Facebook and Snapchat iOS Apps Still Tracking Users Despite Opt-Out
macrumors.com
macrumors.com
Because the website can't run in the background like an app, it can't preload anything. Launching takes a few moments to show posts, and videos don't autoplay.
Any time the mobile website shows you a prompt to use the app for "an improved experience", they really just mean "for better tracking and personalized ads".
Best part of using it in a browser is that I can open links in new tabs. So I dont have that issue where going back to the homepage causes the feed to refresh.
I've been working on native mobile apps in the last couple of years, and I realized the only reason companies want to push native apps is because they can do whatever they want with the tracking and 3rd party stuff in general.
Seriously this native apps world is so backwards compared to the web...
I'll take youtube as an example, on the mobile web app you can block most ads and you don't get the latest stupid features youtube is trying to push for some reason. Sometimes I'm brought back to the native app through a link and I'm shocked. The only reason I keep it is Chromecast support.
YouTube Vanced (3rd party YouTube app) with its integrated sponsorblock actually makes the app pleasant to use, it also unlocks some of the premium only features like background play.
No root required, although you're buggered if you run iOS presumably
Feelin kinda smug right now
Add in the need to get my timeboxed 2FA code to login and I'll begin to realize how little there is to gain relative to the trouble of actually logging in.
Would you mind sharing implementation details?
I haven't read through this in complete detail but it generally looks like the correct algorithm.
The calendar on events on facebook mobile website is a simple calendar that shows your events that you are invited to. The desktop and mobile app make it a pain to see just your friend events since they're pushing event discovery too.
Then I just started logging out most of the time.
In the end I just closed all my accounts but Twitter where I unfollowed everyone and set it up as a dumb mastodon relay for reach.
Feeling extra smug right now.
Are you suggesting the US government would levy a fine?
It’s all part of the churn, and the government has abdicated their role of monopoly lawnmower.
What Apple means by tracking is linking data from individual app users to third party data [1].
So in my view, it would indeed be a shift in Apple's position if they now accept that apps can link an individual's data to third party data as long as they somehow aggregate the result (e.g by creating cohorts) before actually targeting ads. But it's unclear to me whether they do in fact accept that.
I think merely mentioning aggregation is not enough to determine whether or not Apple has changed its position on this.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/app-privacy-details/#u...
It aggregates data from _all_ the people using my phone, in my home, on my wifi? Or does the anonymization happen after the request is sent to fb servers? Can I audit their machines to verify this?
> Lockdown Privacy, an app that blocks ad trackers, has called Apple’s policy “functionally useless in stopping third-party tracking.” It performed a variety of tests on top apps and observed that personal data and device information is still “being sent to trackers in almost all cases.”
If you don't want to be tracked by Facebook, stop running their code on your device.
Apple provides you with the app privacy labels in the App Store. Read them and use them.
The Facebook and Google ads SDKs are in absolutely everything…it’s how everyone makes money online.
1. No updates released
2. No revenue released
3. An alert warning the user that the app is noncompliant and it’s use could result in data theft (ie think self-signed SSL in the browser)
4. Restrict all network activity from those apps to the first-party domain
What users would care about is if you'd tell them "No, you can't use these apps with billions of users on our phones". I'm ready to be proven wrong, but I'd take a bet Apple will not act on delisting or banning updates for Facebook & Instagram, that's wishful thinking in my book. Their morale high ground PR is clearly effective however.
I do use Snapchat, but I would 100% support Apple pulling the app until they fall in line with proper privacy controls. Unfortunately I'm in the minority, and both Apple and Snapchat know this.
They legitimately don't understand the difference between Facebook tracking every detail about your life and Apple having an account with your name on it
I’m saying this as a non user of any of the apps listed (I only use HN, LinkedIn and Reddit personally)
> an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," which developers have interpreted to mean that they can still observe "signals" and behaviors from groups of users instead, enabling these groups to be shown tailored ads anyway.
>Apple has not explicitly endorsed these techniques, but they allow third parties to track and analyze groups of users regardless of whether or not they have given consent to user-level tracking. In addition, Apple reportedly continues to trust apps to collect user-level data such as IP address, location, language, device, and screen size, even though some of this information is passed onto advertisers.
So this makes the do not track almost worthless. Few advertisers will say show this ad to John Doe who lives at 341 maple avenue, but they will say things like show this ad to people living in Cincinnati between the ages of 20 and 30. And once you belong to enough ad groups, 6 or 7, you can be uniquely fingerprinted anyway.
I think the unhappiness should be directed at Apple and the offending apps. There's no reason why it can't be both.
If so, it seems solvable by Apple (through a combination of introducing noise/imprecision, and gating more things behind user-controllable app permissions)
It's a bait and switch and it's a sellout, which is pretty hilarious: a scam and a betrayal. And why not?
In fact, an argument could be made that Apple is complicit. Apple has a history of removing/rejecting apps that are used for illegal activities such as copyright infringement or even just breaking some company's ToS. Yet, they do nothing for apps that brazenly breach the GDPR.