Facebook apologizes to users, businesses for Apple’s monstrous efforts to protect its customers' privacy Facebook has apologized to its users and advertisers for being forced to respect people’s privacy in an upcoming update to Apple’s mobile operating system – and promised it will do its best to invade their privacy on other platforms. The antisocial network that makes almost all of its revenue from building a vast, constantly …
This post has been deleted by its author
The more it sounds like music to my ears.
I'm sure Apple's marketing department also doesn't mind Facebook giving iOS 14 better press than anything Tim Cook could possibly say about it at next month's yearly event.
It is like Johnson & Johnson complaining that the newest Nikes cut in half the amount of blisters you get from distance running which will negatively impact their sales of Band Aids.
The day other revenue streams dry up probably will happen. We've already seen the Microsoft U-turn on the matter under Nadella. Especially if Epic wins and the store revenue are at risk, or if sales go down because of the situation, users data could become suddenly a good revenue source... of course advertisers will have to buy from Apple, not Facebook anyway. Even if Cook may not want it truly, Cook is not the owner of Apple.
I sincerely hope the Epic case goes nowhere. Apple’s current model incentivises them to maintain software support for older devices, one of the reasons I choose them. That also benefits the likes of Epic, as more users have supported devices able to run their games.
The alternatives don’t bear thinking about for those of us who’ve experienced them in the past.
I know right... I kinda loathe the apple mentality and the fanboi sheeple that follow them blindly... But this really, really makes me take notice.
Not that I actually use faecesbook anyway... deleted my account about 8-9yrs ago... and I use various plugins with firefox to block any tracking/cookies/ads and so forth as well as sandboxing anything from google, amazon, imgur/reddit in their own containers.
But still... apple doing something that benefits the user and blocks them from outside data harvesting... of course this just means that apple get all of that lovely data instead to sell to advertisers.
So no... it's just apple being apple... just another greedy, selfish, money grubbing POS megacorp.
Apple isn't selling the data to advertisers. The only advertising they even do is in the App Store and their News app. That's about 0.01% of the amount of advertising Facebook and Google do.
Apple has made a decision that they are going to market on privacy to help justify the higher prices their charge for their products. So they will keep tightening the screws on the ability to extract personal information in both iOS and Safari.
"But surely nobody serious about privacy is using Chrome...
Firefox + DoH + NoScript + HTTPS Everywhere + Privacy Badger + uBlock Origin + DuckDuckGo = a start."
On top of those, I throw in ghostery and disconnect too... and I hope you're also making good use of containers... I sandbox all google sites in one, amazon in another, ebay in another and ingur/reddit in another too.
From a previous ElReg article that I hope I have summarized correctly: If you have an android phone from your telco with the Facebook app preinstalled: your phone is transmitting data to Facebook whether you have an account or not.
And remember: Facebook purchases additional information on you from third parties, so they know more about you than you might think.
That could include your political affiliation, your legal records, loans, etc.
no one forces you to buy an Apple device. You can always go Android and have Google ignore your privacy selection and screen scrape your phone.
Personally, I'll pay the extra, not to have apps talking to each other in the background feeding facebook info about where I've been and what I'm doing. Which is why I Don't have the app on the phone.
Even on the iphone, running Disconnectme, I'm blocking about a Gb of google cookies a month! its a joke.
"no one forces you to buy an Apple device"
Why do people say such non-sensical things? Do you actually think there exists on this planet a single individual that isn't aware of the fact they're permitted to buy a device other than an Apple device?
Thanks for the heads-up though.
Why do people say such non-sensical things?
Because other people say Apple are the same as Facebook, who work very, very hard to ensure that yes, you do have to give them your data.
(Note, nothing in this comment says that I think Apple are somehow good: it just says that they are not comparable to Facebook.)
If I want a TV, I research TVs, search for a good price and then buy a TV. Then I see lots of advertisements on websites for TVs - advertisements that are wasted inner because I already have a TV.
It would seem that personalised advertising would work better if it only shows me ads for things I have never searched for. "Ohh, an ad for a steel mcguffin, I had no idea they made those... it looks kind of neat, I might buy one!"
And that kind of proves a slightly tangential point. You're here, posting comments on an El Reg article - you're already likely to be part of a demographic that's responsive to things that are geeky and interesting.
There's no need for someone who wants to advertise things to you to have to engage with a company that whores so much user data, the answer was already obvious. Companies that want to buy advertising are drinking the cool-aid, and missing the point that targeting was already quite achievable.
Meanwhile Facebook are happy to sell false promises to advertisers and then double down on bulk selling user data; data which is unfortunately being used to actively corrupt democracy and advance neo-liberal agendas. Ironic really, given how social networks are generally supposed to empower individuals.
social networks are generally supposed to empower individuals.
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Social networks (the online kind) are generally supposed to make money for the people who own them, like any other for-profit business. Any benefit to the data-providers isn't quite incidental, but is purely to support the primary goal.
1. I did intend to mean social networks in a broader sense.
2. Neo-liberalism; 7 minutes of Noam Chomsky can explain it better, but to quote "undermining mechanisms of social solidarity, mutual support, and popular engagement."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBzSLu3MZ6I
'Social solidarity' where? 'mutual support' - give me where this is happening outside of the usual groups: liberal supporting liberals, the right supporting the right; 'popular engagement' - how is Facebook serving up right-wing ads to conservatives and people it think are persuadable, and also left-wing ads to liberals, and also people it thinks might be persuadable, promote a neo-liberal agenda? Does all this even undermine democracy? The USA has always had two camps, and newspapers, radios, and (before broadcast media), speakers on tour, have always banged on about their own virtues and the other side's evil. One could argue, just as easily, that neo-conservative or alt-right is doing the undermining and the corruption of democracy. Facebook is beyond both camps: it is solely about money, and clearly has and will do anything to keep that coming, whether it means donning hippie beads or saluting a dictator.
Shhhhh. Don't say that otherwise the Ad slingers will get smart and ... well do just what you say.
I hate ALL adverts and advertisers. That is because I once had the misfortune to spend a while working for an Ad company.
Anything that is advertised to me more than once or twice, gets put on my "Do Not Buy" list.
Not really. There are two different advertising networks. Google is 'intent' orientated, Facebook is demographic orientated. Because intent is more valuable a Google click costs 10x a Facebook click. So the cost to the advertiser per sale is the same but I need 10x more ads. Facebook is used by mom and pop businesses like mine because we are niche. If you cater for gay vegan weddings in London (I don't but others do) Facebook will find you that audience. This move will make Google richer and small businesses poorer.
Nope, these data mongers create a profile for you and their AI makes assumptions and predictions, no of which is ever checked, about things like your health (they may wrongly assume you have a heart condition, when in actuality you have high blood pressure and recommend things that make high blood pressure worse.) They may sell that data to insurers who will refuse you health coverage or want to charge more for it all based on an AI error.
I have to admit that the anger in this article toward Facebook tracking would be much more convincing if I wasn't seeing a button in Firefox, while reading the article, with the text bubble:
"Facebook container has disabled this button and blocked Facebook from tracking your visit to this page."
To expand my point, it's akin to the recent change in UK law that makes organ donation Opt Out, so that the default is that your organs can be used to help save someone else unless you explicitly opt out. The aim is provide more organs for donation. This, along with many other real world examples, strongly suggest that changing the default option can be more powerful than merely presenting a choice. There's even a UK Government department nicknamed the Nudge Department based on this sort of thinking.
@Dave 126
There *was* a government agency for nudge. It was privatised at a cheap rate with the dept. bosses transferring with a nice block of shares... (allegedly, can’t be arsed to check back Private Eye for details) Still making most of their money from government contracts of course.
Thank you: this nudged me to register to opt out.
Even if I believed transplantation good; their change to have the state own one's organs spurred me to do the opposite.
.
.
https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/register-your-decision/refuse-to-donate/refuse-donation-form/
... well, animosity mostly. So it's nice to see Apple upsetting them, even though I'm sure it's only a temporary situation - just until Facebook roll over and give Apple a cut of the revenue.
That was a nicely sarcastic article, but this bit in particular pleased me:
The antisocial network that makes almost all of its revenue from building a vast, constantly updated database of netizens that it then sells access to..
I think that's the first time I've seen someone state clearly that Facebook money comes not from selling adverts aimed at its users, but from selling its users (and anyone else, actually) to advertisers.
Indeed. In fact if you think about it, this change is actually good for advertisers. First, they're paying for 50% less impressions so that's 50% less spend. Second, the people that are seeing their ads are the ones that don't have any major issue with internet advertising, meaning the click-rate should - in theory - go up.
The only people that stand to lose from this are Facebook. I can not imagine a violin small enough to play the appropriately sad music for this.
> I think that's the first time I've seen someone state clearly that Facebook money comes not from selling adverts aimed at its users, but from selling its users (and anyone else, actually) to advertisers.
It's inaccurate, that's why it's the first time you've seen someone state it. Facebook (and Google) sell ads, advertisers don't get the user's data from Facebook or Google.
It's users data.
They sell it, keep all the money and b**ch that some of their users don't want to play that game.
This might come as a bit of a shock but Bill Gates predicted this decades ago.
He thought people would give up some privacy for some cash, because that's capitalism. You sell something for something in return.
He didn't foresee the system where the company just takes it anyway.
I guess in the early days you could perhaps argue that you did get something in return i.e. access to a load of banter and updates from people you know or knew. These days it's just a toxic and manipulated stream of adverts, desperate MLM spam, and biopics of narcissistic personal breakdowns. I do everything I reasonably can to avoid having anything to do with it, including feeding it any data.
> He didn't foresee the system where the company just takes it anyway.
What about that episode of the Simpsons when Bill Gates tells his henchmen to 'Buy Out' Homer's internet company? They then proceed to trash Homer's office, as Bill Gates tells a stunned Homer that he didn't get rich by writing cheques.
Actually, of all people who made predictions about the internet in the nineties, it's David Bowie's prediction that is closest to our current reality. He's telling a sceptical Paxman that the internet will change many things wildly in ways we can't predict, and there will be a lot of bad stuff as well as good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-35286749
I still view anything that comes from the U$A as ''not wanted'', as I follow the developments as closely as I can.
Thusly I come across those hopeful bits that give me pause to condemn $$$ to #3!!
I loved this piece of writing. Perhaps also the contents. I'll have to see.
If you have an iOS device, also grab Lockdown. It's in the App Store and it acts as a local VPN to block domains from all apps, not just in your browser. It does all this for free, without inserting any adverts of its own.
So not a single application on my iPhone can access facebook.com, try as they might.
+1 for Lockdown. It revealed to me several apps that still ping Facebook and/or Google on launch and periodically thereafter -- even though I've bought the ad-free "premium" versions. (This activity is not related to "sign in with Googface" integration, as none of the apps in question require an account of any kind.)
Even when you pay for apps, you're still the @#$% product.
Android has a number of similar 'firewalls'. They act like a VPN, so don't need root access.
Unfortunately the one I use (the snappily titled 'no root firewall') doesn't come with a list, so you spend a lot of time training it for ad blocking because of the many variations used by ad-slingers
Only bad if FB aren't the ones moving fast and breaking things...
Zuck probably thinks 1984 & Animal Farm are morality tales - but gets the wrong lessons...
Personally, I predict that the 2nd or 3rd posty-iOS 14 update to the app will have hidden code that'll bypass the restrictions and we'll be treated to a replay of the Epic Vs Apple kerfuffle.
Might set a reminder to send an anoni-mouse email to the App Review Teams in a few weeks...
This is at least the second time that I've had cause to post on The Register to compliment Mr. McCarthy on his skill at writing articles which are simultaneously informative and wonderfully snark-filled. Honestly, he may be, at the moment, the premier writer on the site at combining both of El Reg's defining characteristics into one immensely satisfying article.
Well done, Sir! Well. Done. Indeed.
(And no; I'm not getting paid by Mr. McCarthy for writing such fulsome praise.)
(Although... I'm not actually AVERSE to the idea, mind you, if Mr. McCarthy is interested in a partnership!)
I'm not really a fan of Facebook or Apple. Facebook is clearly destructive to societies, while Apple may only be using monopolistic vertical integration to siphon money out of everyone's pockets. However, the author clearly doesn't understand the subject he's covering.
"Facebook actually gave some of the money it made from running those ads through its system to the business that paid for those ads. Which doesn’t make any sense but shut up"
Facebook has tons of data on its users. It doesn't need IDFA to track you while you're on its platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.). Outside of its platforms, a site/app may display ads from any number of ad networks, including Facebook. Let's take the iOS app and Facebook ad network example:
An app sends its user's IDFA to Facebook when requesting ads to display, which allows Facebook to tie the advertising target to a virtual user profile that may incorporate their Facebook user data. Each ad gives Facebook more data points about which apps the target is using and when (really, they get this data and more when apps include the Facebook SDK for "sign on with Facebook" and other non-ad features too). This bolsters Facebook's understanding of its own users and allows it to build profiles of targets that aren't Facebook users. They can correlate the behaviors non-Facebook users with Facebook users and their extensive personal data to make strong predictions about non-Facebook users. These virtual user profiles allow advertisers to more narrowly specify which users they want to target which increases the value of each ad. The wider the net that advertisers are forced to cast, the less money they're willing to pay for each impression and the less money Facebook and site/apps that display ads will receive. These are the ones who receive billions of dollars from Facebook, not the advertisers.
Hey thanks for offering, on behalf of Facebook, an explanation for its spin. Its blog post literally stated:
"We work with more than 19,000 developers and publishers from around the globe and in 2019 we paid out billions of dollars."
That's it. That's all it said on the matter, which is what Kieren was poking fun of. The lack of detail. We've slightly tweaked that part to reflect this. Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot anything else you think is wrong.
C.
must obviously not care about all the hate he gets as he's still there. If I had all that money, I've have retired from it long ago. But then I guess that's why I've never made money like that. I see these top execs and always wonder "Fuck the strees. Just retired and enjoy the money". I thought may its my laziness (it most likely is) but then read about Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell. Created software together, created WinInternals together later changing to Sysinternals. Then got offered the big deal with Microsoft to be bought out but they had to go and work with them, I think, for 5 years then they could fully cash out and do what they wanted. Never realised if you get bought out you don't always get the cash straight away and your contract states you have to work with the company for a period of years before you can grab the cash.
Anyway. It was a very nice deal. Both made a lot of money from it (Mark's old water front house that was recently up for sales was very nice) Mark Russinovich stayed and is now CTO of Azure and Bryce, just liked I'd do, decided he'd had enough of it all and it was time to retire and enjoy the money and freedom.
To be fair, choice is always better, and some people do prefer targeted advertising at the cost of their privacy.
I really don't understant why Facebook isn't awaiting the result: 5 % of people opting in is better than 0 %.
Unless it is sure Apple rigged the question so that nobody would continue to accept use of an IDFA.
The illusion of data privacy is like believing in Santa or the Tooth fairy. Your information has already been collected, even if you've never been online. Governments, Businesses, Banks, DMV, Drivers License, phones, buying habits, debit/credit cards, atm machines, television....etc our whole economy, our whole lives are interconnected. Any data you share voluntary or not is shared or sold to others as it is all interconnected through data collecting and brokers whom you've never heard of. Doesn't even figure in all the data breaches known and unknown.
Stop trying to close the barn door, the horses are long gone.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
