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

[filenavigator]

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

Non-issue

[millennial]

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.

Still seems a little fishy

[Moby Cock]

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.

Re:In retrospect ...

[non0score]

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).

Market trumps regulations, go figure

[dada21]

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.

iTunes EULA

[jcaldwel]

It's a bit funny that the iTunes software agreement explicitly states that Gracenote CDDB uses a session id for tracking, while they omit the same information for the iTunes Music Store.

Taken from Software License Agreement for iTunes
The Gracenote CDDB Service uses a unique identifier to track queries for statistical purposes. The purpose of a randomly assigned numeric identifier is to allow the Gracenote CDDB service to count queries without knowing anything about who you are. For more information, see the web page for the Gracenote Privacy Policy for the Gracenote CDDB Service.

And the same people ...

[s0l3d4d]

who complained about this, are those who use their frequent purchasers cards when they go to Walgreens, and have then no issues when Walgreens knows exactly how much gatorade they drink, what brand asthma medicines they use, and when they bought the last pregnancy test for their wife or lover, and who wipe the frequent flyers cards when they fly. And most of the same people use credit cards ... AmEx, Visa, and Mastercard know basically everything that you buy, and when, and where. So, if Apple could have known you would have been listening to Britney Spears or other hideous music, for a whole one track, AmEx knows you bought 5 CDs of her. And they still could not have known if you ripped the track yourself or used some hideous p2p to get it.

WOW

[richsw]

What a great idea. I've used it already to purchase music. Good Job Apple

Re:Damage Control

[Billosaur]

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.

Perhaps "spying" is too strong a word, but they weren't exactly putting it out front for people to see easily, were they? Look, after Sony's DRM flap, even a hint of impropriety is enough to release the hounds. Why should Apple be immune? Any company that can't come right out and tell you exactly what they are doing up front is simply asking to be ridiculed.

Don't worry, this isn't going to put a dent in the growing ranks of the iZombies, but it should make people read the fine print more carefully, and it should make any company (not just Sony, Apple, or Symantec) be more wary about trying to do things in the background rather than being up front about it. The only way people are going technology they can trust is if they demand accountability from the companies that produce it. This isn't on par with the Sony DRM flap, but who knows where it might have gone had it been left unchecked.