking, and that some of this data appears to
| be what is reasonably considered tracking info. That's a
| potential concern, sure, but again are they actually using this
| for anything I'd consider nefarious? If so then again I'm
| interested, but if not then ok, they should stop doing it, but
| that's as far as my interest goes.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Using the data to target ads is as good as sharing it with
| third party companies. Apple is monetizing you, ostensibly at
| some point they can just stop making products and survive by
| advertisers paying to advertise on Apple devices with perfect
| accuracy given the data Apple has on all of us.
| h4waii wrote:
| Google Pixel + GrapheneOS is an excellent alternative to an
| iPhone in terms of usability, privacy, and security, and
| hardware + software longevity.
|
| I know it seems weird to recommend a Google phone, but one can
| completely eschew the issues around Google tracking, by not
| using Google services, or using them within the on-device
| sandbox giving them standard privileges.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Alas, I'm typing this in an iPhone because I don't know of
| another viable option for now.
|
| If you want to support the fight for freedom and free yourself
| from both Google and Apple, consider a GNU/Linux phone, Librem
| 5 or Pinephone.
| dang wrote:
| Url changed from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/11/14/apple-
| class-action-user..., which points to this.
|
| Submitters: " _Please submit the original source. If a post
| reports on something found on another site, submit the latter._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| I'm confused - the article (and what I read of the suit) seems to
| be using the term "Tracking" for both tracking users across other
| companies apps and websites (what Apple lets you opt out of) and
| recording users interaction inside an app.
|
| They are very different - there's over a million websites that
| use Hotjar alone (which sounds similar to what Apple is recording
| in App), and every news site will record how many view people
| read each article if not using some analytics front end JS code
| to read for how long for. Macrumours.com itself is using Google
| Analytics, and the suit it links to is using Adobe Analytics
| which do much the same.
|
| From what the article says I don't see how this breaks any of the
| Apples "Anti Tracking" policies - I'm not saying they're not
| recording too much just that it doesn't break their policies.
| tarentel wrote:
| It's not exactly clear to me based on the article or the ones
| linked if they are out of line with their own privacy policy.
| Denying app tracking on a specific app doesn't actually prevent
| the app developer from collecting analytics data. If they are
| breaking their own rules that's not entirely surprising and
| hopefully they are forced to follow them as well.
|
| It is kind of sketchy that they have a way to turn off "device"
| analytics which one would assume is tied to apple's apps but that
| doesn't seem to be the case.
| sp332 wrote:
| It might not violate the fine print, but if their advertising
| or other official communications give the wrong idea, they
| could still be on the hook for misleading customers.
| ezfe wrote:
| I do actually think it violates the fine print. We agree that
| the App Store is both part of the operating system (it cannot
| be deleted) and is an Apple Service. The switch for Device
| Analytics says the following:
|
| > iPhone Analytics may include details about hardware and
| operating system specifications, performance statistics
|
| So far, no problem. All of these could be construed to mean
| the Springboard (homescreen) layer and below. Not apps, even
| shipping in the OS.
|
| > and data about how you use your devices and applications.
|
| Starting to get concerning. App Store use is clearly "how you
| use your devices" and is also clearly an application.
| However, it gets worse...
|
| > This information is used to help Apple improve and develop
| its products and services.
|
| I believe a reasonable person would interpret this to mean
| that if the Analytics is disabled, Apple collects no data
| from you that improves [your phone] and the services you
| interact with.
| ezfe wrote:
| I completely agree that "Ask Apps Not To Track" is not the
| problem here - the fact that the Analytics switch doesn't work
| in an Apple service is the problem.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Finally. There is no reason they should get away with that.
| nowherebeen wrote:
| Some middle manager at Apple is shitting themselves right now for
| causing this.
| michael1999 wrote:
| The Cossacks work for the Czar.
| beders wrote:
| Happy to be tracked. Whatever that means.
|
| This is a for-profit organization, so I expect it to behave that
| way. Which includes maximizing profits made by showing ads to
| end-users.
|
| I really don't care. The benefits I derive from being inside this
| walled garden outweigh any 'privacy' concerns.
|
| You don't have privacy on the internet anyways. Your data is not
| safe on the internet.
|
| You can influence the price tag adversaries need to pay to access
| your data, but that's it.
|
| In short: Hardly a surprise and compared to the competition Apple
| is going for a good balance.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| What you are saying is:"Privacy exists only for the people who
| can afford it."
| aliqot wrote:
| I'm starting to think nobody reads the things they click "I
| Agree" to. The terms of the agreement are right there but you
| can't say you 'didnt know' if you agree to them without reading.
| fleddr wrote:
| Pragmatically speaking, there really isn't much of a disagree.
| Sure, you can chose to not buy an Apple device, yet then you'll
| buy an Android device, with its own ToS.
| Loughla wrote:
| You're just starting to think that? They're massively long,
| convoluted, legalese documents. It's literally a cultural joke
| that no-one reads those.
|
| I believe there needs to be a change in how terms and
| conditions are written - people need bullet points.
|
| By clicking "I Agree", the user (you) agrees that:
|
| 1. [COMPANY] can sell your data to third-parties. This data
| includes [x, y, z]
|
| 2. [COMPANY] will retain your data for [X YEARS]
|
| 3. [COMPANY] will allow you to delete your data by visiting
| [WEBSITE]
|
| That sort of thing. People don't read; right, wrong, or
| indifferent, people don't read. They especially don't read
| convoluted, exceedingly long terms and conditions that they
| HAVE to accept to use a product.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Nutrition Facts Labels for ToS agreements would be nice.
| aliqot wrote:
| > It's literally a cultural joke that no-one reads those
|
| I read every single document I sign my name to, every time.
| I'm not alone either. I assume we're mostly engineers here,
| some of us maybe are involved in contractual things, so tell
| me: in your job do you sign your business's name or your own
| name as Officer to contracts you haven't read? Now tell me,
| if work is less important than your personal affairs why on
| earth would you review the terms for work agreements, but not
| for yourself? If I agreed to contracts without reading them
| in a job context, I'd be in the unemployment line so fast the
| IRS would send me their condolences.
| Lewton wrote:
| The TOS is not a valid contract
| wsc981 wrote:
| Obligatory: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTsFKJ2nJE
| itsyaboi wrote:
| What is your strategy when it comes to updates? Say you hop
| into your Tesla, see a pending software update and are
| prompted with a EULA type document. Do spend the next hour
| reviewing it before accepting? Assuming you are an engineer
| and not a legal expert, do you consult with a lawyer about
| ambiguous wording or clauses? How do you repeat this x100
| for all of the software embedded in your life?
|
| This has to be a joke, right?
| Loughla wrote:
| You're living black and white, is the problem.
|
| Do I read all work contracts and terms? Of course.
|
| Do I read all contracts in my personal life related to
| property, finance, or other important things? Of course.
|
| Do I read the 10 pages of EULA every time Angry Birds
| updates new levels? Absolutely not.
|
| In the context of Apple: When you activate a phone, the
| salesperson who sets it up (most people in middle america
| still do go to the store to get their phones activated)
| literally flashes the screen at you and says something to
| the effect of, "do you agree? If not, you can't use this
| phone."
| always2slow wrote:
| tl;dr
| realusername wrote:
| Because the reality is those "user contracts" have no real
| value and if you ask me, it's good they are not printed
| because they would be a waste of paper.
|
| Of course that reality does not suit well companies and
| they try very hard to create their own bubble world of user
| contracts.
|
| Proper country laws enforce consumer laws instead based on
| intent
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Most people definitely do not read click-through EULAs in a
| business context any more than in their ordinary life. When
| Jira or AWS or whoever send updated policies to businesses
| on their public plans, almost nobody pays attention. The
| likelihood of being fired for this behavior surely
| approaches zero.
|
| "Real" contracts are another matter entirely.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| And this is where the problem lies. It may be high times
| to see if EULAs are contracts or not. It would certainly
| clear some things up really fast. It is not impossible
| that this case may actually force this clarification.
| Loughla wrote:
| >It may be high times to see if EULAs are contracts or
| not.
|
| Abso.fucking.lutely. I believe the state of technology
| has progressed to the point that EULA are just weasel
| words. People view them as necessary evils that don't
| really impact their lives (or, rather, shouldn't) but
| companies treat them like legal documents.
|
| A court needs to settle this.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| I've never wanted to make a "touch grass" joke more than in
| response to this comment.
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| If you didn't know, you can say you didn't know. You're
| alluding to the fact that no one cares. Even that's hardly
| fair, as it's near impossible to get a mobile device at the
| same usability as iPhone or Android without similar tracking
| involved.
| h4waii wrote:
| No it isn't, AOSP is open source (it's right in the name) and
| there are projects like CalyxOS, GrapheneOS, and LineageOS
| which make it extremely easy for anyone on HN to get away
| from having Apple or Google on their mobile devices.
| Toxide wrote:
| Nobody does, that's why you can claim you didn't know. The law
| has to respect what most of society would do. Famously, hockey
| teams were held liable for people getting injured by flying
| pucks, despite each ticket to the game having an agreement that
| if bought the ticket you accepted the risk. But nobody reads
| the back of the ticket. In the end the arena put up nets to
| catch the pucks.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Dura lex sed lex maxim did not come into being by courts
| obliging public opinion..
| p0pcult wrote:
| Right, 1000 years ago. Today, the courts are a bit
| different.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Um. Yes. Technically yes. And in several different ways
| too. I do not necessarily want to assume what you
| intended to write here. Would you care to elaborate a
| little? I was going to open with a history of law and how
| certain level of distance of court from the mob's wishes
| is desirable for a societal reason, but I decided against
| it since I might be assuming what you were trying to say.
|
| I guess my question is: what are you saying?
| ezfe wrote:
| > Even when consumers follow Apple's own instructions and turn
| off "Allow Apps to Request to Track" and/or "Share [Device]
| Analytics" on their privacy controls
|
| Reading the description in Settings for both of these switches,
| we learn the following:
|
| 1. Allow Apps to Request to Track specifically "Allow[s] apps to
| ask to track your activity across other companies' apps and
| websites." This clause clearly doesn't apply to any internal
| analytics process.
|
| 2. Share [Device] Analytics is a bigger issue, and is the
| problem. The switch says that it sends information about how the
| user uses the operating system and Apple services. That clearly
| includes the App Store, so switching this off should switch off
| App Store analytics.
|
| Including the first point seems stupid, since it muddies the
| claim against Apple.
|
| A note about the App Store privacy information. It (separately)
| indicates that they collect the information this article alleges
| - so Apple IS disclosing it. However that doesn't change the fact
| that the Analytics toggle reasonably seems to apply to the App
| Store as well.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I don't think I agree with your assessment of this for the
| following reasons:
|
| 1. Nothing here is being tracked "across other companies apps
| and websites", unless there's something here that shows Apple
| is cross-pollinating their data internally (which is possible
| but I don't see any evidence for here).
|
| 2. I disagree that this includes "App Store" app. The
| description given when you click the "About Analytics &
| Privacy" link explicitly states what the differentiation is
| and, to me, that does not include the App Store app.
| ezfe wrote:
| On the first point, we agree. On the second point, the App
| Store is an OS-level Apple Service, two things that the
| Analytics purports to provide.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Considering that you can remove the App Store app from your
| home screen, I don't think it would classified as an OS-
| level service.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| > Share [Device] Analytics is a bigger issue, and is the
| problem
|
| Personally, I've always assumed that Device analytics (which I
| always turn off) referred to iOS, device and network
| performance, what apps are launched and crash etc. and that it
| didn't cover in app usage analytics.
|
| The description is a little vague:
| https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/device-analytics...
|
| But the App Store privacy notes still state they record usage
| so they can personalise ads (which are optional) and show
| trending apps and searches etc (I think not optional)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-14 23:02 UTC)