Damn right it is, and more importantly, it should be.
Let’s put it more to the point:
What should be criminal violations of privacy and data theft is under assault by Apple, which unlike the rest of the market, makes an honest living selling more or less great products, rather than using more or less shabby products sold at dumping prices to bug and spy on their users.
What amazing chutzpah and what sense of entitlement!
Just because the internet was originally designed in a non-commercial, academic, trusted environment where privacy wasn’t a concern, and companies like FB had a golden Moment where they could rape users’ privacy by exploiting technical shortcomings of the internet, doesn’t give them a right to these shortcomings.
This is reminiscent of lazy law enforcement: before the days of the phone, there was no wiretapping, and investigators had to burn shoe leather to get results. Then there was an era of flawed technology, where it was trivial to tap wires or intercept radio. Now that these flaws are eliminated, they also think they are permanently entitled to the fruits of the flaws of analog telecommunications.
Nope, nobody is entitled to the fruits of temporary technological flaws. You’re just going to have to work as hard as in the days before social media or analog telecommunications.
Privacy and cryptography are defenses against tyranny, be it if the corporate or the governmental sort.
As my personal privacy has been under assault from your ad/spy campaigns, I for one am glad there is someone with gravity that is an advocate for giving my privacy back.
The spy companies will have to get real jobs now. Or at least start advertising honestly.
Media companies and publishers are "bracing" for the IDFA change, and in September, a group representing the ad industry urged a "dialogue" about the proposed feature.
Remember when media companies and publishers had a “dialogue” with us before they started all the tracking and snooping?
Thank you, Apple. Can't wait when this feature goes live. Please make it soon.
The Googles and Facebooks try to spin it in a way that it hurts developers in general: lives will be ruined and humanity destroyed. And they are the heroes serving the poor while Apple only caters to the wealthy. The hidden agenda is: we want advertising access to these wealthy people with iPhones so we can make us some money. And guess what: these people don't want you sneaking around and peddling your ad crap.
All who wish to participate/use personalised Ads can opt-in.
The mere suggestion that this shouldnt be an option is both a sign of times, and of this company - so much that in every post here this isnt a surprise to anyone.
Funny enough, on that Netflix documentary - Social Dilemma -, we learn that most (if not all) senior execs in these companies that depend on digital surveillance, do not allow their kids to use their own platforms.
TV ad is never personalize. I don’t see the advertiser stop using TV ad. In fact it is the most expensive ad form.
FB’s argument is just invalid.
And I personally much prefer the personalized ads served on the web (and the few "social" apps I use) than the pointless car, clothes and washing powder commercials I get on TV.
Not sure I'd like to have the mess of the 90s web back - tracking preferences definitely is both good and bad.
All who wish to participate/use personalised Ads can opt-in.
The mere suggestion that this shouldnt be an option is both a sign of times, and of this company - so much that in every post here this isnt a surprise to anyone.
Funny enough, on that Netflix documentary - Social Dilemma -, we learn that most (if not all) senior execs in these companies that depend on digital surveillance, do not allow their kids to use their own platforms.
Steve Job didn't allow his own children to use iPads and other Apple products. Bill Gates generally agreed with him even tho they both encouraged the rest of us to embrace and rely on them. Do you think that odd?
Well It had less to do with digital surveillance than what both recognized as an unhealthy dependence on the digital devices he helped create. I doubt you follow Mr. Jobs lead even tho he and Gates were far more aware of the harm it can cause and IMHO you'd be wiser to understand why. It's not the ads. https://www.popsci.com/industry-insiders-dont-use-their-products-like-we-do/
It's like tobacco company owners telling their own families it's not safe to smoke while pushing the products to YOUR kids with a smile on their face. It's all about profit and creating an artificial environment that promotes it. Dr. Jenny Radesky, an expert in children and the effects of technology, nails it:
"(She) compared technology to “an environment,” as the place where all kinds of activities take place, from work to entertainment to social life. But it is a deliberately designed and engineered environment, she said, and designed with a goal of making money.
Dr. Radesky said that she prefers not to use the term “addiction” in her research or clinical work, which is mainly with younger children, but that she understands why the word is invoked. Thinking in terms of addiction helps people understand “the design of modern technologies is purposefully habit-forming and programmed with the sort of variable rewards that keep humans engaged.”
I’m glad. Facebook can find a new business model, because theirs is antisocial (as in: it’s destructive to society). Or they can just go out of business entirely; it would probably be for the betterment of humanity.
Comments
Let’s put it more to the point:
What should be criminal violations of privacy and data theft is under assault by Apple, which unlike the rest of the market, makes an honest living selling more or less great products, rather than using more or less shabby products sold at dumping prices to bug and spy on their users.
Just because the internet was originally designed in a non-commercial, academic, trusted environment where privacy wasn’t a concern, and companies like FB had a golden Moment where they could rape users’ privacy by exploiting technical shortcomings of the internet, doesn’t give them a right to these shortcomings.
This is reminiscent of lazy law enforcement: before the days of the phone, there was no wiretapping, and investigators had to burn shoe leather to get results. Then there was an era of flawed technology, where it was trivial to tap wires or intercept radio. Now that these flaws are eliminated, they also think they are permanently entitled to the fruits of the flaws of analog telecommunications.
Privacy and cryptography are defenses against tyranny, be it if the corporate or the governmental sort.
I support Apple’s moves to educate users and force these companies to be transparent. Sadly, it’s the lawmakers who most need to be educated.
Me either. (Insert middle finger emoji here)
The mere suggestion that this shouldnt be an option is both a sign of times, and of this company - so much that in every post here this isnt a surprise to anyone.
Funny enough, on that Netflix documentary - Social Dilemma -, we learn that most (if not all) senior execs in these companies that depend on digital surveillance, do not allow their kids to use their own platforms.
Not sure I'd like to have the mess of the 90s web back - tracking preferences definitely is both good and bad.
Well It had less to do with digital surveillance than what both recognized as an unhealthy dependence on the digital devices he helped create. I doubt you follow Mr. Jobs lead even tho he and Gates were far more aware of the harm it can cause and IMHO you'd be wiser to understand why. It's not the ads.
https://www.popsci.com/industry-insiders-dont-use-their-products-like-we-do/
It's like tobacco company owners telling their own families it's not safe to smoke while pushing the products to YOUR kids with a smile on their face. It's all about profit and creating an artificial environment that promotes it. Dr. Jenny Radesky, an expert in children and the effects of technology, nails it:
"(She) compared technology to “an environment,” as the place where all kinds of activities take place, from work to entertainment to social life. But it is a deliberately designed and engineered environment, she said, and designed with a goal of making money.
Dr. Radesky said that she prefers not to use the term “addiction” in her research or clinical work, which is mainly with younger children, but that she understands why the word is invoked. Thinking in terms of addiction helps people understand “the design of modern technologies is purposefully habit-forming and programmed with the sort of variable rewards that keep humans engaged.”
personalized advertising 'under assault' by Apple privacy changes
Good.