Apple Responds to iTunes Spying Allegations

daveschroeder writes "According to MacWorld and BoingBoing: 'An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) told MacWorld that Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes. [...] Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected. The data sent is used to update the MiniStore and then discarded.' Apple also has a knowledge base article, which apparently was available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was introduced, explaining the MiniStore behavior and how to disable it: 'iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store.'" The discussion about this topic was fast and furious yesterday.

This is just fud

This spying news with iTunes sounds more like jealous FUD coming from their competitors.

Re:This is just fud

The info it was supposedly spying on (what music you bought - it was used to make suggestions for other people) can be obtained perfectly easily by logging your purchases. For example Amazon offers me "suggested titles" and also uses my purchases to tell others "people who bought ... also bought ...", and they do that without using spyware to look at my bookshelf :-)

Now if iTunes spied on the music you ripped then that might be news, but still not that important. I mean all they'll do is say "people who have Take That mp3s also buy other tasteless crap" etc.

In short, yes, FUD.

Re:This is just fud

Oh yes it does. ANY song that you select, whether one you bought or one you ripped yourself will cause the mini-store to update with other products from the same artist.

But so what? It can be a useful feature. If you don't want it, it's 1 click to turn it off. At which point, no more queries will be made of the Apple store for the artist name. Problem solved.

Re:This is just fud

I want the tool to look at what I actually listen to, not just what I buy from them. It's far more likely to give me good suggestions that way.

This tool looks at what song is currently playing, and suggests possible other albums you might like. It's actually kind of nice, when you want to use it, and does nothing when you don't. Win.

Re:This is just fud

Let me do a quick word swap here:

I want the spyware to look at what I actually look at, not just what I tell them too. It's far more likely to give me good suggestions that way.

This tool looks at what webpage is currently displayed, and suggests possible other products you might like. It's actually kind of nice, when you want to use it, and does nothing when you don't. Win.

Except that it's enabled by default and doesn't tell you that it's doing it in the first place.

Only becuase you like apple.

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

The fact that Apple is more often viewed as being product and customer centerned than a tyrannical monopoly is the only reason people will defend this kind of activity.

Apple was taking your personal information about your personal music being played on your personal computer and sending it back to themselves. Basic common courtesy dictates you ask people for personal information, you don't take it. The fact Jobs says he's not being malevolent is nice, but doesn't change the fact Apple somehow felt entitled to know what music you're playing on iTunes at any given time.

One dialog box, "Is it ok to send information about the music you're playing so we can better recommend purchases for you?" is all it takes. That one little question makes this a nice features instead of an invasion of privacy.

Re:Only becuase you like apple.

"Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow. I submit that it is not.

Everything we can see from a technical standpoint and a logical standpoint indicates that there is nothing more happening than a custom WebObjects query to update the recommendations section of the MiniStore.

Now, a bunch of people will keep saying "yeah, but how do we *know* they're not keeping it" or "you would be a fool if you thought they *weren't* keeping it, no matter what they say", but the fact is that iTunes is a highly customized, dynamic web browser - nothing more.

Now, you might think ANY time any information is outbound from your computer, that it constitutes "sending" it to someone. I take issue with this, because, again, it implies it's being taken and kept. I think there is a difference, and that intent matters. Apple did not try to hide this [slashdot.org], and while I agree it would have been a good idea to at least ask politely (and give a clear option to decline), I don't think there is any malicious intent here whatsoever.

Re:Only becuase you like apple.

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

Very true. At least here Apple comes out and explains what it is doing and manages to reasure people. What I often hear from Microsoft when something like this happens is either silence or some sort of arrogant remark. Microsoft could deal with their PR battles with a little more grace than they have up to now.

Re:Only becuase you like apple.

The fact that Apple is more often viewed as being product and customer centerned than a tyrannical monopoly is the only reason people will defend this kind of activity.

Well, isn't that a good enough reason to treat them differently or give more doubt benefit than a company who DOES behave like a tyrannical monopoly?

Humans judge most entities they are familiar with based on expectations formed by past experience. If Apple shows a history of not mistreating them or falling short of their expectations, and other companies have, I would fully expect Apple to be cut more slack than a company that HAD failed them.

Perception is reality, by and large. If all you've ever had with, say, Microsoft were good experiences and Apple burned you over and again, you'd be willing to cut MS more slack than Apple if you found they'd engaged in questionable activities.

Do you think people are more forgiving of Apple because they like Apple, or like them because they have few reasons to be skeptical of their motivations?

Re:Only becuase you like apple.

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

I agree wholeheartedly. If you remember the Sony-BMG debacle (who doesn't?), one of the things people were up in arms about was that the software phoned home. People on /., among many others, rightly complained that it sent information back to Sony without the customer's permission. Sony said they didn't keep the information, but people rightly said that it didn't matter if they kept it or not. The problem was that it was sent without our permission. Yes, there were many other aspects to the Sony-BMG fiasco, but this was one of the issues. According to many comments on /., the fact that Apple is doing it seems to make it okay. It is NOT okay. This should have been clarified up front with the default to "don't transfer my information to Apple".

In retrospect ...

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable.

If you install a piece of software and it starts to gathering information about you, it's called spyware even if there's some magic button combination or option that turns it off. Until it is turned off, it's spyware. I don't understand why the default setting isn't "off" but I guess that was Apple's decision and now they'll catch flack for it.

Re:In retrospect ...

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does. So Apple opted to enable the automatic collection and hope that people will accept their explanation (which, I think, most people will accept). If need be, Apple has information readily-available on how to disable it for people who're really protective of their privacy (if they believe it's violated).

Re:In retrospect ...

Yes, because what would really make iTunes a terrific application is even more annoying dialog boxes after each update.

While they are at it, they should put up a notice that using the GET TRACK NAMES feature (on by default) is sending CDDB information about which new CD you just put in your drive.

Oh, and every last web page you visit should ask for permission to see your IP address, so it knows where to send the response to your http request. Of course, it might be kind of tough for them to get the request to reach you...

Re:In retrospect ...

You seem to miss the point of this statement. According to their claims, it is NOT gathering information about you. As in - the feature, even when it is on, is not doing any form of audit on your song collection.
Ever google band information about a band you're listening to? That is more likely to capture data about you than this would.
Now the next question is whether we trust Apple to be true to it's word about this. If they are lying about this, I would be more concerned with them lying, than with any data they would get from my collection.
Personally, I don't have any reason to mistrust them at this point, as even the dark side of any conspiracy theories about this are fairly harmless, in my estimation.

Re:In retrospect ...

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable.

If they had done that, most people would never have realized that the option exists. If there wasn't a podcast icon on the left side, many people would never have found the option. Better to ask during installation: "iTunes 6.0.2 offers a new option to display recommendations from iTMS matching the music your are playing. For this iTunes has to send the trackname of the current title to iTMS. These informations will only be used to change the MiniStore and be discarded afterwards. Do you want to activate this function [Yes/No]"

Chriss

--
memomo.net [memomo.net] - brush up your German, French, Spanish or Italian - online and free

Non-issue

I've noticed that iTunes suggested music to me before. However, it was only related to what I currently had in my shopping cart. It never much bothered me.

Itunes Music Store Default On or Off?

If the Itunes Music Store is defaulted to ON, this is kind of sneaky since most people do not realize how to turn it off or if Apple saves their personal data or not.

If it is defaulted to OFF that is better, but if it is turned on it should have a pop-up telling you that your music selections are being tracked by Apple and how to turn it off.

The other issue is that people just don't trust large corporations to store/save/erase the data from their customers.
Just because Steve Jobs says its so, doesn't necessarily mean it IS so.

FYI to quickly disable it, hit Shift-Command-M

If the word was reliable...

"reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself" then why not cite the source?

Re:If the word was reliable...

What?? Are you saying reporters should cite sources and report facts? What are you, some kind of Commie pinko terrorist?

If it were Microsoft...

Everyone would still be angry no matter what Bill says. Because it's not, then everything is ok. BTW: I am a Linux guy... Making an observation...

Steve always tells the truth....

You can always trust what Steve Jobs says,
"We will NOT be releasing a video iPod"........

not actually being collected

Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes. [...] Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected.

Release the source of the server app and then we might believe you. We've all heard the "not actually collected" bit many times. Sony first tried to deny this particular privacy invasion in their rootkit, yet later they were caught out. Unique URLs combined with IPs, what more do you need?

Frankly, if I were writing such a service, logging some of the most financially valuable market research you get your hands on is a given. There wouldn't be any debate on the issue, you log it and sell it! And if you are morally sound, you offer it as an opt-on program and be honest about it.

Re:not actually being collected

If this music tracking information allows us to nab a single terrorist on US soil to is worth the relatively small price. An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) said several terrorist cells were identify after a nefarious pattern of Dixie Chicks downloads was mined from their database.

Folks post-9/11 America cannot expect due process or privacy. Danger lurks in the shadows and casting a blinding light down the alleys of American pop culture is the only way to find this enemy.

Damage Control

Apple could have avoided the hullaballoo over this by making it clear from the start that this was going on. The only reason anyone got up-in-arms over it was the apparent lack of straightforward documentation on how the system worked and what a user's rights are. Now everyone knows and Apple should make sure everyone knows in the future.End of story.

Re:Damage Control

Disclaimer: I am the article submitter.

This is not "Damage Control". They did make it clear. The knowledge base article [apple.com], available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:

iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store.

In addition, the day iTunes 6.0.2 was released, http://www.apple.com/itunes/ [apple.com] said:

Discover Music

Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.

and http://www.apple.com/itunes/playlists/ [apple.com] said:

Discover New Music

Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.

and

MiniStore

Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs with MiniStore -- right from your iTunes library.

Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening.

Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. But Apple wasn't hiding this, and this isn't damage control, other than the fact that if enough blogs keep (incorrectly) asserting that Apple is "spying" on you, then it isn't long before some mainstream media picks the (incorrect) story up.

Still seems a little fishy

From the article: The good news is, Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected. The data sent is used to update the MiniStore and then discarded. If you think about it, this makes sense--imagine the size of the data files they would accumulate with millions of users and what must be hundreds of millions of songs played each day. But Apple should tell us as much, so that we can all relax a bit about sharing our listening habits with Apple.

That sounds like the amount of data the Google collects daily and has done for months. That sort of information would be a treasure trove to record companies and marketing execs. Apple has said that they are not keeping the data, and I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt here. However, when a weak (or fallacious) argument like the one above is used it gives me pause.

nothing new here

Google scans your emails for ads, Amazon tracks your order history for recommendations, credit card company analyze your transactional pattern to offer balance transfer promotions....

it's all about tayloring for each customer.

provided Apple is not *sharing* this data with 3rd-parties, I don't find anything wrong with internal data mining.

Re:nothing new here

The packets are being sent to a third party. [since1968.com] This has been reported from the beginning. Omniture [omniture.com] is not noted in the iTunes EULA the way, say, Gracenote CDDB is. Even if Apple isn't saving the information, what do we know about Omniture? We have no policy from them on this issue. Their business is collecting statistical information. They're a marketing firm.

For that matter, why does the data need to go to a third party at all? How are they related to the iTMS?

Remember every web browser is spyware too.

Did you know every major web browser by default sends out info about your operating system name and version, your CPU type, usually your ISP, your browser and version and sometimes extras added onto your browser, and allows it to be logged on almost every single website you have ever visited. Most web browsers DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO CHANGE THIS.

So browsers are spyware too by the attitude some people are taking here.

In other words defining as spyware is not a black and white picture. It's shades of grey and in this situation I see iTunes as pretty white.

Unreasonable Paranoia

The onus is on you to protect yourself if you're so paranoid about your privacy. A harmless ad server using your collection to serve relevant ads is a reasonable thing to expect a company to do if you have a business relationship with them.

If you're this desperately paranoid about the evil corporations knowing what music you listen to, guess what? Apple already does, every time you buy a song through their store, and furthermore they have your real name, credit card number, and address also. You shouldn't be using this service.

This is reality. Time to deal with it.

Let's try the story this way...

"According to Windows Magazine and BoingBoing: 'A Microsoft spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Bill Gates himself) told Windows Magazine that Microsoft discards the personal information that the Windows Media Player Ministore transmits to Microsoft while you use Windows Media Player. [...] Microsoft tells us that the information is not actually being collected. The data sent is used to update the MiniStore and then discarded.' Microsoft also has a knowledge base article, which apparently was available the day Windows Media Player v10 was introduced, explaining the MiniStore behavior and how to disable it: 'Windows Media Player sends data about the song selected in your library to the Windows Media Player Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the Windows Media Player Music Store.'"

I think it would be fun to see the reactions to the story now.

Market trumps regulations, go figure

The Internet has changed everything regarding bartering and trade. Up until 1995, I believe one could argue (and win) the debate on using regulations to keep businesses honest.

Now that we have near perfect instantaneous group communication, we've opened the doorway to not needing anything but consumer power to control companies, even the biggest companies such as Apple.

If a company performs some act -- faithfully or greedily -- that consumers don't like, you can expect the fact to be released where in the past it might have been kept secret (the media isn't very pro-consumer). We wonder why newspapers and magazines are dying -- they have advertisers to keep happy. The web lets everyone get information out that is important to them, and if enough people have a problem with a company, that negative information will gain steam quickly.

Apple did try to hedge against this outcry, as the article says, by providing the facts for those interested in them. Should Apple have performed an opt-in program rather than an opt-out? Yes. Do we need laws and regulations to force them? No -- they'll learn from this situation.

If Apple doesn't learn a lesson from consumer fallout, someone else will. There are already iTunes replacement programs out there -- provided out of voluntary methods (capitalism) rather than coercive methods (mercantilism and socialism).

Be glad that we have the Internet, it will soon allow us to back out of all the pro-corporation regulations that we're paying good tax dollars to enforce.

disable the store completely

Something else to mention (although it should be painfully obvious) is that the ministore doesn't appear at all if you've disabled the iTMS in the parental controls preference panel. If you have no use for the iTMS, just get rid of it altogether.

Weasel words...