You don't have and never had the right to track us like you do. There's nothing special about being on the web that ever gave your the right to stalk us and/or sell our information to others. Somehow TV, radio and print advertising has managed to survive all these years without being able to snoop on everything we do. You will live without this information also.
Get over it.
Signed, Everyone
Here's the thing…
When I went to the website of [this local brand] and searched for all black sneakers, then that resulted in me all over the web getting ads for all black sneakers from that web shop.
Who's to blame for that?! The evil tracking advertising company, or the web shop that intentionally set that up?!
That's a fairly simple question to answer. We get the feeling that that web shop, one way or another, decided that they wanted to really really really remind me about what I earlier showed an interest in. So, we feel that the web shop is to blame for wanting this.
I actually completely stopped buying products from them because it was impossible to browse products in their web shop without getting all these targeted ads. It creeped me out being reminded about all the tracking going on.
But… what about the less obvious occurrences?
My local newspaper has ads on their website, and they do just as much tracking as that web shop. Who's to blame there?
It felt obvious to blame the "greedy" web shop; but isn't the newspaper just as much to blame?
Why even blame the ad company at all, when it's all these places adding the ads that make the choice that their customers should be tracked to increase profit?!
Sure, the ad companies are *ssh*les, no doubt about it; but shouldn't it be the companies that chose to give them the space needed to do their shady business that get our anger? The web shops and newspapers and so on?
No dialogue. Dialogue is code for give us time to figure out a way to evade a opt in requirement. They built business model on the premise of unauthorized surveillance. Apple stands up to the thieves and they start crying. How long until some Senators take the money and try to pass a law to screw us out of our privacy?
AppleInsider said: As far as the dialogue, the partnership hopes to ask Apple several questions, including: 1. How advertisers could cap ad frequency on Apple devices. 2. Whether apps will be allowed to require IDFA activation. 3. What changes Apple "might consider" to the new IDFA policy. 4. Whether Apple will allow the use of IDFA for non-targeting purposes. 5. Future privacy systems advertisers could use to "reach groups of users with common interests." 6. Whether Apple will apply the same IDFA policy to its own apps and services. Although initially slated for a release with iOS 14, Apple has since pushed rollout of the opt-in mechanism to 2021.
The first question is a legitimate (but insufficient) offer to placate Apple. Although the offer is vague because they aren't offering what the ad cap should be. They probably are thinking along the lines of one ad per three minutes, and they would probably allow Apple to talk them down to ten minute intervals if they could strike a deal. But that's not even in the right ballpark to allow IDFA tracking to continue.
The second question is fascinating. They want to change the warning dialog box into a "you must allow tracking to be able to run this app" requirement. That's a fascinating but scary proposal. I know that most people here would object to the idea that an app could require IDFA tracking before it would run, but I could live with that. I just wouldn't install apps that do that. I can handle a problem like that, if the warning box from Apple was crystal clear, so I would allow Apple to bargain that away if they would otherwise agree to stop IDFA tracking. Eg,
Warning from Apple: this app performs detailed user-tracking that permanently invades your privacy, are you sure you want to install it?
The fifth question suggests an idea. Apple could build iOS with a setting that can be adjusted in the Preferences that would allow the user to tell advertisers what kind of ads they are interested in. Potential categories that users could select from could be: clothes, food, cars, travel, and suchlike. I could live with that amount of information being sent to advertisers. Just a few bits of data to describe my general interests. And I control those bits. I could live with that. If advertisers would agree to give up IDFA tracking I could accept this as a compromise.
Please, Apple, in whatever politically correct terms you deem appropriate, tell them to fuck off.
It’s our data, our lives. Advertisers have no right to that data; if they want, they can negotiate with each person individually what their compensation will be, and then some people might want to allow being stripped naked by them.
But it’s not Apple’s task to do that for them; Apple’s task is to protect its users, ESPECIALLY in a walled garden environment where users can’t install low-level software to protect themselves.
Is there a petition by Apple users to urge Apple to implement the privacy feature?
That would be a good idea, though I don’t think Apple is going to change tack. They often delay sweeping changes like this to give developers more time to implement them.
OTOH, it also gives lawyers more time to draft even more lawsuits to be slung in Apple's direction. Sad fact of life these days. Those that can do. Those that can't become Lawyers and sue Apple.
"In particular, we hope to better understand the specific rationale for such changes, how the changes will be implemented, and what steps might be taken by marketers, publishers, app developers, and other parties to ensure that critical functionality is preserved," the letter reads.
...What a load of BS. First, they know the rationale for opt-in to invasive tracking. Second, the ability to track people is not critical to anyone but trackers. Advertising was a thing for centuries without this functionality.
"In particular, we hope to better understand the specific rationale for such changes, how the changes will be implemented, and what steps might be taken by marketers, publishers, app developers, and other parties to ensure that critical functionality is preserved," the letter reads.
...What a load of BS. First, they know the rationale for opt-in to invasive tracking. Second, the ability to track people is not critical to anyone but trackers. Advertising was a thing for centuries without this functionality.
Agreed - ‘critical functionality’ appears to be their continued ability to spy on users without their knowledge/permission, and they know damned well the ‘rationale for such changes.’
I agree with @Rayz2016 - we need a smaller violin.
How about, "We let you get away with too much for too long and you can't seem to self govern so we will do it for you and provide our users with how their information is used and the ability to opt out."
Is that clear enough?
That’s what I came here to say.
These advertising companies can just go die in a fire. I don’t give a damn about their whiny complaints. Their every injury is self-inflicted.
This is one of those times that I miss the Steve Jobs eloquent bluntness. Can you imagine a “Thoughts on Flash” open letter, but about ad tracking instead?
Comments
When I went to the website of [this local brand] and searched for all black sneakers, then that resulted in me all over the web getting ads for all black sneakers from that web shop.
Who's to blame for that?! The evil tracking advertising company, or the web shop that intentionally set that up?!
That's a fairly simple question to answer. We get the feeling that that web shop, one way or another, decided that they wanted to really really really remind me about what I earlier showed an interest in. So, we feel that the web shop is to blame for wanting this.
I actually completely stopped buying products from them because it was impossible to browse products in their web shop without getting all these targeted ads. It creeped me out being reminded about all the tracking going on.
But… what about the less obvious occurrences?
My local newspaper has ads on their website, and they do just as much tracking as that web shop. Who's to blame there?
It felt obvious to blame the "greedy" web shop; but isn't the newspaper just as much to blame?
Why even blame the ad company at all, when it's all these places adding the ads that make the choice that their customers should be tracked to increase profit?!
Sure, the ad companies are *ssh*les, no doubt about it; but shouldn't it be the companies that chose to give them the space needed to do their shady business that get our anger? The web shops and newspapers and so on?
The first question is a legitimate (but insufficient) offer to placate Apple. Although the offer is vague because they aren't offering what the ad cap should be. They probably are thinking along the lines of one ad per three minutes, and they would probably allow Apple to talk them down to ten minute intervals if they could strike a deal. But that's not even in the right ballpark to allow IDFA tracking to continue.
The second question is fascinating. They want to change the warning dialog box into a "you must allow tracking to be able to run this app" requirement. That's a fascinating but scary proposal. I know that most people here would object to the idea that an app could require IDFA tracking before it would run, but I could live with that. I just wouldn't install apps that do that. I can handle a problem like that, if the warning box from Apple was crystal clear, so I would allow Apple to bargain that away if they would otherwise agree to stop IDFA tracking. Eg,
The fifth question suggests an idea. Apple could build iOS with a setting that can be adjusted in the Preferences that would allow the user to tell advertisers what kind of ads they are interested in. Potential categories that users could select from could be: clothes, food, cars, travel, and suchlike. I could live with that amount of information being sent to advertisers. Just a few bits of data to describe my general interests. And I control those bits. I could live with that. If advertisers would agree to give up IDFA tracking I could accept this as a compromise.
It’s our data, our lives. Advertisers have no right to that data; if they want, they can negotiate with each person individually what their compensation will be, and then some people might want to allow being stripped naked by them.
But it’s not Apple’s task to do that for them; Apple’s task is to protect its users, ESPECIALLY in a walled garden environment where users can’t install low-level software to protect themselves.
Shut up and change your business model from lying and stealth to openness and candor.
Device owner.
So no, the discussion didn’t start yesterday.
in your invasive data set that informs you that I’m no longer interested?
...What a load of BS. First, they know the rationale for opt-in to invasive tracking. Second, the ability to track people is not critical to anyone but trackers. Advertising was a thing for centuries without this functionality.
I agree with @Rayz2016 - we need a smaller violin.
These advertising companies can just go die in a fire. I don’t give a damn about their whiny complaints. Their every injury is self-inflicted.