iOS 11 Location Privacy: "Only While Using" is now always an option for users | Hacker News Reader

iOS 11 Location Privacy: "Only While Using" is now always an option for users

twitter.com

458 pointsrunesoerensen183 comments

I really like Apples pro-privacy stance, in contrary to Google & Microsoft.

Hopefully sometime soon Apple will also encrypt iCloud contents so data from non-american people (europe in my case) is protected against the US government prying eyes.

Our data/privacy seems pretty well protected inside Europe, but in America we seem to have 0 privacy rights (America first...!)

Most of iCloud is encrypted at rest. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

Interesting omission of iMessage here... since it's not encrypted at rest on their servers.

I can't tell if you're implying that they store iMessages unencrypted, but iMessage is encrypted end-to-end. Backups of your phone, which may or may not contain message histories, are only encrypted at rest.

^ I am implying that they are storing iMessages unencrypted. The iMessages on iPhones/iPads are part of the 'backup' for each device and they are not encrypted at rest on the iCloud server.

You sound very sure of this, what's your source?

As far as I've read, the iCloud backups have always been encrypted at rest, and Apple is apparently working on improving it to the point where they do not hold any decryption keys to the backups [0].

That's why, when you set up a new device, up until now it would not have your message history - because the message history can only be decrypted on devices that are already-authorized. If you restore a backup in its entirety, that includes the message log and the encryption key, but if you set up the device as "new", you only get the newly received messages - since it needs your password to decrypt the backup, it had no way to decrypt the message history from backup on the cloud and only sync that down to the new device (which always bothered me in terms of convenience). I think they're working on improving the usability of it in upcoming releases though.

[0] https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/25/apple-working-on-stronger-icl...

My source, while I wholly acknowledge this is anecdotal and not evidence, is someone in law enforcement tasked with retrieving message logs for investigations. I was pretty skeptical but I've yet found any proof or documentation from Apple's support docs disproving this.

I also recall from the San Bernadino case that the FBI/Apple had the ability to get historic message history from the iCloud backup but the FBI pushed for decrypting the device because of the most recent and not backed up messages.

As for your scenario -- doesn't that explicitly confirm that the messages are not encrypted safely at rest? You can restore to an entirely new device, using the same backup, and retrieve the messages.

> someone in law enforcement tasked with retrieving message logs for investigations.

Right, but do they retrieve them from iCloud? Without Apple's assistance, and without knowing the user's password?

> I was pretty skeptical but I've yet found any proof or documentation from Apple's support docs disproving this.

Well, here's the brief overview: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

and here's the iOS security whitepaper: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Which includes a section about iCloud security, including the following section:

  iCloud secures the content by encrypting it when sent 
  over the Internet, storing it in an encrypted format, 
  and using secure tokens for authentication.

I am no security expert, but I am pretty sure FBI wouldn't have a huge fight with Apple if they had any way to get to the data directly (and once they figured out they could use a vuln in the old iOS to break into the device, they did indeed drop the fight).

> FBI/Apple had the ability to get historic message history from the iCloud backup

Right, because they reset the shooter's Apple ID password. Not because the backup was in plaintext.

> As for your scenario -- doesn't that explicitly confirm that the messages are not encrypted safely at rest? You can restore to an entirely new device, using the same backup, and retrieve the messages.

How does that follow? You still need to supply your password to decrypt the backup before you can restore it. From the same security whitepaper:

  When files are created in Data Protection classes that aren’t accessible 
  when the device is locked, their per-file keys are encrypted using the 
  class keys from the iCloud Backup keybag. Files are backed up to iCloud 
  in their original, encrypted state. Files in Data Protection class 
  No Protection are encrypted during transport.

  The iCloud Backup keybag contains asymmetric (Curve25519) keys for each 
  Data Protection class, which are used to encrypt the per-file keys. For 
  more information about the contents of the backup keybag and the iCloud 
  Backup keybag, see “Keychain Data Protection” in the Encryption and Data 
  Protection section.

  The backup set is stored in the user’s iCloud account and consists of a 
  copy of the user’s files, and the iCloud Backup keybag. The iCloud Backup 
  keybag is protected by a random key, which is also stored with the backup 
  set. (The user’s iCloud password isn’t utilized for encryption so that 
  changing the iCloud password won’t invalidate existing backups.)

  While the user’s Keychain database is backed up to iCloud, it remains 
  protected by a UID-tangled key. This allows the Keychain to be restored 
  only to the same device from which it originated, and it means no one 
  else, including Apple, can read the user’s Keychain items.

  On restore, the backed-up files, iCloud Backup keybag, and the key for 
  the keybag are retrieved from the user’s iCloud account. The iCloud Backup 
  keybag is decrypted using its key, then the per-file keys in the keybag 
  are used to decrypt the files in the backup set, which are written as new 
  files to the file system, thus re-encrypting them as per their 
  Data Protection class.

I think that's not true, note this line in the doc you link to:

"...and never provides encryption keys to any third parties".

The data might be stored encrypted, but Apple seems to have access to the encryption keys. I've read that they need to be able to decrypt data to be able to comply with government requests.

I'm not sure if this is still the case now in 2017, but i assume so, until i read otherwise :)

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/16/apple-to-double-down-ic...

> but Apple seems to have access to the encryption keys

Of course, no one claimed that iCould data was E2E. They also need to decrypt the data in order to serve it to their users.

> They also need to decrypt the data in order to serve it to their users.

That's the point, they don't (and shouldn't) need to. As Apple itself says in the above linked article:

"Apple is working to further harden iCloud security so that even it won't be able to access user information stored on its data servers"

Web access means that you've always got one of three things:

1) the company has the encryption key

2) you give the company the encryption key each time you log in and they store it temporarily

3) everything is getting decrypted in the browser locally (probably tremendously infeasible)

#3 is how Mega works.

>Hopefully sometime soon Apple will also encrypt iCloud contents so data from non-american people (europe in my case) is protected against the US government prying eyes.

Also not American myself, but I think legally it should be quite the opposite: NSA and CIA can "legally" spy non-US citizens. It is illegal for them to spy US citizens.

Why do you think the government should be able to spy on non-US citizens using services from US companies?

Why do you make it personal? I'm just mentioning current US law. The Snowden scandal wasn't because the NSA was spying people, it was because it was spying US citizens without a warrant. The NSA and CIA purpose is to spy the rest of the world in order to "keep Americans safe".

"Spying on citizens of other countries" is pretty much the job description of every spy agency in every government around the world (and many add "spying on their own citizens" as well). We may not like it, but it's not exactly a surprising state of affairs.

I'm not sure what the job description and constitutional limits of all spy agencies around the world are. What can Swiss authorities look into without a court order for instance? I don't know.

But in any event, there is only one country with a significant globally active IT industry and a capable globally active spy agency. That combination is becoming more problematic, which is unsurprising as well.

Don't feel bad, most Americans don't have privacy rights either. :)

I've been saying this for awhile, that I trust Apple a lot more since they aren't directly incentivized to sell out their users for advertising. I LOVE iOS as a platform, as a user of both Android and Windows Phone there is simply no comparison, iOS blows both away.

>...since they aren't directly incentivized to sell out their users for advertising...

Is that due to Apple being pro consumer privacy or because they have $250 billion in cash? When the cache of cash drops does Apple start adding ads and tracking its users?

It's because they sell their hardware, software and services to consumers, not to ad buyers. It has nothing to do with their cash hoard (Apple is perfectly happy to maximize their profits regardless of cash on hand).

It is nice that Tim Cook is pro consumer privacy and that gets baked into the company culture, but Apple is also financially motivated to continue this stance (it's a major differentiating factor and marketing point).

It's because their business model involves making stuff, and selling that stuff to people for a profit.

>contrary to Google

My Android phone worked out my home and work location without me telling it. That was a bit weird.

Every time I switch back to Android tricks like that are actually kind of nifty (but not enough to get me to stay for long).

My colleague was really impressed by Google Photo's automatic indexing of pictures being able to find the most obscure objects in pictures

iOS does that too — on-device! — but as a result may not identify as many obscure objects. Seems to handle common ones well, though.

That sums up most of iOS's ML-ish features vs Android, slightly less impressive, but on-device so privacy is improved

iOS does that too – after a while of carrying it around.

I think its a great differentiator for Apple. It'll help them sell products like the HomePod and other products in the privacy sensitive "smart home" space.

> I really like Apples pro-privacy stance, in contrary to Google & Microsoft.

Location privacy controls and more have been in Windows since Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8.

https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10-location-and-...

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/13225-turn-off-location-...

That might be true, however... https://privacytoolsio.github.io/privacytools.io/#win10

It is not just about the controls existing but also what the default settings are.

I'm leaning towards picking up an iPhone next, just to show some support for the solid pro-privacy stance Apple has taken in recent times. Uber isn't going to be happy with this at all, and that's a great thing.

Why would Uber be unhappy?

A few months ago they changed their app so that iOS users no longer had the "only while using" option for location access, and announced plans to stalk users even after their rides had ended.

Recently Uber updated their app to track and report users' locations even when the app was not being used.

This is why IOS needs profiles. It's that or you just uninstall the app after each use, which is a pain.

We could try to build a network to deliver applications, which would stop when you close them. We only need a system to map names to ips and some standards for protocols. We could even run them in a sandbox for security. Would be awesome.

I'd like to specify whether an app runs over my VPN on an app-by-app basis.

Maps and Pandora, no, browser and email, yes.

It's not necessary to uninstall the app after each use to prevent tracking - in Settings...Privacy...Location Services, you can disable location on a per-app basis.

(this is admittedly a pain, and Apple enforcing in-use-only option availability is a welcome change)

Usually these snoopy apps refuse to run unless you enable it first. So you still have to remember to turn it back off when you're done.

That's what the "Only While Using" option is all about. In iOS 10 (and earlier), apps could choose to request location tracking "Only While Using" or to request it "Always". Uber switched from the former to the latter. And the article you're commenting on is all about how iOS 11 will add "Only While Using" back as an option for all apps, so you can set it that way even though Uber doesn't want you to.

Appreciate the explanation.

It is not allowed for apps to refuse to run without location permissions. If you do that the app will be rejected. So no, 'usually' apps do not do that. iOS is not Android.

Hmm, good point. Thanks for drawing the distinction.

I've been an Android user since my first smartphone, but Apple's privacy and human-hand-sized phones really had me considering an iPhone for my next purchase. I ended up with a Pixel anyway, since I can't use iTunes and I like having a filesystem and using Firefox, but it was a near thing.

Haven't used iTunes in a decade, there is a new files app (thank god), and Firefox and focus have been available for years.

I thought 3rd party browsers have to use the system HTML renderer, which means Firefox can't support extensions like uBlock, Toggle Animated Gifs, etc.

Safari on iOS allows extensions for ad blocking. Mozilla made one too afaik, or the EFF.

> human-hand-sized phones

My Chinese girlfriend disputes this. Even the iPhone SE is a bit big for her, and it's just there to consume left-over parts rather than to be a living branch of their design space. No touch-screen phone maker is really serving the Asian market at this point, as far as "idiomatic" one-handed usage goes; they're seemingly expecting everyone with small hands to just treat their phones like phablets, juggling them around in both hands every time they want to tap anything.

Fantastic. Screw Uber for only having the option to always use or never use.

Screw any app that really thinks it needs my precise coordinates in the foreground, let alone the background. Turn-by-turn directions in maps is the only exception I've found in 10 years of iPhone use.

Apple's API don't discriminate with regards to precision. An app that shows nearby stores with a 1km radius precision requires the same level of permissions as an app that's trying to do 1m precision.

Unlike Android which have precise and coarse location. If Google wanted, they could limit precise to GPS and similar apps and force everyone else to use coarse location or geo fencing.

Unfortunately Google doesn't care about your privacy. In fact, it's only a matter of time before they remove coarse locations and/or give every app full access to location data (the same way they did with internet access).

Apple's API allow very fine-grained control of both the accuracy and frequency of location updates, depending on, among other things, running in the foreground/background, the user's location etc.: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Pe...

There's currently no explicit penalty for requesting too much information, but the battery power indication could probably get users to uninstall apps wasting energy, and it can even get you app terminated.

What about the desiredAccuracy property of CLLocationManager [1]?

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corelocation/clloc...

There is no specific permission for accuracy, which I think was the point there.

Right. An application can ask for what it wants (low accuracy is much faster and burns less battery since it doesn't start GPS) but there's no way for the user to say that an app can ONLY get low accuracy data.

That's a good point. Maybe app developers should be able to request the level of access they want, like precise location, neighborhood (postal code), city, state or country.

If an app never needs more precise information than the country (say Spotify trying to decide whether they operate in your country), they don't need to request it. That also guards against bugs or security breaches in apps that try to do the right thing.

A bit different from turn-by-turn, I use mine for precise positioning using topo maps out in the Australian bush.

I also very much like being able to use the geolocation in my photos to find ones from an exact location.

I want to be tracked by Google. I went out of my way to turn it on in iPhone. My location is leaked to cell towers and by what wifi network I'm connecting through anyway, and I'd rather be able to figure out which cool restaurant I went to months after my visit to Vilnius is over.

Plus my memory of my personal life is so unreliable, especially if I don't have any context, so if I'm ever in court I'd like to be able to share exactly where I was when I was there.

I've stopped thinking that real privacy is attainable. That being said, I refuse to share it with scummy companies like Uber.

I am not completely sure I understand what you want to accomplish, but I think you might find Moves (https://moves-app.com/) useful.

> That being said, I refuse to share it with scummy companies [...]

Moves is owned by Facebook (one has to decide for themselves about FB's scummyness).

Wow, I did not realize Moves was owned by Facebook. Guess I'll be deleting that app...

Or Life Cycle by Northcube. Kinda amazing.

Seconding Life Cycle. Only stores the collected data on-device.

Thanks: I installed it and will try it out for a bit before deciding if I switch to it or remain on Moves.

you could instead just snap a picture of every location you want to remember, you have the location attached as an EXIF

The things you think you'll want to remember later aren't the same things you find yourself wishing you had recorded when that "later" comes.

Explicitly decided to keep Google Maps' location history activated on my device for precisely the same reasons. I'm yet to use it in court or something like that, but the argument about human memory resonates with me strongly - I've used location history many times to review e.g. on which day I was in some place or other few years ago. (Or once, years ago, to check how exactly did I get home after one party.)

RE people saying "just take a photo and use EXIF", that won't work because I don't know in advance what locations I will be interested in in the future.

Do you mean ex ante? A priori knowledge is that which is independent of experience, as in deduced from pure reason; it doesn't just mean 'in advance'.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks for this correction, I didn't realize "a priori" doesn't mean what I thought it means.

(I edited the comment to use "in advance" instead of "ex ante" though.)

in a more formal or philosophical context you're right, but the more colloquial "in advance" usage is not wrong per se (hehe).

I've been using this for precisely the reasons you mention:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/where-have-i-been/id64155398...

Google's location history is excellent and I'd gladly pay for an equivalent application which I could self-host and set up with the minimum of hassle, but having them do it creeps me out too much. I've not managed to work out how to get OwnTracks to substitute fully for it.

a decentralized version would be cool

Awesome, thanks for the link. I had been using Moves by ProtoGeo https://appsto.re/us/PNDwE.i and it's not very accurate. Still good for going back and remembering that awesome random place you found on vacation after the fact so you can recommend it.

I also wish the NSA had something like a personal data explore, but I know that will never happen.

Unfortunately I've not found WHIB to be enormously accurate either, but it does well enough. The main nuisance is interpreting having paused whilst walking past an establishment has having gone in it. Even Google's version couldn't get this right, at least in my case.

I agree. This link came at the perfect time.

A car dealership who botched a warranty repair on my vehicle is stonewalling me - once they realized the error was likely to cost them $2k - $3k, their service department deleted my file and began claiming no evidence exists that I had ever been to their location. I got the scheduling department to confirm my appointment and just found my location history for that day showing that I was at the dealership right on time during the appointment. Going to send this to the manufacturer's corporate complaints departments. Thanks for the heads up.

Dealerships. And people wonder why dealership groups are lobbying like crazy to keep Tesla out of their state.

Off the top of my head, any app involving directions – public transport, say – can reasonably use precise coordinates. Uber is also a reasonable use-case (when you want it to use that data) given the density of some city streets. Then there are location-sharing apps generally, or apps where you want to check in to locations (maybe a bit fuzzier, but there could be a lot of taggable locations within say 500m), or camera applications, or geocaching, or…

It's great to have control, and it would be even better if we were able to specify the accuracy an app is able to achieve. But there are obviously some reasonable use-cases for both foreground and background tracking.

For an app like that, I'd like to see a "approve every request" option. I don't always need my transit app requesting my position (even if only when in the foreground) when I really only need to look up the nearest stop occasionally.

That's your personal choice and desired level of privacy. I like that my Lyft app knows where to set pick up and that my transit app knows the nearest street car location.

Agree with the OP that Uber can burn in hell for "always on"; I guess just in case I need an emergency Uber ride :-/

But feel free to just uninstall all those other apps that I love using.

One slightly frustrating thing is apple hides several key functionalities behind the always permission level.

For example, if I need my app to be woken up remotely by a Bluetooth peripheral that requires the "always" location permission to function.

Geotagging in photos it pretty useful. And find my iPhone. Then there's Pokemon Go - maybe not your cup of tea, but a lot of people love it. It's pretty useful to be able to share your location with someone in iMessage, I've done that a few times. Your mileage may vary.

Waze too, I noticed today actually.

Waze uses that info to let you know when you have to leave for your appointment, including regular appointments you have but did not tell it about (if you drive to "5 Mcdonald Road" every day, around 4pm, then after a while, it will start suggesting it).

I dislike this feature intensely, so I actually have my location services turned off, and I only turn it on before using Waze or Maps.

(Oh, and it seems that the Apple "Use location to set timezone and GPS to set time" will use the GPS even if you turned that specific feature off - unless all location servies have been turned off. Or at least, that's my experience, but it might just mean my phone is bugged).

> Oh, and it seems that the Apple "Use location to set timezone and GPS to set time" will use the GPS even if you turned that specific feature off - unless all location servies have been turned off. Or at least, that's my experience, but it might just mean my phone is bugged

You sure it isn't just getting that info from the cell towers?

I am sure that the small triangle indicator comes up for a few seconds occasionally (I notice once in a couple of days) despite every single system service and app location permission being "off", and that the "time setting" is listed as "having used location services in the last 24 hours" (the indicator is never there long enough for me to get a "using it now" reading).

When the entire "location service" is off, it does not happen (it might use the services for all I know, but the indicator doesn't light up)

Wait, can Uber see my name and where I am all the time? Can any app do this?

Your account is linked to a credit card and name. So yes uber knows who you are

More evidence of Uber's future pivot to rating humans (a la black mirror).

Uber doesn't get screwed by not being given geographic information when the phone's owner doesn't want to provide it.

How can Uber do this when the OS doesn't have permission at this granularity?

iOS currently has both "Aways" and "Only While Using" options, but the developer specifies which are available to the user. iOS 11 now forces the "Only While Using" option to be available for all location using apps.

iOS has had the permission at that granularity since iOS 8.

https://www.imore.com/how-only-allow-apps-see-your-location-...

> Keep in mind that some apps may not show all three options. This is most likely because the developer has not yet implemented the while using this app option.

Turned location off for Uber for this reason. Makes the app less useable - but still worth it. Without that feature, I'd rather just wave a taxi in (depending on city). Makes me feel like Uber is hostile towards users instead of servicing them.

I'm as willing as the next guy to dump on Uber, but in this case Apple didn't leave them many options.

If they chose "while in use" then a ton of functionality would never be possible for any user whatsoever... because the only options they had were, to coin some temporary terms:

Option A: "All or nothing with behavior 1 (while app is in use only)"

Option B: "All or nothing with behavior 2 (always use location whether app is in use or not)"

If they chose option A, their app would be a lot less useful.

If they chose option B, they piss off some people who think they should have offered option A. But Apple would not allow them to offer both option A and option B.

Now, with this upcoming change in iOS 11, Apple will allow them to offer both options, if they choose to.

Sorry, what functionality do I need from a ride sharing app while I'm not using it to hail a ride, wait for a ride, or while on a ride? Given Uber's infamous "hustle" and some of their other software hijinks, I very much doubt that their intentions in this decision were for the benefit of their users. I'd further wager that they use this info to e.g. Track when an Uber user takes a Lyft or competing ride service ride. I don't personally have evidence of this occurring, but given e.g. https://m.slashdot.org/story/324911 and that it's technically possible, I would assume that they're doing it.

While you're walking to where your ride will pick you up you can be, for example, checking your email, and your location will update as you move. Of course you could stand in a fixed position and keep perfect discipline about staying in the Uber app instead, but that's a very inflexible user experience.

This is not true. Apple has had the "only while using" option available to developers for some time. Now Apple is just allowing the user to have that option even when developers didn't explicitly enable it.

This is amazing. I hope Google takes a lesson from this for Android o. I manually deny location permission to uber after every ride.

Google's own apps are crippled when you disable "location history", e.g: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en

So I wouldn't hold my breath.

Android O will sharply reduce the amount of location access an app has in the background unless the app displays a user-visible notification.

Relevant HN discussion for context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085098

Related screenshots:

* Uber requesting location access: https://twitter.com/joeduvall4/status/872007928844345344

* Apps using background location now displayed more prominently: https://twitter.com/ow/status/872145515386982400

Next battle: getting Apple to give users more granular Location controls. Almost NO App really needs precise GPS. "within a mile" or city or zip code or other fuzzier locations should be fine for most apps. Users should have a better trade-off than exact or nothing.

Android 1.0 had this via ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, unfortunately Android only recently got runtime permissions.

Apple still has it: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Pe...

Right, but this is at developer discretion. I always want to see user-level control for privacy-enhancing features.

No, you don't get to grant or deny access to a particular granularity of location, which Android has.

As long as it's deterministic it'd be super great -- otherwise some devious programmer is just going to average out the random fuzz factor :)

The banner for apps using location while in background seems like an iOS bug...

If it isn’t, Apple should give an option to turn the banner off.

This is great. There are a lot of apps that are a hassle to use, because I have to enable/disable their location access before/after using them to protect my privacy and battery. Looking at you Waze et al.

I've uninstalled Waze multiple times, being reminded that it has been accessing my location in the background while sitting at home relaxing always upset me.

But it's a map app thats its nature.

There's no good reason it should do so when backgrounded.

There are almost a billion good reasons for it to track your location all the time.

http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-News/Google-announces...

>There's no good reason it should do so when backgrounded.

Wrong, and it's especially irksome that just because you cannot think of a good reason, you leap to the unfounded conclusion that there is no good reason.

When you are driving and not using the app and not even thinking about the fact that you have the app, and not planning to use it, it can still be gathering useful traffic information to help route other users according to the current conditions on the route you are traveling. By the way this takes a super negligible amount of power because it can piggyback its use of system services (location, data transmission, etc.) on top of other already running services.

Then explain that to users and let them decide what they want to share instead of opting everyone in by default with no choice to opt out (this is really more "forcing" than "opting" if there is no option).

I think you're getting confused here.

There is no opting everyone in by default for location on iOS. They have to explicitly opt themselves in, if they want to. Otherwise they are opted out by default. This goes for all apps and is enforced by Apple in order to maintain a good experience for the user.

I can't think of an example where it would gather useful location data while I'm sitting at my home that couldn't be inferred if it was only allowed to use geo while in-app.

Just because you can't come up with any examples doesn't mean that other people can't. You aren't the only person capable of thinking of examples.

Some examples:

It's useful to know when you have arrived home and are no longer moving.

It's useful to know when you have started moving and left home.

It's useful to know where your home is so that it can guide you home and for other traffic related reporting reasons listed above and below.

It's useful to know where other homes are or other places you spend time, where it may be significant that you are arriving and staying for a long time, as opposed to for just a minute or two (as at a traffic light).

It's useful to know that your non-motion is not an indication of traffic being stopped on your road.

It's useful to know that non-motion when you are away from your home may be an indication that traffic is stopped on the road you are on.

All of these are directly relevant to explicit, openly featured Waze use cases.

I hope this comes to Android. I always thought it worked like this until someone showed me: https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb

I see way more locations and rides than I actually navigated to with Maps. For most of the time, it is just installed.

I now manually disable all location services.

Won't disabling location history avoid this or have you tried?

There is a specific option to let them do that. It's accessible both from your phone and web browser. It appears on the very first page of it, that you linked to, at the bottom, "pause location history", in a big box the same size as the other major points, it's even listed before the list of your known "common locations" such as home and work.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be opt in rather than opt out, it should, but that's still a far way away from hiding it from the user.

PS: I'm a very big user of permanent location history and it's a feature I enjoy, I would actually like to make it more granular / precise with more regular updating of my position if possible.

Yay! I almost always use lyft now because Uber only allowed the "always on/never" location options. Occasionally I'd be somewhere where Uber was the only option and it was annoying to go into location services and manually perform what should be a system function ...

I wouldn't even turn it on when Uber was the only option. I would enter the street address manually.

I wish there was a way to make apps only able to do anything when I use them and nothing when I don't use them.

I believe there is. Simply go to Settings and turn off Background App Refresh for that app.

Yes, turning Background App Refresh off goes a long way toward achieving this (and saving battery). Even with Background App Refresh turned off though, some activities may continue, particularly Location, audio, voice, and the like [https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/iP...]. This is why it's Location "While Using" is important. It also looks from OP's comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14502423] that (some of?) these features will be more prominently displayed to users. This is good, users should have complete knowledge and control of their devices, particularly as it affects privacy.

Do apps still have access to location history data? If so this is a nothingburger.

Exactly my question. Buried deep in location services is a frequently visited locations that apps have access to even if they only have access "only while using."

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2016/10/how-to-turn-off-hidden-fe...

I didn't know of that, thanks a lot for sharing!. Reminds me of the Google Location history on Android devices that shows you scaringly accurate where you went during your day.

I'm pretty sure 3rd party apps don't have access to that data anyway...

iOS has access to these, third party apps do not.

Yes that exists, but you are wrong about the permission requirement. CLVisit is meant to be a lower power alternative to always tracking, but still requires the same “always” permission: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corelocation/getti...

Could you provide a source for your claim that apps have access to location history data?

It's false. Even Apple servers have very limited access to this data.

In iOS 10 Settings > Privacy > Location, under the "Location Services & Privacy link, it says: "Your iPhone will keep track of places you have recently been, as well as how often and when you visited them, in order to learn places that are significant to you. This data is kept solely on your device and will not be sent to Apple without your consent. It will be used to provide you with personalized services, such as predictive traffic routing." This is consistent with Apple's philosophy of keeping personal data processing on-device as much as possible to protect user privacy. You can always keep the frequent locations feature turned off, or use "Clear History..."

Apps have never had access to location history data. iOS itself tracks this info to enhance some OS-provided features, but apps cannot get at it.

Awesome! I never ever turn on location, but this one app requires it, and there is no way to set it to 'only while using', got annoyed and now I toggle it, not ideal. This is great.

Yes, finally!! Can't wait for the final version

While this is an awesome feature, they're also going to start disabling 32bit apps that I paid for, and use regularly. Damn!

It is annoying. My kids play some games on their phones I downloaded back in 2009. Lemonade art and is one. The game doesn't even appear on the App Store anymore and only works with older versions of iOS, but if your phone is compatible you can still download it from the 'Purchased Apps' section.

All that will go away, but on the other hand I really don't expect them to support 32bit apps forever. You always have the option of simply not upgrading iOS. It's a trade off.

>You always have the option of simply not upgrading iOS. It's a trade off.

Unfortunately, Apple gives you no way to opt-out of updates. I've figured out a way to block them at the firewall level, which seems to work, for now.

Apple doesn't force updates. You can simply ignore the OTA update. I believe you'll get prompted again every time a new update is released, but hitting "Ignore" occasionally is a small price to pay.

>Apple doesn't force updates.

Constant popups _are_ the means to force updates. In addition they also throw up a nagware screen where they trick you to enter your pin to schedule updates. Apple employs several dark patterns, on iOS, and also on MacOS to trick the user and its rather sad to see them follow MS/FB/Google.

>I believe you'll get prompted again every time a new update is released,

That is not true. They do it multiple times for the same update. Look, I wouldn't care if they were simply security updates, but Apple updates bloat up and slow down the phone over time. On top of that, what makes it even more egregious is that they make it impossible for me to downgrade, and go back to a state where the phone was working just fine and I was happy with it.

>but hitting "Ignore" occasionally is a small price to pay.

You make it sound like its once in a year. Unfortunately, Apple constantly nags you to the point where, unless you're constantly looking out for it, its easy to accidentally hit the wrong button. Its sad that they have had to resort to tricking the user to drive their update stats.

> Apple employs several dark patterns

Bullshit.

They show an alert saying something like "A new version of the OS is available." [Update] [Ignore].

That's not a dark pattern. It's easy to just Ignore. I have a number of development devices using older versions of the OS and I've never had any problem avoiding updates.

> On top of that, what makes it even more egregious is that they make it impossible for me to downgrade

That's mostly the fault of the baseband.

> Apple constantly nags you to the point where, unless you're constantly looking out for it, its easy to accidentally hit the wrong button.

This is just flat-out wrong.

> Its sad that they have had to resort to tricking the user to drive their update stats.

And this is actually fairly offensive.

You are simply dead wrong. There is nothing I can say further, and have no wish to expend efforts to convince you otherwise.

To users, will this affect location-based actions? (Like Google Inbox delivering an email upon arrival to a location.)

Only if you opt out of offline location.

Yes, it may, depending on the use case - so we will have to do a better job convincing users that there is value in allowing the use of location "at all times"...

Nice, I might start using Uber again.

i bet uber is _thrilled_.

I like all the new things coming in iOS11, including this. I recently got my first iPhone and it's on iOS10. Do users like me get to upgrade just the OS on the same handset when they release iOS11? I haven't found the answer to this on some of the apple articles I have browsed.

Yes, upgrades are always free, and new iOS versions are typically supported on several generations of older devices.

Thank you.

As a concrete example, iOS10 runs reasonably well on my spare iPhone 5, which is coming up on 6 years old.

However iOS11 won't be supported on iPhone 5 and earlier, i.e. on 32bit devices. Only iPhone 5s and up.

To put it into context - the iPhone 5 was in competition with the Galaxy S III and Galaxy Nexus at launch.

And my Galaxy Nexus stopped receiving updates 2-3 years ago despite it being a Google device (mine was also straight from the Google store, so it wasn't the carrier's fault).

Cyanogenmod supported the Galaxy Nexus until 13.0 which is Android 6.0.1. So Google just dropped support after 4.3 (coincidentally the last unsupported version) even though it was absolutely possible to update to newer versions of Android. As a result the Galaxy Nexus doesn't receive security updates from Google and is thus not usable as an online device.

if i recall the galaxy nexus was dropped just after 4.3, if i recall correctly this was due to Texas Instruments dropping out of the modem game no?

that was the last android phone I owned.

While iOS upgrades are usually free these days, it hasn't always been like this. According to wikipedia, iOS 1.1.3 was a paid upgrade on iPod Touches (while being a free upgrade for iPhones).

The first few upgrades were paid for tax reasons as far as I remember. And then after a few versions they were able to change that.

And only on the iPod touch, not on the iPhone. They also had to charge for a WiFi update on MacBooks for "accounting reasons".

Yeah I think the iPhone got around it because people were already paying monthly for it.

Yes, I remember that. I had to explain this to my parents so that they would let me use their Creditcard for this purpose.

iOS updates have always been free. There's no such thing as iOS 1.1.3, only iPhoneOS 1.1.3.

No they are right. Due to some sort of accounting thing once upon a time on some of the first iPod touches there would be a small fee to upgrade the OS.

Yes, and that was iPhoneOS, not iOS.

It's worth mentioning though that there's often not a 100% feature parity between iOS versions on different devices, typically because of hardware changes. These even applies to devices of the same generation, e.g. iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus have different camera features since the latter has two cameras and the former just has one.

The differences between feature sets on different generations is less and less it seems though. If I recall correctly, the differences between the iPhone 3G and iPhone 4 was bigger than for instance iPhone 6 and iPhone 7. If I weren't such a sucker for new and shiny things, I'd probably buy an iPhone SE today.

Think carefully before upgrade. You can't downgrade after you upgraded and new upgrades are known to significantly slow down old devices. My iPhone 4S became unusable after iOS 7 and it's almost bricked with iOS 9. This is Apple way to force users to buy new phones.

That said, they force developers to discontinue support for old iOS versions, so if you don't upgrade, you'll stuck with old apps and some might stop work if they rely on remote servers with changed protocols. So if you want to use iPhones, be prepared to buy new phone every 3-4 years.

Apple occasionally release upgrades which the hardware really isn't capable of supporting. I think the worst example was the iPhone 4, which was given the iOS 7 upgrade. iOS 7 was basically only suitable for multi-core capable devices, and the iPhone 4 was the only device it was released on (the same generation iPod and iPad didn't get the update).

Apple tries really damn hard to make their stuff run well on all devices and it's very impressive how well they support them.

But if your device is a few years old… You're right that you may want to wait and see what the reviews say. Sometimes the updates actually make the phone feel faster, but sometimes (like iOS 7 with all the new transparency effects) it definitely can be a worse experience.

Apple doesn't "force" developers to discontinue support for older OS's. Apple does require that you at least have a build that supports both 32 and 64 bit versions.

You can target at least back to iOS 7 (https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/50410) that gives you support for phones back to the 2010 iPhone 4.

Apple also will allow you to download an older version of an app if the newest version doesn't support your hardware. I can confirm that this works back to devices that only support iOS 5 - like my first generation iPad from 2010.

> I like all the new things coming in iOS11, including this.

Killing 32b-only-applications i do not like :/

I may have to replace my home security cameras because Swann doesn't seem to care about the app that allows me to watch them.

Killing 32-bit-only-applications sucks for those apps that haven't been updated in years, but it speeds up the OS and should give you a bit of disk space back as well.

The difference in disk space is basically nonexistent (I could gain significantly more by removing the 32b apps applications, especially since most are games), and the OS speedup/memory gain should be limited and mostly applicable to when you're actually launching 32b applications.

In order to support 32-bit apps the OS needs to include 32-bit versions of all the system frameworks. So dropping support for 32-bit apps means cutting the size of all the system frameworks in half.

As for speedup/memory gain, merely launching a 32-bit app will cause the OS to get a bit slower / use more memory until such time as the app is actually killed by the system. Merely going back to the home screen isn't good enough, since apps stay suspended in the background until the OS decides it needs that memory back. And if you have any 32-bit apps that actually do background processing, you'll end up with 32-bit apps in the background frequently.

> In order to support 32-bit apps the OS needs to include 32-bit versions of all the system frameworks. So dropping support for 32-bit apps means cutting the size of all the system frameworks in half.

Less than half as 32b code objects will be smaller than 64b ones, but even if it's half how much storage is that exactly? I mean I probably have games bigger than the frameworks on my device.

> As for speedup/memory gain, merely launching a 32-bit app will cause the OS to get a bit slower / use more memory until such time as the app is actually killed by the system.

Well yeah so it's just pay for what you use aka who gives a shit.

> And if you have any 32-bit apps that actually do background processing

Which is unlikely given the vast majority of applications being killed by this move are games.

I mean let's be honest for once, the gain from removing 32b frameworks is pretty much entirely on Apple's side, there's little gain to be found for end users when they're not just plain losing value in this move.

> I mean let's be honest for once, the gain from removing 32b frameworks is pretty much entirely on Apple's side

I've given you multiple concrete benefits to end users. You may not personally care about the code size difference, and you seem to be completely discounting the speed / memory usage issues, but just because you personally don't think those are a big deal doesn't mean they don't actually exist.

> I've given you multiple concrete benefits to end users

There are not benefits since they break software. You can get pretty much all of these by just removing remaining 32b software from your system.

Two things:

1) Just removing all 32-bit apps doesn't recover the disk space used by the 32-bit versions of frameworks, and

2) If you remove all 32-bit apps, then there's literally no point to retaining the 32-bit OS support anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com