Alternatively, once the ad fraudsters have decided to scam an advertiser using this system, their ad fraud programs make a series of POST requests to the same well-known location pretending to be copies of Safari that have seen conversions from this ad campaign. The only way to detect this fraud would be to match up actual orders with claimed conversions from a particular site, completely bypassing the intended privacy protections. (Which probably wouldn't be that hard in some circumstances, but fraudsters would of course get to target the scenarios where matching up orders is hardest.)
Like, as far as I can tell, this completely fails to provide attribution data that advertisers can trust at all because it relies totally on the honesty of software installed on end-user devices. It will also fail to provide the stated privacy level in many situations, such as when the user keeps the same unique-ish IP address for several days. The only thing it seems to achieve is good PR for Apple, who will get a bunch of stories from credulous reporters about how they're trying to improve user privacy and the evil adtech industry is thwarting them because it wants to know everything about you.
Some of the advertisers we work with have pretty small budget, i.e. less than 50k/month and even them will probably max out the 64 campaigns.
I'm all for having a privacy minded advertising industry but this proposal misses the mark big time.
It helps that Apple doesn't rely on advertisers for the bulk of their revenue, so they can actually pursue this sort of thinking without gutting their business.
this completely fails to provide
attribution data that
advertisers can trust at all
because it relies totally on the
honesty of software installed on
Which is great for Apple, since their bread and butter is locked down devices that users can’t tamper and they can presumable do a better job of filtering bad actors.
Traditionally, ad click attribution has been
so-called “tracking pixels.”
They say nothing about how they want to prevent this and other tracking mechanisms. Yet, they propose an overly complex system to send even more data to advertisers.
Also they do not say anything about the ip that their additional ping will send out. I definitely do not want my browser to communicate with an advertiser days later and without my consent.
Also, click tracking is not even a big problem in the first place. Tracking you wherever you go is. Even if you do not click on any ads.
We are also aware of tracking via link decoration (not just for ads) and our first steps at defending against it are described here: https://webkit.org/blog/8828/intelligent-tracking-prevention...
Does Google do that? If so, only for a limited set of email senders, or globally? Would they, for example, read email sent between doctors and patients?
They scan your email and extract what you purchased, when, for how much, and when it was delivered. It appears to be as close to universal as they can get it — they’ve extracted info from some pretty niche retailers emails on my account.
There’s no publicly viewable equivalent for scanned health info but, internally, who knows. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if some of that data went into a training set for ad targeting, at the very least.
Can this be disabled?
But at least we can pick the low hanging fruit and not give our own info to Google voluntarily.
> Safari tech ready to be ignored by online ad giants like all other privacy proposals
Shouldn't this be "The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to disrupt the largest revenue stream of their main competitor Google." If Apple actually cared about "the moral high-ground of technology' they wouldn't be so desperately fighting right to repair laws.
I don’t think users should have to worry about products being safe for example, but I think the trade off between repairability versus other desirable attributes is something best left to user choice.
So if you get the screen replaced by a third-party, it might be illegal for software to try to detect that and refuse to work or update. This doesn't make any requirement that the screen be easy to repair in the first place.
Then I read the article, and realised the paragraph you're partially quoting is saying the same thing:
> The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to occupy the moral high-ground of technology by championing privacy at the expense of the surveillance capitalism embodied by Google and Facebook. Note this is for Western iThing users only, if you're a Chinese customer privacy is just a distant dream.
Unfortunately, while The Register's entire article is written in that tone, when a comment does it, it doesn't translate quite as well.