or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple reportedly rejecting apps that access UDIDs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple reportedly rejecting apps that access UDIDs - Page 5

post #161 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not denying that Google has had internal discussions about how to expand their advertising initiatives. I don't ahve knowledge that they have, nor do you, but it would certainly be a reasonable assumption. Nice try at deflection tho. It's you who's apparently denying misstating facts when you said Google sells your information, with no citation that they've done so.

It takes much less effort simply to say you might have misspoken Mel. What you'd like readers to believe has no basis in fact. That makes it FUD.

It's Google that's passing the FUD around by making the kind of statements they do. By saying that they don't sell user info that's traceable back to an individual user, they aren't denying they are selling that info, just that, supposedly, those to whom they are selling it can't tell whose info it is.

You should at least admit the possibility from everything that's been reported.
post #162 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's Google that's passing the FUD around by making the kind of statements they do. By saying that they don't sell user info that's traceable back to an individual user, they aren't denying they are selling that info, just that, supposedly, those to whom they are selling it can't tell whose info it is.

You should at least admit the possibility from everything that's been reported.

You stated it was a fact not a possibility and even that possibility (unlikely IMO) would only be an aggregate, nothing specific to individuals. It's you who's passing FUD as fact. Even the articles you linked were clear on that.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #163 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.

All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.

Mel is exactly right.

asdasd and gatorguy: you often seem like a total google-apologists, but I'll give this a try anyway.

Selling "depersonalized" user data is usually bullshit. I've spent time in this industry, and I'll tell you that any worthwhile data is rarely depersonalized to the degree that it can't easily be re-personalized. Google may or may not be technically selling personally-identifiable data, but they are almost certainly selling data that can be re-married to very personal information gathered by the liked of rapleaf, bluekai and other companies whose sole purpose is to associate this data. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone involved in tech, or even vaguely knowledgeable about data gathering in general. It's amazing that these arguments are even happening at all.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #164 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Also, if someone wants to link customer identity to purchase, I would imagine that credit card info is a much better and more comprehensive source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Only if the c.c. number is available (both technically and legally) to the merchant. The customer's name, phone number, and address are yet other matters.

Sorry to break the news to you, but when you use a credit card, the cc issuers can (and do) sell your personal information back to (at least some) merchants. They consider it a "benefit" to you, the cc holder. Uh, right.

I was suspicious about this a few years back and after a very lengthy call with the bank's national support staff, including a couple levels of escalation ("Please let me talk with your supervisor" multiple levels), eventually they admitted to their practice. The first-level drones either didn't know about it, didn't understand, or were trained not to admit anything. While the upper-level support person continued to call it a benefit, they did (apparently) have a way for me to opt out of future divulgence, which tells me that the developers of this system knew people might not approve.

I have no idea what the current state of affairs is, but I suggest people who are interested dig in and see what their issuers' policies are. Note: because of how tightly I manage my personal information, I had nearly incontrovertible proof of what happened. Without that, it may be challenging to get past the lower-level support staff that tell you "Oh no, we never sell your personal information!"
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #165 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I believe that Streetview was just a way to get cars driving about to get that very information that they did get, with the software that Google wrote for that purpose.

Hey, you might just be a bigger conspiracy theorist than I am!

I totally agree that there was no excuse for gathering that data, and there's not even the most remote possibility that it was an accident.

But... (and you knew there was a "but" coming, right?) I don't at all believe that StreetView was created for this purpose. StreetView is neat technology that serves a particular purpose and falls squarely within Google's goals of organizing the worlds' data. And "owning" it (my wording).

I think what happened was someone with a weak moral compass inside the company saw StreetView as an easy way to gather this data and either people in charge didn't know what s/he was doing, or they ignored it for too long. At the end of the day though, they should have quickly admitted what was going on, shut it down, reprimanded those involved and taken measures to see that type of thing never happened again. Too bad it didn't go down like that.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #166 of 179
A very positive thing I'm seeing now is that more and more people are paying attention to these issues, and more people are unhappy with the level of personal information gathering and selling.

Even just a couple years ago, most people would have been apologists for this kind of behavior. Because it's a specific area of interest to me, I pay a lot of attention to overall sentiment, and I'm (finally) pleased with at least the direction of change in attitude.

There's a generational aspect to this (kids and younger adults usually don't think about longer-term problems, it's out of their base of understanding), but it's also a lot about education. Merely explaining, for those who will listen, and getting people to understand what's actually happening behind the scenes is helpful.

I think this tanker is finally starting to ever-so-slightly change its heading.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #167 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Mel is exactly right.

asdasd and gatorguy: you often seem like a total google-apologists, but I'll give this a try anyway.

Selling "depersonalized" user data is usually bullshit. I've spent time in this industry, and I'll tell you that any worthwhile data is rarely depersonalized to the degree that it can't easily be re-personalized. Google may or may not be technically selling personally-identifiable data, but they are almost certainly selling data that can be re-married to very personal information gathered by the liked of rapleaf, bluekai and other companies whose sole purpose is to associate this data. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone involved in tech, or even vaguely knowledgeable about data gathering in general. It's amazing that these arguments are even happening at all.

Let me be more to the point and call BS. There's no reliable claims whatsoever that Google sells any data, anonymized or otherwise. Arguing about what information might be in a future package that might be available someday to a possible third party if Google changes their policies is moot. It hasn't happened. Claiming it does is FUD. Simple.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #168 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Sorry to break the news to you, but when you use a credit card, the cc issuers can (and do) sell your personal information back to (at least some) merchants.

Why do you think this is 'breaking news' for me?
post #169 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Why do you think this is 'breaking news' for me?

Not really intended for you; your post was the prelude. The meat was intended for Cpsro, but honestly, everyone should be aware of this, and very few are.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #170 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Sorry to break the news to you, but when you use a credit card, the cc issuers can (and do) sell your personal information back to (at least some) merchants. They consider it a "benefit" to you, the cc holder. Uh, right.

I was suspicious about this a few years back and after a very lengthy call with the bank's national support staff, including a couple levels of escalation ("Please let me talk with your supervisor" multiple levels), eventually they admitted to their practice. The first-level drones either didn't know about it, didn't understand, or were trained not to admit anything. While the upper-level support person continued to call it a benefit, they did (apparently) have a way for me to opt out of future divulgence, which tells me that the developers of this system knew people might not approve.

I have no idea what the current state of affairs is, but I suggest people who are interested dig in and see what their issuers' policies are. Note: because of how tightly I manage my personal information, I had nearly incontrovertible proof of what happened. Without that, it may be challenging to get past the lower-level support staff that tell you "Oh no, we never sell your personal information!"

Did they say how much information? I'm not aware of such a system, but I'm a small fry merchant, size wise.

What caused you to be suspicious?
post #171 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Did they say how much information? I'm not aware of such a system, but I'm a small fry merchant, size wise.

Name and mailing address, guaranteed. Beyond that I'm not sure, my cc issuer doesn't have much more than that. Perhaps the most troubling part (other than the fact that they do this at all) was that it was quite difficult to get the bank to admit they were even doing this. It's possible this info is only made available to large firms, as it was a large retailer in my case, but I couldn't say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

What caused you to be suspicious?

I manage my personal information very, very carefully, and I almost never use plastic. Because of that it's pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together when a merchant you have no relationship with hits you with a mailing a few days after you make a cc purchase at one of their stores. In any case, they acknowledged what was happening, and after I reiterated that I did not under any circumstances want them sharing (realistically, selling) my information with retailers they said they would opt me out of it in the future.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #172 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Mel is exactly right.

asdasd and gatorguy: you often seem like a total google-apologists, but I'll give this a try anyway.

Selling "depersonalized" user data is usually bullshit. I've spent time in this industry, and I'll tell you that any worthwhile data is rarely depersonalized to the degree that it can't easily be re-personalized. Google may or may not be technically selling personally-identifiable data, but they are almost certainly selling data that can be re-married to very personal information gathered by the liked of rapleaf, bluekai and other companies whose sole purpose is to associate this data. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone involved in tech, or even vaguely knowledgeable about data gathering in general. It's amazing that these arguments are even happening at all.

Lol, I have never defended Google or Android on Apple Insider, I very occasionally criticise Apple. But that's ok, it is not a cult.

You may be right about google, and I have said as much , but this is about the UDID. i think the fuss here is overblown.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #173 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You stated it was a fact not a possibility and even that possibility (unlikely IMO) would only be an aggregate, nothing specific to individuals. It's you who's passing FUD as fact. Even the articles you linked were clear on that.

Oh, just give it up. You seem to read with your eyes closed.
post #174 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Hey, you might just be a bigger conspiracy theorist than I am!

I totally agree that there was no excuse for gathering that data, and there's not even the most remote possibility that it was an accident.

But... (and you knew there was a "but" coming, right?) I don't at all believe that StreetView was created for this purpose. StreetView is neat technology that serves a particular purpose and falls squarely within Google's goals of organizing the worlds' data. And "owning" it (my wording).

I think what happened was someone with a weak moral compass inside the company saw StreetView as an easy way to gather this data and either people in charge didn't know what s/he was doing, or they ignored it for too long. At the end of the day though, they should have quickly admitted what was going on, shut it down, reprimanded those involved and taken measures to see that type of thing never happened again. Too bad it didn't go down like that.

I can't see something this big as being done by some little guy trying to do, what? With software written expressly for this purpose? What was the software written for, if not for this? And how would they use it if not by having cars drive by neighborhoods where the information is? And if they were going to do that, what excuse could they have for cars with antenna's on top slowly cruising through all those neighborhoods? Streetview would be the perfect excuse. That doesn't mean that they didn't get a real world use out of it. But it's not a big one. I think I've used it all of three times, and that was just to show how it looks to other people. I don't know anyone who actually uses this.

And, by the way, you can't use the data without the people in charge knowing they have it.
post #175 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Let me be more to the point and call BS. There's no reliable claims whatsoever that Google sells any data, anonymized or otherwise. Arguing about what information might be in a future package that might be available someday to a possible third party if Google changes their policies is moot. It hasn't happened. Claiming it does is FUD. Simple.

No, it's not FUD, simple. Google has been movi g towards this for she time, as we can see from the articles. And when they just claim to not be selli g people's info that can be traced back to them, you SHOULD know that something else is going on. Why would they be so specific as to state that? Why not say that they are not selling any data that comes from their users, and will not do so in the future? That would close down any suspicions. As of now, that's not the case. It does look as thought they are selling data, just not the people's ID's associated with it.

And if you don't want to believe it, good for you!
post #176 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, it's not FUD, simple. Google has been movi g towards this for she time, as we can see from the articles. And when they just claim to not be selli g people's info that can be traced back to them, you SHOULD know that something else is going on. Why would they be so specific as to state that? Why not say that they are not selling any data that comes from their users, and will not do so in the future? That would close down any suspicions. As of now, that's not the case. It does look as thought they are selling data, just not the people's ID's associated with it.

And if you don't want to believe it, good for you!

You said they are selling data, not that they might someday. . . maybe. . . perhaps... if things change.

You obviously have no intention of admitting you might have fibbed just a tad. No biggie as I didn't expect you to. I don't need to continue. My point's been made.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #177 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why? Why do they need access to my UDIDs?

I can think of a number of reasons, all but but a handful them involve tracking the user.

The only non-tracking reason is anti-piracy/anti-cheating on the game center, but that has it's own pitfalls.
post #178 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.


edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.

ArsTechnica is reporting that Apple has a different issue with MAC addresses, router ID's and location. It's also unique to Apple devices. You'll probably find it at least interesting Solip.

"...there's good reason to believe that iPhones and other Apple productsat least when compared to devices running Windows or Androidare unique in leaking MAC addresses that can uniquely identify the locations of networks you've connected to recently. When combined with other data often exposed by virtually all wireless devicesspecifically the names of wireless networks you've connected to in the pastan attacker in close proximity of you can harvest this information and use it in targeted attacks."

"Since Apple engineers are remaining mum, we can only guess why iDevices behave the way they do. What isn't in dispute is that, unlike hundreds of competing devices that Wuergler and Graham have examined, the Apple products leak connection details many users would prefer to keep private."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...phone-leak.ars
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #179 of 179
I liked apps having access to my UDID since I wouldn't need to log in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple reportedly rejecting apps that access UDIDs