Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

[avg123]

Summary

A group of digital advertising associations criticized Apple's plans to require apps to seek additional permission from users before tracking them across other apps and websites.

 

Quotes

Quote

Sixteen marketing associations, some of which are backed by Facebook Inc (FB.O) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google, faulted Apple for not adhering to an ad-industry system for seeking user consent under European privacy rules. Apps will now need to ask for permission twice, increasing the risk users will refuse, the associations argued.

 

My thoughts

I love android and Apple both, but one thing Apple beats android in hands-down is privacy. That’s not to say it’s perfect, but people who are privacy focused should lean to Apple, not Android. Apple makes money on their hardware which disincentives them from making money from your data.

 

Sources

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-google-apple/google-backed-groups-criticize-apples-new-warnings-on-user-tracking-idUKKBN2440VG

[Dominik W]

Yeah see, clearly they are just worried they won't be able to get the data from us. 

Also-

Quote

faulted Apple for not adhering to an ad-industry system for seeking user consent under European privacy rules.

I think the EU would be really happy that Apple implemented such a system. I have an iPhone, and I really enjoy that. I can control who has access to my location, and I have the peace of mind that apps won't be using my location when I'm not using the app.

[TempestCatto]

I hope this won't be like cookies. Whenever I visit a website it always has a popup about cookies. I don't give one single fuck. I hate the popup more than the cookies. Thankfully there's browser extensions to disable said popup, but still. While I get, and like, the fact that users will be given the option to opt out I really do hope it won't be as intrusive and frequent as the cookies popups. 

[Dominik W]

3 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

I hope this won't be like cookies. Whenever I visit a website it always has a popup about cookies. I don't give one single fuck. I hate the popup more than the cookies. Thankfully there's browser extensions to disable said popup, but still. While I get, and like, the fact that users will be given the option to opt out I really do hope it won't be as intrusive and frequent as the cookies popups. 

It's not as bad as the cookies pop-up. It asks you once and that's it. And yeah, cookies aren't that bad. Location tracking is more of a concern than some cookies.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

27 minutes ago, avg123 said:

Apps will now need to ask for permission twice, increasing the risk users will refuse, the associations argued.

 

You see, that's the big problem with giving people choices: you increase the risk of them picking the right one...

 

13 minutes ago, Dominik W. said:

It's not as bad as the cookies pop-up.

I find it funny that people complain about the cookie pop-up. Like no, we don't want transparency and choice, we just want to criticize Facebook while simultaneously feeding it becase setting our cookies once for this site (or just ignore it) is too much effort... 

 

13 minutes ago, Dominik W. said:

It asks you once and that's it. And yeah, cookies aren't that bad. Location tracking is more of a concern than some cookies.

I don't think you understood this news: this isn't about location, this is about "tracking across other apps and websites", i.e., the same function as advertisement cookies. Those cookies are collecting data on everything you do online, not just the particular website you visit (so-called "third party cookies", although often blocking these isn't enough: Google, Facebook, and probably others have other means to track your activity everywhere, like those social media buttons or even 1 pixel images). Same here: these are apps asking for permission to monitor what you do on the internet and other apps. They want to minimize the "risk" that you stop and read what they are actually requesting and how irrelevant it is for the app's stated function.

See, that's why the cookie pop-up is a good thing, although insufficient, as many users just complain about the "annoyance" (?) and click "accept whatever" instead of clicking on the more info+settings link, where they could see the endless list of third-party cookies and their function, that is, tracking you in the exact same way these apps are doing it.

 

[sof006]

31 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

I hope this won't be like cookies. Whenever I visit a website it always has a popup about cookies. I don't give one single fuck. I hate the popup more than the cookies. Thankfully there's browser extensions to disable said popup, but still. While I get, and like, the fact that users will be given the option to opt out I really do hope it won't be as intrusive and frequent as the cookies popups. 

The cookies thing for me can be annoying but only if the website does a horrible job at implementing the alert. I tend to find the alerts that fill your entire screen more obnoxious over the ones that run in a small banner along the bottom or top of my screen.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

You see, that's the big problem with giving people choices: you increase the risk of them picking the right one...

 

I find it funny that people complain about the cookie pop-up. Like no, we don't want transparency and choice, we just want to criticize Facebook while simultaneously feeding it becase setting our cookies once for this site (or just ignore it) is too much effort... 

 

I don't think you understood this news: this isn't about location, this is about "tracking across other apps and websites", i.e., the same function as advertisement cookies. Those cookies are collecting data on everything you do online, not just the particular website you visit (so-called "third party cookies", although often blocking these isn't enough: Google, Facebook, and probably others have other means to track your activity everywhere, like those social media buttons or even 1 pixel images). Same here: these are apps asking for permission to monitor what you do on the internet and other apps. They want to minimize the "risk" that you stop and read what they are actually requesting and how irrelevant it is for the app's stated function.

See, that's why the cookie pop-up is a good thing, although insufficient, as many users just complain about the "annoyance" (?) and click "accept whatever" instead of clicking on the more info+settings link, where they could see the endless list of third-party cookies and their function, that is, tracking you in the exact same way these apps are doing it.

 

Because most cookie popups are asshole design. Most of the time they demand all or nothing or they make selection of different cookie types such an absolute annoyance the whole process is more annoying than just blocking the damn with some other tools and just hiding the stupid popup. Very few make cookies selection straight forward, fast and easy.

[Guest]

Its pretty  nice, now we get notifications in iOS 14 that

- App wants to access devices on wifi network

- App wants to use bluetooth

- App wants to use camera

- App wants to use microphone

- App wants to use location (once, or only while app in use). 

 

Common sense!

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Because most cookie popups are asshole design. Most of the time they demand all or nothing or they make selection of different cookie types such an absolute annoyance the whole process is more annoying than just blocking the damn with some other tools and just hiding the stupid popup. Very few make cookies selection straight forward, fast and easy.

It's intentional - most websites attempt to technically comply with the EU while undermining its intended effect as much as possible. Basically, they want you to feel annoyed, blame the EU, and click on whatever removes the popup fastest, which typically is the "accept everything and sell my soul to Satan" button. Few sites are honest enough to provide a "reject all" besides the "accept all" button in the popup itself, instead of having you navigate somewhere else and individually disable things. Basically the same thing these consortium is trying to do with Apple. 

 

Also notice that "reject all" means all the superfluous or tracking cookies - the "essential" ones (the first-party cookies actually related to the site working properly) are always on anyway, "reject all" does no harm to your experience.

[RejZoR]

26 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's intentional - most websites attempt to technically comply with the EU while undermining its intended effect as much as possible. Basically, they want you to feel annoyed, blame the EU, and click on whatever removes the popup fastest, which typically is the "accept everything and sell my soul to Satan" button. Few sites are honest enough to provide a "reject all" besides the "accept all" button in the popup itself, instead of having you navigate somewhere else and individually disable things. Basically the same thing these consortium is trying to do with Apple. 

 

Also notice that "reject all" means all the superfluous or tracking cookies - the "essential" ones (the first-party cookies actually related to the site working properly) are always on anyway, "reject all" does no harm to your experience.

Well, first party cookies are generally not the problem. It's all the 3rd party junk that's basically attached to 99% of webpages. I mean, find one webpage that doesn't have Google's shit on it. Or Facebook's. And if it by some bizarre chance doesn't have either, it'll have from some 3rd grade tracking company. It's pathetic what internet has became.

[neveyeh]

 

Quote

The group of European marketing firms said the pop-up warning and the limited ability to customize it still carries “a high risk of user refusal.”

Good. Sounds like the warning will work.

 

[Loote]

How different is it to 'Allow only when the app is running' option?

[Doobeedoo]

Urm don't apps on Android already do this and ask for specific ticks to accept or not. 

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Urm don't apps on Android already do this and ask for specific ticks to accept or not. 

I know Android has a pretty robust permission system in it’s own right. Though it appears to be more generalized under Internal/External Storage rather than asking for data from a specific app. As apps tend to store data in said storage, granting permission would (theoretically) grant access to the data that other apps have written there as well. For example, File Manager gives me access to pretty much every app and the data contained within as it has permission to External/Internal storage. 

From what I can tell (this is just a guess from observation, I am by no means an expert), iOS seems to keep a relatively firm isolation of apps and their respective data, or at least, minimizes general storage access. Accessing the data within a given app is actually quite difficult. I can’t go through Files and grab my photos unless I specifically copy my photos to Files, for example. 

 

[Doobeedoo]

2 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I know Android has a pretty robust permission system in it’s own right. Though it appears to be more generalized under Internal/External Storage rather than asking for data from a specific app. As apps tend to store data in said storage, granting permission would (theoretically) grant access to the data that other apps have written there as well. For example, File Manager gives me access to pretty much every app and the data contained within as it has permission to External/Internal storage. 

From what I can tell (this is just a guess from observation, I am by no means an expert), iOS seems to keep a relatively firm isolation of apps and their respective data, or at least, minimizes general storage access. Accessing the data within a given app is actually quite difficult. I can’t go through Files and grab my photos unless I specifically copy my photos to Files, for example. 

 

I think in Android 11 they're doing it more robust.

[williamcll]

23 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Or just use Xprivacy

I thought this is a root android app?

[williamcll]

9 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Requires Xposed to be exact. Xposed in turn requires root.

 

But once you have Xprivacy and and see how many ways apps can invade your privacy, you will realize just how thoroughly people have been turned into cattle for data. And you will question if the device you bought actually works for you or for someone else. This applies not just to Android phones, but also iOS and almost all widely used commercial OS. If you think Apple devices are safe, I'm sorry to say they are not spared either.

No alternatives on jailbroken iOS devices?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Requires Xposed to be exact. Xposed in turn requires root.

 

But once you have Xprivacy and and see how many ways apps can invade your privacy, you will realize just how thoroughly people have been turned into cattle for data. And you will question if the device you bought actually works for you or for someone else. This applies not just to Android phones, but also iOS and almost all widely used commercial OS. If you think Apple devices are safe, I'm sorry to say they are not spared either.

Problem is, we are advised, and often forced (e.g., banking in Europe) to 2FA, which in many cases involves an app, and an app that won't run on rooted devices at that. 

 

In the end this solution involves installing malware and then an anti-malware to detect/block it. I think a more sensible solution is to ignore the Play Store as much as possible, install F-droid and look there for the functionality you want. Of course you'll find fewer apps there, but that's the point: the one you find will not request call log permissions to operate a flashlight, and it will be very transparent (and discouraged by F-droid overzealous "anti-feature" warnings) if it does.

 

I'm not Richard Stallman, and I understand how people could have reasons to run very scummy or anti user software, but to the extent possible, my philosophy would be: don't hack a windows installation to kind-of-stop-its-spying-but-not-really just to run a cracked copy of MS Office when you can accomplish your goal within a FOSS paradigm. 

Android has Google tentacles all over it, but the main idea about bad software is the same: prioritize replacing over hacking. The only thing better than not giving scummy devs your data is to not giving them your data nor a user base. 

[Lord Vile]

On 7/3/2020 at 5:43 PM, avg123 said:

Summary

A group of digital advertising associations criticized Apple's plans to require apps to seek additional permission from users before tracking them across other apps and websites.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

I love android and Apple both, but one thing Apple beats android in hands-down is privacy. That’s not to say it’s perfect, but people who are privacy focused should lean to Apple, not Android. Apple makes money on their hardware which disincentives them from making money from your data.

 

Sources

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-google-apple/google-backed-groups-criticize-apples-new-warnings-on-user-tracking-idUKKBN2440VG

Oh no Apple is trying to limit how much data Facebook and google mine from people. This truly is the worst thing ever, boo Apple they’re clearly the most evil entity in the world.

[Spindel]

How the hell can some people in this thread turn this into something negative against Apple?

[Arika]

8 hours ago, Spindel said:

How the hell can some people in this thread turn this into something negative against Apple?

There's a few things you need to learn about this forum. Any time a particular company is mentioned it will ALWAYS turn to the same people saying the same things. 

 

Apple: too much control, to expensive for what it is

Intel: lol 14nm+++++++++++++++ get rekt

Windows 10: spyware, updates bad

Nvidia: pure evil trying to stop the competition 

AMD: the second coming of christ

Facebook: reeeeeeeeee

[Hassan170]

Google & Facebook: "We respect your privacy and will do our best to protect it."

 

Google & Facebook: "StOp BeInG So EtHiCaL. hOw ArE wE SuPpOsE tO mAkE mOnEy"

[RejZoR]

On 7/5/2020 at 9:04 AM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Problem is, we are advised, and often forced (e.g., banking in Europe) to 2FA, which in many cases involves an app, and an app that won't run on rooted devices at that. 

 

In the end this solution involves installing malware and then an anti-malware to detect/block it. I think a more sensible solution is to ignore the Play Store as much as possible, install F-droid and look there for the functionality you want. Of course you'll find fewer apps there, but that's the point: the one you find will not request call log permissions to operate a flashlight, and it will be very transparent (and discouraged by F-droid overzealous "anti-feature" warnings) if it does.

 

I'm not Richard Stallman, and I understand how people could have reasons to run very scummy or anti user software, but to the extent possible, my philosophy would be: don't hack a windows installation to kind-of-stop-its-spying-but-not-really just to run a cracked copy of MS Office when you can accomplish your goal within a FOSS paradigm. 

Android has Google tentacles all over it, but the main idea about bad software is the same: prioritize replacing over hacking. The only thing better than not giving scummy devs your data is to not giving them your data nor a user base. 

This. I'd be using LineageOS if it wasn't for my banking app that acts as 2FA requiring "secured" bootloader. I didn't even have phone rooted, just unlocked and it refused to work. I was not in the mood to deal with Magisk so I bought an iPhone. Ditched Google and have that thing working.

[wamred]

Yeah, and that also doesn't make Google look that great either.

[cj09beira]

On 7/3/2020 at 6:06 PM, huilun02 said:

Or just use Xprivacy

thanks for this. seems like a awesome addition to my phone