Hacker News Reader

Comment by altairprime | Hacker News Reader

OP misconstrues an iOS tracking dialog to support their complaint:

> The strange thing is that Apple introduced strict measures in iOS 14.5 to prevent developers from fingerprinting users.

The dialog text in their screenshot reads:

> Allow “App” to track your activity across other companies’ apps and sites?

Users refusing this permission are not prohibiting tracking by the company that issued the dialog. They are prohibiting the company from tracking users beyond the boundary of their corporation. Apple’s App Store app is within the boundary of Apple Corporation, and so the tracking dialog shown is not relevant to their complaint.

(I have no viewpoint to offer on OP’s argument beyond the logical reasoning error described above.)

View on HN

Whatever Apple is doing, it should be possible to buy a phone and not have it phone home without permission. And you should be able to use the phone without ever contacting the vendor again. Otherwise you bought a service, not a product.

Also, I recall a case where MacOS was asking Apple permission whenever the user wished to start an executable. This is nuts.

That exists. It's called a dumbphone

The line is blurry with smartphones, as all kinds of "smart" functionality IS a service, and depends on contacting the vendor.

>Also, I recall a case where MacOS was asking Apple permission whenever the user wished to start an executable. This is nuts.

Not that nuts. It's intended to be able to blacklist malware and such and retroactively disable it, through notarization (basically, registering apps to Apple and them getting a kind of fingerprint).

They could have done it with a local cache (and they probably do in some capacity), but it would still need to ask/sync every now and then.

> The line is blurry with smartphones, as all kinds of "smart" functionality IS a service, and depends on contacting the vendor.

No, because you can make your phone work with other service providers. The dependence on the original hardware vendor is artificial.

> It's intended to be able to blacklist malware

Choice of blacklists, content filters etc. is also orthogonal to the vendor.

And if you want a phone that works that way, they do exist. Personally I'm happy to offload most of that to one service provider, so I'm happy to use an iPhone. If that changes, I'll look elsewhere. Your mileage may vary.

>No, because you can make your phone work with other service providers. The dependence on the original hardware vendor is artificial.

Yes. But then it wouldn't be a commercial commodity product, it would be more of a build-your-own DIY kit. Would it be as succesful?

>Choice of blacklists, content filters etc. is also orthogonal to the vendor.

Everything is orthogonal to the vendor, even choice of screen or disk.

But most people don't like choice, want something that mostly works as is. And even for those that do the optionally increases the product complexity, maintainance, and error condition space (integrated vs mix-and-match).

Plus, a few modular laptop and mobile phone designs never sold well.

The merits of your arguments aside, Apple is not obliged to sell you a device that satisfies your personal requirements.

Apple most definitely sells you a service, which is a managed computing platform. Alternatives exist. (And if they don’t, that’s not Apple’s problem.)

It's a different discussion but I don't buy the "alternatives exists" argument. There are huge network effects. Some governments even make apps only for the duopoly. Banks also. Yes, sometimes you can use websites instead of apps, but it is not the same thing. Alternatives exist only in theory. Companies should not have absolute freedom if this means that the freedom of the consumer is restricted in any way.

"Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo

The world isn't as simple as: there are companies and they can sell whatever they like, and there are consumers and they can buy whatever they like, because that would end very badly for the consumers.

What do you mean in theory? You can buy a Pinephone today. If your government isn’t making web sites it seems like you should take that up with them.

What you are proposing is entirely unrealistic. That's what I mean by "in theory".

Why is it unrealistic? There are people who function fine without a phone at all.

I agree there should be basic standards of service, disclosure, quality and safety that products should have to meet in order to be marketable. Basically, purchasers should be able to have confidence in the products they purchase, so the question is what are the appropriate minimum standards.

Personally analytics don't bother me, I don't think they're a significant privacy issue. The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway, just as a requirement to provide the service. I don't believe that invasive regulation on the detailed behaviour and functions of a phone by governments is genuinely in the interests of users. I suspect that the detrimental effects would far outweigh the benefits, which would only be useful to a tiny fraction of users anyway.

> Basically, purchasers should be able to have confidence in the products they purchase, so the question is what are the appropriate minimum standards.

But what confidence do you have if the product you bought is tethered to the original vendor? What if they decide to do something that makes you unable to use the product?

I don't have a problem with the original vendor. If the vast majority of users don't have a problem with a relationship like this, and think it's acceptable, then I don't see a strong argument for making it illegal.

As for making the product unusable, they can do that anyway through OTA updates, which are applied at the user's discretion. If you think that's a problem then you should regulate that, not some other technical issues that may or may not be related.

> The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway

Knowing is not the issue. The issue is they use that understanding to their advantage, not yours. Their duty is to maximize shareholder value, not your health, happiness, and well being.

I'm not saying don't use them. I am saying it's naive to trust so blindly.

> "Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy

The fact that an argument is superficially similar to an informal fallacy doesn't make the argument inherently fallacious. You can easily construct a variation of the same conversation which is structurally identical but is obviously not fallacious—

  Critic: "I want a banana, but I don't like the texture."
  Respondent: "If you don't like them, don't eat them."

What the respondent said is only a fallacy if the purpose was to counter the criticism. But the criticism wasn't rejected. What was rejected was the unstated but implied assertion that the critic was entitled to a banana which satisfies them.

Now let's turn that into an "alternatives exist" argument and replay—

  Critic: "I demand a banana that I do like."
  Respondent: "I understand your desire for a banana which suits you. However nobody is obligated to supply you with such a banana. Thankfully, alternatives do exist, such as the nectarine."

That's not a fallacy. And it's not a fallacy to say that Apple is not obligated to make an iPhone which satisfies you. Especially because it's a statement of fact.

If you don't like that you can't buy an Apple branded dumbphone, and you have failed to convince Apple to make it for you, perhaps try lobbying your government? They could pass a law which requires smartphone makers to also sell dumbphones.

I would like to access my bank, or my investment account, pay my tax.

However in many cases I can only do that via an app, and apps are only available on iOS or Android. Your argument a based upon me being able to buy something from an alternative manufacturer, yet here we are. And I have to purchase Apple or Android to be able to function in society.

If Apple isn't going to follow open standards yet be the largest phone manufacturer then we are going to have to regulate them. You don't have to be the only company to be a monopoly.

Did you reply to the right thread?

If you did, what has any of that got to do with anything I wrote? How does your complaint relate to what I’m talking about? Which open standard, specifically relevant to your ability to access your bank account and do your taxes, is Apple not following? And how is that relevant to concerns over privacy?

(Seriously, I’d like to engage with your argument but it seems like you’re confusing a discussion about the choice to buy a zero-tracking device with a unspecific complaint about standards.)

> it should be possible to buy a phone and not have it phone home without permission. And you should be able to use the phone without ever contacting the vendor again.

don't connect it to the internet.

Apple doesn't even allow users to turn off Bluetooth or GPS (easily in a straight-forward way, it prevents you to make it easy). And while some of it is to provide a better experience to you, major reason is to provide service to other Apple customers.

Can’t you just swipe down from the top of the screen and press the Bluetooth icon, or am I missing something?

That does not do what you think it does: that’s the button to disconnect from currently connected devices, not to turn off radios. Similarly, the airplane mode button above it will maintain Bluetooth.

I created a Shortcut for that, essentially a button on my homescreen I can press which actually disables bluetooth and wifi. And when my phone is connected to wifi, mobile data gets disabled.

It's not perfect, but at least I don't have to open the settings app each time.

Why do you do that though?

If I turn off bluetooth and wifi I want them to be off.

Turning Airplane Mode on and then tapping the Bluetooth icon will fully disable Bluetooth (gray background, not white). You can also just disable it in Settings. Apple’s argument, as I understand it, is that Bluetooth and WiFi don’t actually consume much battery, but non-technical users would habitually disable them to save battery and then complain that Location Services didn’t work well. Hiding the setting but keeping an essentially useless toggle prevented those non-technical users from making their device function worse while still letting them feel like they were saving battery life.

Yeah but they forget about users who simple want to disable yet another tracking vector on their device.

To add insult to injury, when you automate WiFi and Bluetooth to turn off when you leave your home you need to manually affirm this action via a notification every time.

Super annoying.

> I have no viewpoint to offer on OP’s argument.

This doesn't look like tracking or fingerprinting at all to me - they're logging user interaction (that many apps and websites have done for decades).

Even if they didn't do this just about every click you make in the App Store results in a query to their backend for more information, presumably with the account id (so family, regional, parental control works).

Also Apple doesn’t have any incentive to ‘fingerprint’ App Store users because they are either logged in or using a unique identifier.

Sure they do. What if they switch accounts, usernames, phones, etc. More data is better.

If you do that, you lose all your apps and settings. Ergo, nobody does that. If you switch phones, you transfer the account. Also, Apple tracking what you do in their App Store is perhaps not very nice but doesn’t affect anyone in any detectable way so no normal person is going to go through the effort to avoid it, if they even know it is happening.

This argument’s logical error is declaring that an inconvenience takes higher precedence than the desired outcome.

For example, I am seriously considering doing exactly what you describe as “nobody does that” — having to repurchase all my apps and redo all my settings — in order to complete my transgender name change. Apple refuses to purge my old deadname’s iCloud email address, and so if I want to remove it, I’ll need to start a new Apple account and re-purchase all of my apps and content.

It's extremely easy to disregard and disable any mention of your iCloud email address. You can set an apple id's email itself in settings -> user -> "name, phone numbers, email" which changes what nearly every part of the OS refers to. I forgot I even had one until I read this comment.

You are an extreme outlier, Apple is not going to risk their reputation fingerprinting users just so they can track you.

If you truly have a request like this, send an email to the person in the executive team responsible for Apple accounts, they’ll probably have executive relations fix it for you.

This argument’s logical error is presenting unprovable beliefs as if they were facts.

Apple may or may not care if users switch accounts. Only Apple confidential knowledge can prove or disprove this argument with certainty. In the absence of certainty, a best-faith effort must be made to determine whether their actions support or contradict these assertions.

The claim “Sure they do” is unsupported both by available evidence and by a good faith interpretation of their material actions. Apple’s public statements and app store policies do not support the assertion “More data is better”. There is no indication that Apple is performing enrichment of accounts using third-party data.

This argument’s logical error is approaching a response to a statements as if it exists in isolation.

The person you are replying to was merely offering an example to contradict a blanket statement without a factual basis, essentially that Apple does not track users because the user is already logged in. The respondent presented a situation in which that reason would not apply.

Also, your way of engaging people in this way is annoying -- specifically starting every reply with 'This argument’s logical error' and then coming up with a seems-right-at-a-glance breakdown of their argument's faults. Are you doing it on purpose to annoy people?

Starting every comment with “this argument’s logical error is…” is nauseating and hinders good conversation. Your point would sound better without it.

Everyone’s using my comment about the OP post as a launching point for their own discussions and arguments about Apple, that would have earned their own standing as top-level threads — and ideally, some would have displaced mine. So I certainly didn’t expect to wake up and see my comment earning so much attention. Hooray, I suppose. Anyways, I stand by my original point and the reiteration of it demonstrated in that chain of replies:

Unsupported arguments based on misconstrued statements and logical fallacies waste all our time here at HN. Do better, please.

What? If they switch devices and accounts, it doesn't matter WHAT is being "fingerprinted'... there's no way a unique identifier will persist across that type of change. Points for the theory though.

The context here is "fingerprinting" you based on what your fingers do.

So that will persist across devices and accounts.

And before you say that's crazy, location information can mean they only need to distinguish a handful of people at a time.

I remember credit cards being only usable by one AppleID.

So switching accounts would not only mean you lose all of your App Store purchases, iCloud data etc. It would mean having to get a new credit card.

That would make the likelihood of this scenario happening being pretty slim.

This argument’s logical reasoning error is to claim the absence of all incentive due to the absence of one incentive.

Apple has access to the logged-in account’s properties, as you assert, but this does not rule out Apple having other incentives for tracking.

you can use an apple device without logging into icloud

Reply on news.ycombinator.com