Hacker News Reader

Comment by izacus | Hacker News Reader

Well, it can be more like "Your honor, Apple demanded that all their competitors implement a prompt to ask people whether they want tracking, but their own tracking is hidden under "System services" [macOS] or under another separate, by default enabled, switch [iOS].

They also demand that our Messenger discloses list of collected data, while apple's iMessage messenger does not disclose the data collected by Apple corporation as part of their iCloud service suite."

Facebook is a scummy company. But Apple is hiding their own tracking under default opt-in switches and using double standards as well. It's funny that their own apps don't disclose all the data that iCloud collects and uses for basic functionality like messaging.

Having BOTH corporations honestly disclose what they collect would be the biggest win for us.

View on HN

Except Apple does provide very detailed information about the sorts of data it collects, why it collects it, and how it uses it.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/

Its bundled apps do not track users across the internet, which is the crux of Facebook’s issue.

Just because Apple’s bundled apps aren’t on the App Store and don’t have the same nutrition facts scorecard it doesn’t mean that they aren’t communicating their approach to privacy loudly and in detail elsewhere.

The question is - is that shown next to iMessage with the exactly same dialog and messaging as for all their competing apps? Same UI location? Are Apple's first party apps treated the same as their competitors?

Because there's a difference between a big in-your-face popup and a website far away from the device actually running iMessage.

Signal also doesn’t track your activity across the web and thus does not get any big in-your-face popup. You can also go to Signal’s website to read additional information about why that’s the case.

Apple isn’t really giving themselves a special dispensation here. Giving users additional information about how Facebook messenger (and others) are doing things that most users don’t expect is a service.

I think a better analogy to illustrate izacus’ point would be:

"""The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."""

Apple have defined the rules, the rules which Apple have defined mean that Apple apps do not look scary while Facebook’s do.

Are those rules fair?

I happen to think “probably yes”, yet I am prepared to be incorrect.

Apple specifically details what data is collected under the "About iMessage and FaceTime & Privacy" link within the Messages preferences.

And their description listed under the Privacy section, "The Apple advertising platform does not track you" couldn't be more clear.

Maybe you can outline exactly how Apple is tracking you ?

> Apple specifically details what data is collected under the "About iMessage and FaceTime & Privacy" link within the Messages preferences.

So does Facebook. But Apple then demanded that everyone except them shows a big disclosure popup in AppStore which doesn't appear for their apps since they're preinstalled.

> And their description listed under the Privacy section, "The Apple advertising platform does not track you" couldn't be more clear.

Note the weasel phrase "Advertising platform". Remember, Apple keeps all of our private data, messages and even locations stored on their servers. Well, at least from most of us that use iCloud.

The world doesn't revolve around Facebook.

Almost every single app on the store doesn't have a comprehensive Privacy section. And so enforcing this on behalf of users is a very positive and important step.

And yes in order to offer backups, have a cloud-based Messages service and offer features like Find My they will need to collect data.

But all of that can be switched off and Location Services for example is opt-in by default.

> The world doesn't revolve around Facebook.

Well said. However, if you are a business owner today who wants to be able to put out their app to half their customer base, your world does revolve around Apple, which is what those of us who don't agree with the way Apple runs its App Store hegemony don't want to happen.

> Note the weasel phrase "Advertising platform". Remember, Apple keeps all of our private data, messages and even locations stored on their servers. Well, at least from most of us that use iCloud.

Isn't all this private data encrypted with the user keys?

That's the impression I have gotten at least and I hope I'm not wrong.

“But Apple is hiding their own tracking under default opt-in switches and using double standards as well.”

This is, as far as I can tell, completely false.

Apple has been asking for explicit opt-ins for years, and is only now requiring apps to follow suit.

This is the difference. Apple is explicitly opt-in. (In fact, a very large number of people opt-out of Apple's as soon as they get the prompt.) The non-Apple ones are completely opaque to the user.

They should all be opt-in.

That's not the case on my macOS MacBook or my iPad.

You were asked on every single OS update whether or not you wanted to share usage and crash data with Apple and third party developers.

And it is opt-in.

If you do a clean install, you’ll find that you are asked to opt-in to all the services that collect personal data.

You may not remember it, and I think that some of the opt-ins persist across device restores, but all the data collection is through explicit opt-ins.

This feels like false equivalency. Sure, it would be great if consumers had better visibility into how data is used, but one company is an ads company where the users are the product and the other sells hardware and services.

When it comes to antitrust for platforms, equivalency is exactly what's being tested. That is: are 3rd party applications treated the same as 1st party ones?

No it doesn't. Antitrust comes down to if there's harm to the consumer from the behavior of the company. If Apple's tracking is sufficiently different than Facebooks (because one is a hardware and services company collecting data to improve the hardware and services and the other is selling the data for ads), then it's a false equivalency to group them together.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that is how antitrust has been treated in US law, yes. But the law, including this definition of antitrust, is socially constructed, which means it can be changed.

Bullshit. When you setup a new iPhone there’s a step where you’re asked whether you want to share data with Apple.

Apple doesn’t sell user data, totally different than Facebook.

They "sell" user data in exactly the same way, just on smaller scale. They have ads in appstore, that are based on your behavior.

You say that, but everything I have seen mentions that Apple does not track users. The recommendations in the App Store depend only on other apps you have bought already, which does not imply tracking across different apps, which is what Facebook is whining about.

If you have a proof that they behave otherwise, that would be useful, but as things are you cannot just write a sentence like that without any supporting evidence.

Parent comment wasn't about Facebook collecting data from different apps, just about "selling" user data. Both Apple and Facebook do it.

Facebook doesn't sell you data of people, they sell you ability to have people interact with your ads. Apple doesn't sell you data of the people, they sell you ability to have people download your apps.

> they sell you ability to have people download your apps.

How do you construct that as “selling user data”? Does my local farmers’ market sell my data because I can go there and buy some food every week? This “both sides” argument is just as wrong as when it is used in other contexts.

I get FB's argument, but I have little sympathy. Apple doesn't sell user data unlike FB.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com