Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Privacy Apple

Apple Will Force Apps to Ask for Permission Before Tracking Users (yahoo.com) 47

Posted by EditorDavid from the follower-request dept.
"Apple Inc. will force iPhone apps to get permission from users before tracking them," reports Bloomberg, "dealing a potentially major blow to app developers who rely on advertisements to make money." Apple facilitates tracking on its phones by providing app developers with unique numbers for each user, something security advocates have long said contradicts the company's frequent statements in support of privacy. The update to the iPhone's operating system doesn't do away with the tracking system, but makes it much more apparent to users and gives them more opportunities to turn it off. Previously, controls were buried in the phone's settings menu.

"Considering the iPhone's user base, this is a very big change. It certainly improves user privacy," said Lukasz Olejnik, an independent privacy researcher and consultant. "Users at large encountering such pop-ups in just about any application may potentially start asking questions about the use of their data. It will force the industry to reconsider some of the core assumptions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Will Force Apps to Ask for Permission Before Tracking Users More

Apple Will Force Apps to Ask for Permission Before Tracking Users

Comments Filter:

  • Does that include Apple's own apps ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Saturday June 27, 2020 @05:47PM (#60235910) Homepage

    or just 3rd party ones ?

    • Will developers be forced to give users who opt out of tracking access to the same features as people who allow it? If not, then this provision will end up being meaningless.
    • The law of unintended consequences, this time invoked by privacy advocates. I don't think Apple are doing this mainly to protect user's privacy, instead it is all about increase their App Store revenue: with this arrangement fewer apps will be ad supported and more are going to be paid apps, which sucks. I don't want to pay, even $1 for an app I use maybe once a year or so (I am happy to pay for apps I use every week).

      • I'm sure the apps that are left behind will be much higher quality as a result of this.

        Everybody knows that quality apps can only be written by large companies, not small individuals who need to rely on "Free Download!!" as a trick to get people to install their ad-infested shovelware.

  • It is cutting out intel out of chips. It will eventually monetize this tracking ability too. If you pay enough to Apple you will get a separate API with tracking ability. There will be some sort of fig leaf, "only trusted partners and subsidiaries offering our users new and exciting products and services, blah blah ...". Or it might create an targeted advertising platform owned by Apple exempted from this pesky privacy and permission charade.

  • Apple should give users a third option - a unique number per user per app. Meaning the app can track you, but it cannot be cross-correlated across apps (at least not easily). The app should not be able to tell whether they got user id which is unique per app or not.

    • That's of no value to apps that require logging in... they already have you by the username/email.

      Advertiser-driven sites insisted on the "supercookie" in part so Commission Junction and DoubleClick/Google could credit sales to all who showed the ad, not just the site you just left to purchase an item.

      • if the apps already have the e-mail address, then why do they need the supercookie? Just pick a standard hashing scheme, hash the e-mail address, and tell the advertiser, "I showed it to this person." If the advertiser has a database of hashed e-mail addresses, then the app can truthfully say, "We never gave out your e-mail address" and yet everyone knows where you've been. It's then on the user to pick a different e-mail address for sites they don't trust or care to share with.

        I'm not saying this is ethi

    • The future of ad-supported sites lies, IMHO, in only getting ads that have some value to you. My usual example is that Subaru darn well knows I just bought an Outback. if I'm on a car site, I'd appreciate an ad for trailer hitches and roof racks.

      What do I actually get? Some idiot trying to sell me a second Subaru.

      What, for my other foot???

      If one of my suppliers actually treats me like an adult and sends me ads for stuff I credibly might want, I won't be unhappy to see an ad. Notably when I'm lookin

      • Yes, you would be unhappy to see the ad. For the very same reason everyone is unhappy to see any ad. No matter how on topic.

        When you go to a webpage, you don't go there randomly. Well, most of the time at least. You go there because you want to see something. If you go and select a video on YouTube, you do so because you want to watch that video. You are prepared to see that video now and you're interested in seeing this video, and this video only. Instead, they play you an ad before you may see that video.

        • Unfortunately, tons of research shows that those interrupting ads *do* have an impact on people. People swear they don't work, but plenty of advertising research shows otherwise. Annoying, brazen, injected ads work.

          If you want to change that, you need a record of every ad shown to you in your browser for the last two months and then consciously not buy from any of them. But you have to track the advertisers otherwise you -- or most people, at least, because you might be in the minority -- will end up buyi

          • All they do for me (now that my adblocker doesn't work anymore) is that I know that "This is (whatever name)" and that Star...whatever is some great game I never heard of. That's pretty much what the ad can say within the time it takes me to hit reload until the ad goes away. The thing is, I would actually be looking for a new game because I'm bored out of my skull right now with what I have, so I'd probably even be interested in this Starwhatever, but not when I actually am looking for a video. Show me tha

          • I want to know if Grammarly ads will magically go away if I pay for a copy of Grammarly.

            I have a suspicion that I'll still have to watch ads for grammarly before every Youtube video even if I buy a copy. If so, firebombing is too good for them,

            And THAT is the reason I'll never buy it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Memnos ( 937795 )

        What, for my other foot???

        You must be thinking of Shubaru.

      • > What, for my other foot???

        Well, if it were a Geo Metro, this would actually be reasonable. :-)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        What you're missing is that those ads are intentional, and they're not actually selling you a second car. They're selling you an idea that you made the right choice buying the first one. Because brand loyalty is very high in well branded high value purchase world such as automotive one.

        This is a road well mapped and travelled in branding world, especially on automotive side. There are many good lectures on this subject in public domain you can look for.

      • The future of ad-supported sites lies, IMHO, in only getting ads that have some value to you. My usual example is that Subaru darn well knows I just bought an Outback. if I'm on a car site, I'd appreciate an ad for trailer hitches and roof racks.

        An issue I have with ads is even when I get one that interests me, if I don’t immediately click on it it goes away if I navigate away for the page; or in some cases is simply replaced with a new ad. As a result, unlike a physical magazine or newspaper, I cannot go back when I am done reading and check out an ad that caught my eye.

      • My usual example is that Subaru darn well knows I just bought an Outback. if I'm on a car site, I'd appreciate an ad for trailer hitches and roof racks.
        What do I actually get? Some idiot trying to sell me a second Subaru.
        What, for my other foot???

        Most households in America have multiple vehicles. If you're already driving a Subaru, you've demonstrated that you're open to the brand. They would like your other car to also be a Subaru.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by davecb ( 6526 )

          It would be a high-risk bet on their part, as they also know how many Subies I've bought and how many years apart. Ads for accessories in the first months after buying the car would be better, as would ads for extended warranties (it was a used vehicle). Waiting 3 years and advertising again would have been a safer bet.

          Just FYI, I got a physical letter from Honda last month, three years after I bought the Hun. It said they wanted my trade-in, and invited me to drop in, look at new and used Hondas and ca

  • Its not about advertising anymore (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "dealing a potentially major blow to app developers who rely on advertisements to make money."

    The period when profiling was only used to show advertisements is long behind us. It's grown way beyond that now, being used for political influencing (Cambridge Analytica), insurance risk prediction, employee analysis, dissident discovery, and so much more.

    What it should say is: "dealing a potentially major blow to databrokers, insurers and dodgy regimes who rely on your data to manage you as a risk".

    • Facebook/Cambridge Analytica try to collect as much data as possible, hoping to eventually making money out of it. But CA filed for bankruptcy after not being able to find a profitable use...

      • Keep ignoring FB was also letting Clinton campaign and Obama campaign in 2012 do the same thing. FB even went to Obama campaign when they found out but let them keep the data, wonder if they let other campaign have the data in question?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      Fuck those developers who rely on selling users' data to make money. I say good riddance.

      If you wrote an app that do something I wanted, set a price and I will decide to buy it or not. On an unjailbroken iPhone there is already no way to pirate your app, without piracy you cannot blame anyone but yourself if your app doesn't sell.

      If your app insisted on tracking me, it will be deleted immediately, regardless of how great it is. Would you buy a piece of furniture that have a hidden GPS that reports home w

  • Hooray for walled garden (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Saturday June 27, 2020 @06:38PM (#60236038)

    What gives them the mechanism to do that? The App Store and the walled garden that prevents unauthorized apps from being installed. Without the walled garden they couldn't effectively enforce these sorts of standards.

    Features like this that empower the user and protect privacy are yet another very nice benefit of the thing so many ideologues complained about over and over. Lack of malware is nice too.

    • I am not opposed to the walled garden. However, what your suggesting doesnâ(TM)t make sense. They could implement this feature with side loaded apps.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Not effectively. Side loaded apps are already on a jail broken phone. If you jailbreak a phone, you can presumably disable any protection feature.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Any non-trivial OS has to manage the limited resources available to the system, such as memory, camera, location tracker, etc. Otherwise apps will hog and abuse them. We learned this lesson from the late 80's when early microcomputer OS's were more laissez-faire.

        It doesn't need to be a walled garden, just a decent resource manager by letting you control and monitor such resources. In most cases apps only need key resources when they have focus, and we should be able to tell the OS that.

    • What gives them the mechanism to do that? The App Store and the walled garden that prevents unauthorized apps from being installed. Without the walled garden they couldn't effectively enforce these sorts of standards.

      If the walled garden is so wonderful, and Apple cares so much about users' privacy, why didn't they use it for this purpose previously?

  • As an App developer I've already had to include a pop up, if the location is the EU, asking for permission to use the users location to serve Ads.
    It's not so much a blow to the developers, like myself, but a hinderance to targeting users by advertising platforms like Google Admob, Facebook etc.
    I'm sure the Ad revenue will continue pretty much as is has been and the space vacated by those who need accurate targeting will be filled up with those advertisers who care less.
    I interviewed several years ago with A

  • Users can already set this to all zeroes (Score:3)

    by berj ( 754323 ) on Saturday June 27, 2020 @08:42PM (#60236282)

    Since iOS 10, If you turn on "Limit Ad Tracking" in Settings->Privacy->Advertising this API call will return all zeroes.

    Users can also change this identifier to a new UUID whenever they want by clicking on "Reset Advertising Identifier"

  • It would be nice if this was just the default, for everyone, and if companies just embraced a simpler model and stopped requesting permissions to do everything even though they don't really need it. This [keera.co.uk] came out recently and seems very relevant.
    • Just to clarify: what I mean is not that there are no permissions, but that apps stop requesting permissions they don't really need and that, by default, they just request no permissions at all.
  • Finally, they’re making a move on this issue. Personal privacy is becoming a thing of a past now as nowadays it’s so common for companies to track user’s data.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close