Apple Reaches Quiet Truce Over iPhone Privacy Changes (ft.com) 43
Apple has allowed app developers to collect data from its 1 billion iPhone users for targeted advertising, in an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy. Financial Times: In May Apple communicated its privacy changes to the wider public, launching an advert that featured a harassed man whose daily activities were closely monitored by an ever-growing group of strangers. When his iPhone prompted him to "Ask App Not to Track," he clicked it and they vanished. Apple's message to potential customers was clear -- if you choose an iPhone, you are choosing privacy.
But seven months later, companies including Snap and Facebook have been allowed to keep sharing user-level signals from iPhones, as long as that data is anonymised and aggregated rather than tied to specific user profiles. For instance Snap has told investors that it plans to share data from its 306m users -- including those who ask Snap "not to track" -- so advertisers can gain "a more complete, real-time view" on how ad campaigns are working. Any personally identifiable data will first be obfuscated and aggregated. Similarly, Facebook operations chief Sheryl Sandberg said the social media group was engaged in a "multiyear effort" to rebuild ad infrastructure "using more aggregate or anonymised data."
These companies point out that Apple has told developers they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it." This means they can observe "signals" from an iPhone at a group level, enabling ads that can still be tailored to "cohorts" aligning with certain behaviour but not associated with unique IDs. This type of tracking is becoming the norm.
But seven months later, companies including Snap and Facebook have been allowed to keep sharing user-level signals from iPhones, as long as that data is anonymised and aggregated rather than tied to specific user profiles. For instance Snap has told investors that it plans to share data from its 306m users -- including those who ask Snap "not to track" -- so advertisers can gain "a more complete, real-time view" on how ad campaigns are working. Any personally identifiable data will first be obfuscated and aggregated. Similarly, Facebook operations chief Sheryl Sandberg said the social media group was engaged in a "multiyear effort" to rebuild ad infrastructure "using more aggregate or anonymised data."
These companies point out that Apple has told developers they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it." This means they can observe "signals" from an iPhone at a group level, enabling ads that can still be tailored to "cohorts" aligning with certain behaviour but not associated with unique IDs. This type of tracking is becoming the norm.
In other news (Score:1)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
What's most interesting to me is how they are using exactly the same language that Google did with it's failed attempt at bringing this sort of thing to the web, namely FLoC. Assign users to a cohort, anonymise and aggregate the data.
One of the main issues with FLoC is that anonymising the data is almost impossible. The cohorts are problematic too, e.g. someone gets assigned to a cohort for gay people in a country where homosexuality is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
What's most interesting to me is how they are using exactly the same language that Google did with it's failed attempt at bringing this sort of thing to the web, namely FLoC. Assign users to a cohort, anonymise and aggregate the data.
One of the main issues with FLoC is that anonymising the data is almost impossible. The cohorts are problematic too, e.g. someone gets assigned to a cohort for gay people in a country where homosexuality is illegal.
Very true. As well, I have yet to figure out how targeted advertising is anonymous. It's pretty easy to figure out.
Good point about subgroups that are just considered regular people in some countries, but not in others.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple needs to provide the exceptions list (Score:2)
If we know who the exceptions are, we can choose not to install their product...
Re: (Score:2)
...and in California, we can ask those companies to share their info and delete it. Everybody did that, that might send a message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In other news (Score:2)
Or even where it's not illegal...
Re: (Score:3)
... and Apple lies to all of you just like every other company.
The old saying still holds true... (Score:3)
If you're not paying for the product (app), then you are the product.
Re: (Score:2)
^ This.
When you have no real competition, it's easy, ask all of the FAANG companies (I'd count Microsoft too). [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The old saying is still dumb. Apple's not trying to sell your data to identity thieves, which is the only way it would be even slightly correct. (We have a name for when people are products, and that name is "slavery", and Apple has so far sold zero of its customers into that. It has however, used slave labor, but that has nothing to do with monetizing people's data and everything to do with filling consumer demand at maximum profit, and human rights be damned. Apple is evil, but only in the usual way that
Re: (Score:2)
Very well, "... your attention is the product"
So...mission accomplished? (Score:1)
If we assume for the sake of argument that individual privacy is actually being protected, it would sound like the goal of protecting user privacy has been achieved. That's a good thing!
Setting aside that assumption, however, how do we know they're only collecting aggregate data? Are we trusting in a pinky promise they made, or is there a technical/legal/contractual/other safeguard in place that is actively preventing them from doing so?
Re: (Score:2)
The question is how WELL is personal privacy being protected, because it's never 100%. Is it well enough to protect the majority of information about the majority of users? Or is it trivially deanonymized?
I'm guessing it's the latter, because it certainly sounds from TFS like Apple is not using its tracking prevention tech at all with these megacorps.
Re: (Score:3)
"This type of tracking is becoming the norm." (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary seems to be implying that Apple is somehow violating their privacy promi
Re:"This type of tracking is becoming the norm." (Score:4, Insightful)
They could. You know. Just NOT collect all possible data on how you use the app automatically, and actually ASK you how you're using the app.
Your statement and question is a perfect example of how incredibly ingrained and accepted this kind of behaviour has become.
Re: (Score:2)
But then the question is what possible reason would they have to provide the app/service for free, without ever hoping to monetize it?
Unless we're willing to pay directly for these things (hint: we're not), these companies (that are, you know, largely in existence to make a buck/Euro/Yen/etc..), the only way they can accomplish that is to sell the one thing we're willingly giving them in return, data about ourselves and, in some cases, the small hope that we buy something from them that they can profit from
Re: (Score:3)
When Google tried this is was decried. Not without good reason - properly anonymising data is almost impossible. There are basically two main risks:
1. The data can be de-anonymized. These are big companies with huge volumes of data collected for a large number of websites, so correlation isn't that hard.
2. Even if anonymized for the advertisers, it can still hurt the users. Consider the case of a user who was assigned to the "lesbian" cohort. Other users of their computer might discover that through the adv
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I'm no fan of data collection. I turn off everything I can, and try to avoid using free or ad-supported services, since I'd rather be the customer than the product. However, most people prefer free services, and so some amount of data collection is inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
There was extensive discussion of it when Google proposed the same thing. Turns out Apple was already doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
What they should do is simple: Give the user, and no one else, full control over how their data is used.
I, for example, am not particularly opposed to targeted advertising. The reality is that a lot of "free" things are paid for by ads, and that is not going to change. And if I'm going to be subjected to them; the ads may as well be somewhat relevant. What I do NOT like is being personally tracked across the entire internet in such a way that I can potentially be identified. And that's okay. Some peop
1st a deal with China (Score:2)
Now allowing user tracking.
Tell me, what's left that makes Apple's OS better than Android?
Re: 1st a deal with China (Score:2)
Absolutely nothing.
Pick the one you like and move forward. Everyone else will do the same.
Have. Great day!
Non paywalled source? (Score:1)
Alternate, non-paywalled (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.macrumors.com/2021... [macrumors.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the alt site read. And so is this why those stocks are going up, some insiderish type info? Seems like everyone expcted Apple stock to go down with iphone part shortages, then it shot to the moon, highest ever. Next day, this news comes out. Related?!
Apple needs allies (Score:2)
Given how much political risk Apple faces as it's monopoly power increases, they need some allies. Turning advertising companies against them completely would just increase the risk, so they throw them a bone.
A compromise.
Follow the money (Score:2)
How much did Facebook and Google pay Apple for this access?
Same with China. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
These companies point out that Apple has told developers they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it." This means they can observe "signals" from an iPhone at a group level, enabling ads that can still be tailored to "cohorts" aligning with certain behaviour but not associated with unique IDs.
I'd guess they paid Apple nothing. From the sound of that, this isn't Apple making a compromise as much as these companies playing by the rules Apple laid out. I would tell you for sure, but since the source is paywalled and every other article seems to just reference the FT article, I can only guess.
Apple wants to be a financial company (Score:1)
You can complain about Jobs, but he had a strong technological and aesthetic vision that we wanted to fufill.
From here on out it's goinng to be a strong financial vision.
Now that Apple has all the sheep in the field, they are figuring out how to monetize them. And like any bunch of evil fucking MBAs they will use the incremental strategy. The idea is to continue to chip away at whatever "promises" they've made knowing that small bouts of bad press can be waited out. Also more "services" the goal of which
Re: (Score:2)
There's no advantage for them, they still need a privacy advantage over Google to keep their halo. Profiting directly from advertising would hurt their hardware sales and appstore income far more than it would gain them.
How do Apple review this? (Score:2)
I wonder how they enforce policy compliance where they can't verify the anonymization (because presumably it's happening later)?
unique ids (Score:1)
Many social apps (Yelp is a great example) are using tracking elements, probably stored in the inaccessible iPhone keychain, that allow the company to re-identify the device even after deleting the app and all of its data as the dialog states. It may not be associated with the iPhone itself, but cross install tracking is most definitely a part of this game. Apple couldn't not know about it.
Try deleting Yelp and then reinstalling. Check out how some things are just a bit too familiar.
They mean the Chinese Army (Score:2)
what Apple is admitting is that Chinese Army owned firms (which is the bulk of tech firms in China and their vassal state of Hong Kong) now have full access to your info, even if you're not from China, if you use one of their apps.
Which is a clear violation of both the Canadian Constitutional Right of Privacy (which is spelled out) and the Californian Privacy Rights.