
Apple will attempt to jam Facebook's web-tracking tools - NoB4Mouth
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44360273
======
hellofunk
Apple is putting itself in an entertaining position in the industry. Most big
tech firms have a business model that depends on user data. By explicitly
taking the other side of that model, a fascinating new conflict is emerging
between tech giants. And Apple is at least positioning itself on the
sympathetic side of billions of users in this arena. This conflict will not
die down -- the entire FB and Google business models cannot suddenly change to
move away from user data collection, so this tech war will only get more
pronounced and dramatic as time passes.

~~~
onion2k
_the entire FB and Google business models cannot suddenly change to move away
from user data collection_

They can though - they can go back to untargetted advertising based on page
content as they were doing 10 years ago. All the personal tracking data is a
layer on top of that tech aiming to improve the 'targettedness' of adverts.
Nothing in the online ad industry really _needs_ any of that personal data,
and arguably it doesn't actually make many ads more effective anyway.

~~~
paulie_a
It is astounding that with all that tracking data ad quality has not actually
improved in 20 years. They are still garbage ads that are still rarely
relevant.

~~~
sethammons
My favorite is getting ads for the thing you already bought from the place you
got it where you are very unlikely to need again anytime soon.

Most recently for me, it was a plumbing part. Now I have targeted ads
everywhere for these parts. Sorry org, I finished my project and I won't be
doing something similar, hopefully, ever again.

~~~
sudosushi
That's actually a grey/black hat way of boosting your ad sales numbers, even
if you didn't click.

You buy x at y store, y store has an ad buy with ShadyAdCo. If you see product
x in an ad within z time afterwards, it counts as an influence towards your
purchase. ShadyAdCo just made money, and y store can give record numbers.

EDIT: typo

~~~
moufestaphio
Huh, I never thought of that. Only works if you're using basic/bad metrics. I
believe google's stuff is a little more advanced than that and you can see
your click-through all the way to buying rate etc.

~~~
bluGill
That only works if you actually click and buy. If you see an ad for a part you
need, then go to hardware store and buy it they have no way of knowing that
you saw the ad, much less how much influence the ad had.

It also fails to account for awareness being a major reason to buy ads. Ford
want to advertise to everybody (probably including Amish) because most people
will eventually buy a car, and it is important that you think Ford then. Even
if you bought a car yesterday it is important to them that you not forget that
you can buy a Ford - they know you won't buy for a few years, but they still
want you to think of them.

~~~
wesd
Google has been trying to tie store purchase to ad impression [1]:

"This location tracking ability has allowed Google to send reports to
retailers telling them, for example, whether people who saw an ad for a lawn
mower later visited or passed by a Home Depot. The location-tracking program
has grown since it was first launched with only a handful of retailers. Home
Depot, Express, Nissan, and Sephora have participated."

[1][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/05/23...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/05/23/google-now-knows-when-you-are-at-a-cash-register-and-how-
much-you-are-spending/?utm_term=.1ef5f15f3a49)

------
geokon
I think it'd be nice to have a browser option where it simply won't load
content from outside of the current domain. Though at the moment that would
break a lot of the web, it'd be a much more neutral solution. To me what's
more alarming than Facebook is what percentage of websites load
fonts/js/analytics from Google (even Freedesktop.org did till I pointed it out
on their mailist). They don't get a referral link (I think?) but they still
effectively know when you're online or not

Apple blacklisting sites/companies is honestly more scary... that's basically
anti-net-neutrality.. if you're naughty (or Apple doesn't like you) you can't
have your images loaded?

~~~
thg
> I think it'd be nice to have a browser option where it simply won't load
> content from outside of the current domain.

Take a look at uMatrix[0]. With the two rules

* * * block

* 1st-party * allow

you'll achieve what you want.

> To me what's more alarming is what percentage of websites load js from
> Google

That's where the Decentraleyes[1] plugin comes in handy. It injects a locally
cached version of 3rd party cdn libraries. To use it easily in conjunction
with uMatrix, you'll need some more rules that you can find in the FAQ[2].

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/umatrix/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/umatrix/)

[1]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes/)

[2]: [https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes/wiki/Frequently-
As...](https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes/wiki/Frequently-Asked-
Questions)

~~~
geokon
Decentraleyes is fantastic. Makes the internet way more usable from China.

But I guess my point was that if Apple crammed a first-party-only system down
our throats and 20-30% of the population was forced into this new paradigm -
then that would make websites change and the internet would change in its
nature. If I use uBlock.. well then I just make my life irritating :)

------
fnwx17
> Apple's attempts to block data tracking as you travel around the web could
> have a real impact on companies that rely on your personal information to
> make their billions.

asking the people that working in adtech, cross-device usage prediction and
the likes: do you actually think it will disrupt your business or there are
always workarounds and are relatively chill about it?

~~~
endymi0n
Apple attacks the core primitives of Adtech very strategically with this
update. This is very smart actually, much better than the first iteration.

They're going after the meat right away, like cookie synchronization ("Tracker
collusion") and the first-party tracker hack that Criteo pioneered,
effectively disabling almost all the tracking possibilities on iOS. As a user,
this is awesome.

And if you want to track, you need to provide both value (i.e. an
authenticated service) as well as get explicit consent from the user.

Unfortunately, this will also serve to concentrate the power in the hands of
Google and Facebook, who have and/or will create such authenticated embeds.

Note that all this hardtalk specifically excludes the mobile ad IDs. Apple
would face much more headwind from GOOG and FB if they went about killing
these. This is going to be very interesting, as Apple will need to carefully
tread up to a point, after which there could be harsher repercussions.

They also know that an iPhone without access to Google Maps, Search, Mail,
Authenticator, Youtube and a whole lot of other essential services won't be
worth much to end users anymore.

Source: I'm working in Adtech, but we chose a different approach of giving
users an actual benefit and being careful, compliant and frugal with data. All
these recent updates about Apple and GDPR mainly hit the really bad players of
the industry that just hoard sensitive data through shady channels and
arbitrage it to hell — and I consider that a good thing.

~~~
flafla2
> They also know that an iPhone without access to Google Maps, Search, Mail,
> Authenticator, Youtube and a whole lot of other essential services won't be
> worth much to end users anymore.

Google Authenticator => Authy (it reimplements google auth) Search => Safari
Gmail => Native Mail (its not like Google will drop IMAP support)

Killing YouTube on iOS would be pretty bad for Apple, but I’m sure that
wouldn’t be profitable for Google (cutting off a third of an already-
unprofitable company? no thanks). What’s left bedides that, Google docs? Well
Apple has their own suite so does Microsoft. And they both have web editors
that rival Google Docs and support multi-user editing. In general I’m pretty
skeptical about this assertion that Apple “can’t” step on Google’s toes.

~~~
oldcynic
Authy want an email before you can do _anything_ with it, and is cloud
centred, so that's probably just sending your usage to someone else.

Try OTP Auth[0] on iOS that fully respects privacy and security. It was Authy
asking for email first that prompted me to search and find this.

[0] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/otp-
auth/id659877384](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/otp-auth/id659877384)

~~~
flafla2
Authy encrypts all of your data with a private passkey that is never sent to
Twilio (the parent company) [0]. I found the ability to sync 2FA across
devices to be convenient and a good compromise to “if you lose your phone,
you’re screwed.” I can understand both perspectives, but I think Authy has
done a great job at improving the usability of 2FA without sacrificing
security. This is certainly more secure than SMS-based 2FA which most people
currently use.

(Disclaimer: I am currently employed by Twilio. I am not involved with Authy
in any way)

[0] [https://support.authy.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115001932768-Aut...](https://support.authy.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115001932768-Authy-Backups-Password-Retrieval)

------
CodeSheikh
I would be more than happy to pay for a premium Facebook and premium Google
where 0 tracking bytes are harvested about my activity and I just use their
product as it is. But we all know that as much as some people sitting in the
boardrooms of these companies would want a premium service model too they will
never allow it. Tracking users make them money on multiple folds that premium
revenue stream would be a chump-change for them.

~~~
obblekk
I hear this sentiment a lot. Here's why it doesn't work:

If facebook sets the price at $20/mo for no ads no tracking, most of the
people who can afford that actually generate more than $20/mo of ARPU for
facebook with ads. So they get this adverse selection where mostly only the
wealthy (highly valuable advertising targets) opt out of ads and this
eventually decreases FB's revenue.

If they raised the price to offset this, the adverse selection would get even
stronger.

The flip side of this is that Netflix could almost certainly make more money
if they showed interstitial video ads, because this allows them to effectively
make more money off wealthier people (because advertisers pay more to
advertise to them).

~~~
Rjevski
> most of the people who can afford that actually generate more than $20/mo of
> ARPU for facebook with ads

How so? I’ve never clicked on an ad other than by accident, and I actively
despise any brand that tried to push me their garbage via ads.

I’m not sure I ageee with you there. I’d say most people who can afford that
are actually making Facebook less money because they’re smart enough to see
through the bullshit and ignore the ads.

------
iliaznk
So it really does have to do with Facebook services only? That's what I
thought yesterday, but still wasn't sure. Why not all social media then? What
if I do want to share/like stuff? Just don't use Safari?

~~~
whywhywhywhy
Safari has a button that opens the OS share dialog.

To be fair it never made any sense digging around a webpage for a like/tweet
button to share something anyway.

~~~
iliaznk
That's a different story, but cutting off selectively just one party only
reminds me of Orwell's "some are more equal".

~~~
whywhywhywhy
It's not one party, they just said share buttons so that would include
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Pintrest, etc

~~~
iliaznk
That I have no problems with. But in media I've only seen references to
Facebook. If this [https://webkit.org/blog/8311/intelligent-tracking-
prevention...](https://webkit.org/blog/8311/intelligent-tracking-
prevention-2-0/) is the actual implementation, then it's good.

------
wyclif
As of right now, you can't post this story on Facebook. Coincidence?

~~~
cricalix
Seems like coincidence, because it's not just that link.
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/](http://www.bbc.co.uk/) fails too.

~~~
cosmojg
Why would Facebook block BBC?

------
zerostar07
How to do GDPR correctly.

------
CodeSheikh
I have been actively using Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and I do most of my shopping
online. What always boggles my mind is that how do advertisers make money? I
don't remember the last time I actually saw an ad on Facebook/Google, liked
the product so much that I instantly bought it. Everyone I know in my circle
would agree and comply with me.

~~~
Fifer82
I have a selected blindness with ads.

However what I found recently was so do others. I was with my friend, and we
wanted to know the exchange rate, so my friend fired up his phone and googled
it.

We got to a web page with tiny white boxes with black text, and a half screen
booking.com ad. I asked him what his thoughts were on annoying ads shifting
the content down like that, and he said "I haven't seen an ad for years mate".

The glaring device screen was mostly ad and he failed to even make the
connection.

It makes me wonder, are ads really so easily ignored, or have ads went down
some psychological hole where you think you are clever but a few years later
you are foaming at the mouth as a booking.com customer?

~~~
cosmojg
And here I am trying to figure out whether your comment is itself an
advertisement for booking.com and you an adbot.

~~~
Fifer82
That made me laugh, maybe that was the goal of the ad....

------
ourmandave
From this link below, it looks like Apple doesn't collect much data on you to
begin with (vs Facebook, Google, and Twitter).

 _I asked Apple for all my data. Here 's what was sent back_

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-
stored-r...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-
request/)

So is Apple trying to position itself as the Data Protector Platform You Can
Trust? Like how The New York Times has seen a record increase in subscriptions
because of fake news.

------
sametmax
So like firefox with the facebook container ? But with more PR ?

------
projectramo
About 5 to 8 years after I expected it but a welcome decision

------
j2bax
Does anyone know what Apple's stance is on using Facebook/Google/etc for
targeted advertising of their own products?

My assumption would be that they use every tool at their disposal to
advertise/sell their products, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised and
find out that they are putting their money where their mouth is on the flip
side of this (the companies that pay for/fund the collection of this data).

~~~
snowwrestler
I regularly see Apple banner ads on news sites like the homepage of the
Washington Post. I have not checked, but I bet that these ads are served
through an ad platform like Doubleclick and are targeted at me based on data
they have about me.

------
ddtaylor
Is this a change to how they handle CORS overall or specifically a peephole
check for Facebook?

~~~
dbbk
I think it's a change to iframe loading.

------
spac
This is why I reward, and will keep rewarding Apple with my money. In a
capitalistic system, voting with dollars may effect the change that voting
with ballots may not.

~~~
klez
Honest question: how do people with less money vote, then?

~~~
izacus
Apple is very clear that only wealthy people can have privacy. If you don't
give them money for iPhones and Macs, no iMessage for you. Remember how they
publicly made fun of "green bubbles", painting talking to non Apple users as
something bad?

~~~
chatmasta
1\. You can buy a used iPhone -2 generations for under $200, and it will run
the latest iOS with all security updates, which is more than you can say for a
used Android phone.

2\. Apple is not the one violating privacy at the lower price points. If
you’re going to blame a company for making privacy “only for the rich,” blame
the company that invades your privacy on the cheap devices, not the one
protecting it on the more expensive devices.

------
victor106
Apple should provide a default VPN service for all traffic that would be
killer.

------
atulvi
I read apple jam and instantly went out to get bread

------
_cs2017_
The economic value of ad personalization is measured in hundreds of billions
of dollars a year.

A part of that value goes to Facebook, Google, and other social media and
advertising firms. A part goes to publishers, who provide free shit such as
news to billions of people. A part goes to advertisers who get to sell more
stuff. A part goes to consumers who get to see the aforementioned free news,
plus occasionally see slightly less shitty ads.

When Apple blocks user data, it destroys a lot of economic value, which costs
jobs; a lot of them are in the US since the biggest advertisers, publishers,
and ad firms are US based.

Maybe it's worth it because privacy. But it certainly hurts millions of people
who depend, directly or indirectly, on the effectiveness of ads.

~~~
soneil
I can't really think of a nicer way to say this: I don't care.

I get the theory. I get that everyone wants everything for free, and many
providers still need a return. But we've let adtech run wild, and they've just
got scummier and scummier.

"When in hole, stop digging". adtech really need to start taking
responsibility for their own actions. They've been at war with users for far
too long, and still play victim when the user doesn't appreciate it.

~~~
_cs2017_
When your say "scummier", are you referring to Facebook ads that follow your
recent activity online? Or something else?

On another note, as you put it, everyone wants everything for free. Is it
really your place to tell them they can't have it, by disrupting the flow of
money that makes that free stuff possible?

~~~
soneil
This is the industry that created the popup/pop-under, and abused it until it
got to the point where every reasonable browser has integrated functionality
to block & whitelist them.

Now they're abusing mass data harvesting and profiling until it too gets to
the point where every reasonable browser will integrate functionality to block
& whitelist it.

This is an industry that targets users as prey, and cries foul when we play
hard to get.

For me, most advertising lives on a scale. At one end we have advertising that
seems mutually beneficial to all, like sponsorship of podcasts. At the other
end of the scale, we have unsolicited bulk email, which I've never seen anyone
try to defend.

It feels like each generation of web advertising starts somewhere in the upper
third of this scale, and then digs and digs to sink as low as it can, until
some measure is brought in to make this generation ineffective. Then they go
off, come back with a new model, and start digging all over again.

Ultimately I do wish they'd come up with a model that isn't abusive of users,
publishers and even their own advertisers; but at this point I'm inclined to
believe this leopard can't change its spots, and will always sink as low as we
allow it to.

