Lawmakers target iOS location privacy features in ongoing antitrust probe

AppleInsider

U.S. lawmakers in charge of a sprawling antitrust probe into "Big Tech" are scrutinizing a number of privacy-minded improvements Apple rolled out as part of iOS 13, including restrictions pertaining to location data, noting the new limitations are not applied to first-party apps and services.

iOS 13

As detailed by The Washington Post on Tuesday, members of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee reviewing new privacy practices introduced with iOS 13 have turned their attention to location tracking features. More specifically, lawmakers are concerned that Apple's new technology, which restricts third-party access to device tracking assets, amounts to anti-competitive behavior.

"I'm increasingly concerned about the use of privacy as a shield for anti-competitive conduct," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I), chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. "There is a growing risk that without a strong privacy law in the United States, platforms will exploit their role as de facto private regulators by placing a thumb on the scale in their own favor."

With the latest iOS, Apple has greatly reduced the ability for users to inadvertently enable location tracking features while at the same time enhancing user control over data sharing. Previously, third-party apps could request persistent device location data upon initial setup, but iOS 13 removes that ability. Further, when always-on tracking is manually enabled in the Settings menu, a pop-up window periodically appears to remind users of the configuration and provides an option to turn it off.

Apple does not apply those same safeguards to its own properties like Maps or the newly redesigned Find My app. Additionally, the company does not inform device owners that their hardware will be used for a new crowdsourced "offline finding" feature capable of tracking iPhone, iPad and Mac even when those devices are not attached to a network. Instead of notifying customers of the feature in a pop-up window, as is required for third-party developers, the offline finding feature is buried in the Find My app's terms of use.

Critics of Apple's new policies cry foul and say the limitations are tantamount to anti-competitive behavior.

In August, a group of developers sent a joint letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook to voice criticism of the tech giant's regulations, saying they amount to a dangerous "double standard" that negatively impacts their collective businesses. Life360 CEO Chris Hulls and Tile CEO CJ Prober were among the signatories, both of which market products and services that are heavily reliant on always-on location tracking. Arity president Gary Hallgren, Happn CEO Didier Rappaport, Twenty chief strategy officer Jared Allgood, Zendrive CEO Jonathan Matus and Zenly CEO Antoine Martin also signed the letter.

Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller told The Post the company is working with developers who are concerned about the new location-tracking features.

"We created the App Store with two goals in mind: that it be a safe and trusted place for customers to discover and download apps, and a great business opportunity for all developers," Muller said. "We continually work with developers and take their feedback on how to help protect user privacy while also providing the tools developers need to make the best app experiences."

Citing sources, the report notes legislators are meeting with Apple partners to hear their concerns, including recent privacy-related changes to App Store guidelines.

Along with location tracking, the House is examining App Store commissions, so-called "Sherlocking" of third-party apps and features, and stringent regulations applied to parental control apps.

rob53

"I'm increasingly concerned about the use of privacy as a shield for anti-competitive conduct," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I), chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. "There is a growing risk that without a strong privacy law in the United States, platforms will exploit their role as de facto private regulators by placing a thumb on the scale in their own favor."

Which is it? Apple prides itself with being secure, contrary to every other operating system and social media company yet Congress complains because they see it as anticompetitive. Congress will never pass a privacy law that benefits the consumer, it will only pass laws that benefit the company buying them off with the most amount of money. Apple is doing Congress' job by building in security and I wish these people in DC had half a brain so they wouldn't make so many stupid comments. Of course there are those who think Apple should open everything up so every developer can put whatever crap they want on an iPhone. Sorry, but iPhone users want a secure system and are tired of all the garbage we already have to put up with arriving by email and through phone calls. What doesn't Congress enforce and upgrade laws against SPAM email and calls. That would benefit consumers a whole lot more than worrying about a few companies who want to know where you are every second of the day and more than likely will end up selling this information to jerks like Facebook and Google for targeted ads.

steven n.

“Big Tech” has become the new universal scapegoat campaign stump speech. Instead of doing anything meaningful, Congress is trying to distract people by pointing at “Big Tech” as the source of all your issues. From high cost of living, homelessness, censorship, privacy, tax avoidance....  if we simply destroy “Big Tech” your life will be better. 

wonkothesane

Life seems so much easier when you’re small, and you can run your business the way you created it without all those armchair CEOs and “but what about the children” pseudo-benefactors. 

jungmark

Don’t like it? Develop for Android. I’ve been reminded they’re “winning.” 

MplsP

The location sharing data is clearly disclosed when you set up your phone and you have the option for turning it off as well - I guess I don't see what the issue is

seanismorris

MplsP said:

The location sharing data is clearly disclosed when you set up your phone and you have the option for turning it off as well - I guess I don't see what the issue is

The politicians are upset Apple doesn’t sell the location to everyone and their brother...or Big Brother.

rotateleftbyte

The fewer people who not only know where I am and who can track me the better.

To me, that's what it comes down to.

Being a Grumpy Old Man, I hate all advertising. I also like to do my own thing (nothing remotely illegal) without other people being able to track my every step. Just because I went to XXXXX because I was passing I really don't want suggestions about visiting similar places and also going to XXXXX for the next five years. Nor do I want suggestions to buy something that I already have, that does not wear out in a hundred years and therefore you only ever need one every few generations. (eg an Anvil)

I want to control who knows where I am and what I might possibly like to buy at some point in the distant future and what sites I've visited on the Internet. That is no ones business but mine unless I cross the line into illegal activities.

Politicians always have to think where their next mealticket is coming from. Perhaps they should keep their mouths shut about things that they really don't fully understand and leave the hard stuff to people who do?

EsquireCats

That's some heavy handed spin that totally ignores the consent both implicit and directly granted when purchasing a product from *any* manufacturer.

While Apple provides privacy controls and asks consent for their owns apps, there is a basic expectation that when I purchase an Apple device, I am in some form going to be transactionally involved with Apple. While not mandatory, this can be enhanced with iCloud and other Apple provided services. This forms part of the purchase decision as no one is forced to buy an iPhone/iPad/Mac.

What I don't expect is a number of unrelated 3rd parties being provided data, without my consent and often sneakily obtained, just by using the device normally. That it an interference to my privacy, as I never, knowingly consented or invited in these 3rd parties in. Blocking such activities is not anti-competitive, suggesting such is a slippery slope argument that will only trample privacy protections.

It's not a question about anti-competitive behaviour, it's about privacy and consent.

urahara

"I'm increasingly concerned about the use of privacy as a shield for anti-competitive conduct," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I), chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. "There is a growing risk that without a strong privacy law in the United States, platforms will exploit their role as de facto private regulators by placing a thumb on the scale in their own favor."

So you fu^&ing failed to create a strong privacy law in the US. So do it. Look at the GDPR in EU. They did something good (not optimal) for the consumer.

Why do sepermaktes are allowed to place their own brands in a better positions than a competition? This is so anti-competitive /s

Those politicians are just using Apple to get into the news and create a pseudo-activity from their part. Useless. 

wizard69

I just hope all you guys responding to this stupidity vote!   Because if people like Elizabeth Warren and this ring bat gain any more power we will have a real tragedy on our hands.  Apple will be destroyed to the point that it can never recover.  

Frankly I’m with most of you that have a hard time understanding why our elected officials are so easily manipulated and frankly devoid of common sense.  By the way this isn’t a left or right thing it is rather all about basic human needs.   

YvLy

I am increasingly concerned about the use of me fucking up as an incentive for others doing better...

fotoaddict

I'm all for Apple having it's store locked down as is, with one change: Apple's apps, with very few exceptions, should be forced to use the public api and have the same user notifications as other apps have.. Those exceptions should be publicly noted and are probably tied to core functionality (address book, calendar, find lost phones, time, system settings). If Apple were forced to elevate all of it's internal API functionality to the public level, and ACL it as necessary, the app world would be more fair.

zimmermann

fotoaddict said:

I'm all for Apple having it's store locked down as is, with one change: Apple's apps, with very few exceptions, should be forced to use the public api and have the same user notifications as other apps have.. Those exceptions should be publicly noted and are probably tied to core functionality (address book, calendar, find lost phones, time, system settings). If Apple were forced to elevate all of it's internal API functionality to the public level, and ACL it as necessary, the app world would be more fair.

Isn’t this the most important part of the article? That apps of Apple itself do not warn that they use location services? 

jd_in_sb

Lawmakers ruled Apple guilty and are now fishing for information to justify their verdict. 

dewme

Apple’s decisions regarding who gets access to the secure parts of their architecture are based on Trust, Honesty, Privacy, and Integrity. The notions and practices associated with trust, privacy, integrity, truthfulness, respect for human dignity, and lack of malice towards fellow human beings are now foreign to the upper echelon of the US government and those who enable their vileness. So of course they’re going to push back and try to exert their domination and control over anyone or anything that demonstrates the qualities that they abhor. 

larryjw

zimmermann said:

fotoaddict said:

I'm all for Apple having it's store locked down as is, with one change: Apple's apps, with very few exceptions, should be forced to use the public api and have the same user notifications as other apps have.. Those exceptions should be publicly noted and are probably tied to core functionality (address book, calendar, find lost phones, time, system settings). If Apple were forced to elevate all of it's internal API functionality to the public level, and ACL it as necessary, the app world would be more fair.

Isn’t this the most important part of the article? That apps of Apple itself do not warn that they use location services? 

These apps do warn users of that they use location services, but they do so at the time of iOS installation and they give the user options to configure their use. 

Yes, I suppose Apple could periodically inform users of Find My and Maps use of location services, but it hardly seems like it rises to any level requiring government involvement. 

mjtomlin

fotoaddict said:

I'm all for Apple having it's store locked down as is, with one change: Apple's apps, with very few exceptions, should be forced to use the public api and have the same user notifications as other apps have.. Those exceptions should be publicly noted and are probably tied to core functionality (address book, calendar, find lost phones, time, system settings). If Apple were forced to elevate all of it's internal API functionality to the public level, and ACL it as necessary, the app world would be more fair.

"more fair"

It's a closed platform. "Fair" stops when the developer agrees to the terms outlined in the Developer Agreement where Apple outlines what is and is not permitted. All application platforms have non-public API's that are for internal use only. Mainly stuff for making the operating system function properly and for direct hardware access. Making everything "publicly noted" would not only not satisfy any need, but it would turn up the volume on developers demanding that they be allowed to use them.

 pple makes its money from selling the hardware. They have to offer certain features built-in to make that hardware competitive with other platforms on the market. The user also expects the device to work in certain ways, and they indirectly agree to allow that device to function those ways when they decide to purchase it.

AppleZulu

Your local grocery store sells all kinds of products, made by other companies and carrying those companies’ brand names. Many grocery stores also carry ‘house brands,’ which are usually cheaper that the brand name items. This is not anti-competitive. Some have an in-store Starbucks. Many also have an in-store house-operated deli and lunch counter. This is not anti-competitive. 

Heck, Trader Joe’s and Aldi predominately carry house brands. You can get TJ’s Joe-Joe cookies, but there are no Oreo cookies anywhere in the store. This is not anti-competitive. You can go elsewhere to get Oreos if you want them. 

Unless and until Apple and iOS capture a super majority of the market, they can’t be called a monopoly for simply operating their platform on their devices. Since Apple doesn’t pursue market share dominate, this won’t be a problem any time soon. 

anonymouse

Unfortunately, big tech companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon, through their anti-privacy behavior, have created an environment where "Big Tech" companies are no longer trusted. This opens the door to entirely disingenuous arguments like this, especially for politicians who are either, or both, clueless about tech and unable to distinguish one company's practices from another (I think Elizabeth Warren falls into this category), or are, wittingly or not, coopted into doing the bidding of companies who want to do exactly the sort of thing that has recently given "Big Tech" a bad name.

The phenomenon is similar to the coopting of "fake news" by the very people who seek to spread fake news and create distrust of real news.

Realistically, the only thing Apple can do to combat this sort of ignorance and misinformation is to continue to make its case directly to the public.

StrangeDays

fotoaddict said:

I'm all for Apple having it's store locked down as is, with one change: Apple's apps, with very few exceptions, should be forced to use the public api and have the same user notifications as other apps have.. Those exceptions should be publicly noted and are probably tied to core functionality (address book, calendar, find lost phones, time, system settings). If Apple were forced to elevate all of it's internal API functionality to the public level, and ACL it as necessary, the app world would be more fair.

Do users not already have the ability to disable location services for Apple apps? I see them in my settings: