[HN Gopher] Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tra...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access
content
Author : Nextgrid
Score : 242 points
Date : 2020-09-11 18:38 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (developer.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (developer.apple.com)
| _Microft wrote:
| Anything else wouldn't be GDPR compliant anyways, would it?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| In Europe it indeed wouldn't, however GDPR enforcement has been
| severely lacking despite the potential for significant fines,
| so Apple taking matters into its own hands (and using its
| influence and power over the App Store) is very good news.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Full text of the clause:
|
| > 3.2.2 Unacceptable
|
| > (vi) Apps should allow a user to get what they've paid for
| without performing additional tasks, such as posting on social
| media, uploading contacts, checking in to the app a certain
| number of times, etc. Apps should not require users to rate the
| app, review the app, watch videos, download other apps, tap on
| advertisements, enable tracking, or take other similar actions in
| order to access functionality, content, use the app, or receive
| monetary or other compensation, including but not limited to gift
| cards and codes.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Amen.
| JadeNB wrote:
| Is this in the usual technical sense of MUST / SHOULD / MAY, or
| does 'should not' here actually mean 'may not' (as suggested by
| the category being 'Unacceptable', rather than 'Discouraged')?
|
| (Several other entries are phrased much less ambiguously:
| "Unacceptable: (i) Creating an interface ...", and (ix) is
| explicitly "Apps _must not_ ... " (emphasis mine).)
| reaperducer wrote:
| Apple's guidelines are usually written in soft language to
| give it wiggle room in case an unexpected scenario arises.
|
| Practically-speaking, if Apple decides an app has violated
| this provision, the app is toast. No app company on the
| planet has enough lawyers to challenge Apple on such nit-
| pickery.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This has been my experience, as well.
|
| I once had to delete an entire bug fix version, and turn it
| into a feature version, because I "shouldn't" have done
| something (can't remember what, exactly -I'd have to go
| digging through the commit comments to find it, and I don't
| want to do that).
| darklion wrote:
| Apple says bug-fixes will no longer be held up by rule
| violations.
| jmull wrote:
| I'm just about 100% sure Apple uses "should" and "should not"
| in the absolute sense, not the way RFC's define it.
| jtsiskin wrote:
| The clause starts with "get what they've paid for" - does this
| apply to free apps?
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I
| think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal.
|
| This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple
| try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after
| buying Apple hardware?
| donarb wrote:
| All of Apple's EULAs are published on their website. You can
| download the PDFs and read through them before you decide to
| purchase software that Apple creates and sells.
|
| https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
| matsemann wrote:
| EULA's are basically unenforceable in Europe, so why
| bother. For a contract to be valid it has to be understood
| by both parties, be reasonable etc., and in many countries
| forcing arbitration on consumer matters is invalid (don't
| know if Apple has those terms, but many do). Forcing a
| consumer to read 20+ pages of legalese for each purchase,
| each app they download etc. is just not feasible.
| easton wrote:
| Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they
| put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said
| something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree
| to the terms of Software License Agreement found at
| apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with
| that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux,
| but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing),
| you can't since the bootloader is locked.
| fizzled wrote:
| When did they stop? I just bought a new MacbookPro
| yesterday and there was nothing on it like that. Same for
| the iWatch I bought last year, and the iPhone 6 two years
| ago.
|
| Or is this just software?
| placatedmayhem wrote:
| Iirc, those shrink wrap licenses are of questionable
| enforceability. The Wikipedia entry on "shrink wrap
| contract" agrees, but I'm not well-versed on the topic.
| izacus wrote:
| Do you think you can fight this out in court against
| Apple?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Are individuals taken to court over it for "misusing"
| their Macbooks?
| threeseed wrote:
| It has been possible to run OSX on PCs for quite a few
| years now courtesy of the Clover and OpenCore apps. There
| have been countless Github projects, websites, forums etc
| dedicated to providing material assistance in using them.
|
| At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or
| individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g.
| DCMA or cease and desist letter.
|
| In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating
| that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc
| and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| Something about this has always confused me...
|
| IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software
| without an appropriate license from the copyright holder
| is considered a violation of civil copyright law.
|
| Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be
| invalid. _If_ the EULA is the agreement that grants end-
| users permission to use the copyrighted software, would
| the invalidation mean that users were in violation of
| copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software
| that 's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
| johnday wrote:
| What would you actually be buying, if you bought the
| software without being legally capable of using it?
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| You've bought the privilege of being allowed to accept
| the EULA.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| It reminds me of a US visa, which is far from free, and
| you pay for applying whether you is granted it or not. It
| allows you travel to a border control and ask to be let
| in. They can refuse you without explanation.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Angostura wrote:
| Feels in line with GDPR
| electriclove wrote:
| This sounds.. great!
| ggrrhh_ta wrote:
| Doesn't youtube, with its ads, violate this policy?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| When it comes to YouTube the waters are muddy. The YouTube
| app is just a client to a third-party web service (whose
| functionality falls outside of App Store rules); so in this
| case it can be argued that the "functionality" of the app is
| just the client functionality and not the content itself.
|
| Furthermore you can skip ads on YouTube after a 5-second
| timer, so this seems reasonably fair, though I would still
| not install it and recommend everyone to just use the web
| with a content blocker extension (AdGuard) or a third-party
| frontend like Invidious (https://github.com/iv-
| org/invidious).
| kevinventullo wrote:
| That seems like a pretty big loophole if applied. Taken to
| the logical extreme, one could make an app that streams raw
| user inputs to a server and streams back a video output and
| be allowed to do whatever they like (albeit with horrendous
| performance).
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean this is the main argument against game streaming
| and HN seems to take the 100% opposite opinion.
| derefr wrote:
| Apple already declared a policy against game-streaming
| service apps; presumably specifically to avoid this
| loophole where the ads, purchases, etc. are happening
| "remotely" and so Apple can't get a cut of them.
|
| Presumably, if anyone tried to build a service for
| "streaming" non-game apps, that wouldn't be allowed on
| the App Store either.
| pieno wrote:
| They've thought of that loophole and closed it already
| ;-) Basically you can only stream from a device that is
| owned by the user/owner of the iPhone/iPad on the same
| LAN, and you should not use streaming to mimic a thin
| client of a cloud app. See rule 4.7.2 on Remote Desktop
| Clients.
|
| (Note: this does not apply for "generic" remote desktop
| clients that are not intended to stream specific apps or
| services, such as the generic Microsoft Remote Desktop
| Client for iOS.)
| pier25 wrote:
| > _so in this case it can be argued that the
| "functionality" of the app is just the client functionality
| and not the content itself_
|
| The problem is that companies like Google are able to get
| away with it, but not small developers.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Furthermore you can skip ads on YouTube after a 5-second
| timer
|
| For me, that only really happens these days with mid-video
| ads (and even then it's happening less frequently despite
| the number of mid-video ads increasing.) Most of this week
| I've had double unskippable ads at the front of many videos
| and they're generally 60+ seconds combined.
| gerash wrote:
| You can, you know, pay for the service (be the customer
| and not the product) and not see any ads
| toredash wrote:
| Should. Not "must not"
| msbarnett wrote:
| The subsection this falls under is "Unacceptable" as in "Will
| not be accepted". The "should" in the sentence is a normative
| statement about values, not recommendational.
| marvel_boy wrote:
| In this legal context 'should not' means 'must not'.
| criddell wrote:
| > watch videos
|
| So games that periodically stop to show a full screen ad and
| don't resume until the user closes the ad are in violation?
| pindab0ter wrote:
| Is this for paid games? I imagine this would not apply to
| freemium games.
| ricardonunez wrote:
| As soon as I start using an app in a regular bases and I
| notice they stop me too many times to watch videos or look
| to timed ads, I check if they have a paid version. So this
| is a good solution and a good compromise for paid. For free
| apps, I get it because developers need to make money.
| sizzle wrote:
| Wow this is why my next phone will be an iphone, so sick of
| apps in Android play store pestering me to rate their app after
| completing an action in the app or forcing me to turn on
| location services when I can easily enter a zip code instead.
| bmarquez wrote:
| > forcing me to turn on location services when I can easily
| enter a zip code instead
|
| This exists on iOS too. I recently downloaded a wardrobe app
| that refused to let me select clothes for hot or cold weather
| unless I turned on location services. Also some fast food
| apps (either Burger King, Popeye's or Taco Bell...can't
| remember which one) constantly whine about location services
| off and introduce extra friction to type in a zip code.
| dathinab wrote:
| But this also excludes letting the user chose between either
| watching ads or paying for the content.
|
| A not very well working but reasonable business model.
|
| Why is it incompatible?
|
| Because getting access to normally payed-extra-for content by
| watching apps means receiving a "monetary or other
| compensation"
| [deleted]
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| I remember ios 5 I think brought app permissions. Essentially say
| app A should not get location or contacts and put this behind a
| password. The app couldnt do shit. Then android after late got
| some permissions but its still lame IMO. App can deny you access
| without a permission. A recent thing I have seen on android is
| permission protection or whatever. The system gives dummy or no
| access to the contacts for example instead of actual contacts.
| Sounds good but now every app can detect this and bugs you to
| allow the sameby nagging you. Look, if I want to deny app A or B
| access to contacts, as far as the app is concerned it should get
| 0 access. Not blocking or pseudo blocking but a sinkhole type
| "huh. Nothing here". It should not be able to detect this. Same
| for internet access. If I deny internet to an app, that app
| should think its in flight mode. Thats it.
|
| Same thing here. Say I dont want to be tracked, apps should think
| I have allowed access and go ahead. Why should they tailor access
| based on my permission to track ? My installing the app is proof
| I want to use the app. I just dont want it to be tied to
| anything. Kinda like the original "sandbox" idea
| renewiltord wrote:
| Okay, but I don't want that as a user. If I accidentally say
| "Deny Location Permission" I want the app to say "I actually
| can't navigate for you without this, sorry. Want me to request
| the permission again?". I don't want to debug this shit - oh
| why is navigation not working? No thanks. Life's too short.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Life is too short for you to press Settings > Privacy >
| Location Services > app > enable?
|
| Are you on life support or something?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Haha, hilarious! But yes, I don't want to do that.
| mumblerino wrote:
| Correction: iOS has had permissions at least for as long as
| apps were allowed and more permissions were added over time.
|
| Screenshot in the Camera section of this iPhoneOS 2 review:
| https://www.imore.com/iphone-os-2-review
| ugh123 wrote:
| Could say the same thing about these cookie-accept popups as some
| will just redirect you off their site if you don't accept.
| ffpip wrote:
| Such things are never going to come to Android are they? Every
| preinstalled app abuses every permission possible
| dheera wrote:
| With most Android devices, at least you have the option to
| install a different OS (e.g. LineageOS) that allows you to
| spoof all such data, including to Google, which IMO provides a
| better level of safeguarding against tracking.
|
| With iOS, the closed source OS and lack of alternatives
| fundamentally means that Apple Inc. gets to secretly violate
| your privacy while they play the moral high ground.
|
| Ultimately the best security comes when you, the user, control
| the device AND the OS.
|
| EDIT: Apple fanboys downvoting me again, eh? You worship Apple
| or something that would never do something wrong (ha)? Enjoy
| your HN echo chamber.
| derefr wrote:
| It's hard to _prove_ that this is a fix (i.e. I can prove it
| for my device, but your device might be special), but you can
| always just install a VPN app that doesn't actually connect
| to a VPN, but rather acts in a LittleSnitch-alike way to the
| traffic it's proxying.
|
| I believe this is, in part, how CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1 app
| works on iOS.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Pre-installed apps where you can't disable them or revoke their
| permissions are a cancer on the Android ecosystem. Especially
| fun when they have permissions like "access the filesystem" or
| "obtain device location" or "send notifications".
| wvenable wrote:
| Are there pre-installed apps you can't disable? I have a
| bunch disabled on my phone.
| ffpip wrote:
| There used to be a security app on my MIUI phone. Security
| apps can't do anything on android, because each app is
| sandboxed. But of course, it had full non-revocable
| permissions including physical sensors, precise location,
| contacts, camera and microphone.
|
| I hope someone cracks open their 'security' app and controls
| every MIUI device, just for them to learn their lesson.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| On Android, you can deny permissions to preinstalled apps (I
| just verified this myself) or even disable the apps entirely,
| which unlinks all entry points into the app. On iOS, they just
| sit there sucking up your data like iMessage keeping track of
| everybody you message.
| cma wrote:
| With a user controlled Android phone, you can just feed apps
| you don't trust fake location data. But now Google has started
| restricting user-owned Android to a fixed number of flashes or
| something, or they get locked out of Google Play Services.
| expectsomuch wrote:
| Can't tell if this is a serious reply.
| cma wrote:
| https://www.xda-developers.com/fake-android-location/
|
| https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-fix-device-not-
| certifi...
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Thats a good thing. Can Apple guarantee that they themselves are
| not tracking their users' app preferences/behaviour either?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Of course they can't guarantee it. The best they could do is
| give users the ability to block all internet access in an app.
| Currently you can only block an app from using cellular data.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Nope they can't. In fact to use an iOS device you pretty much
| need an Apple account (if you want to be able to install any
| apps) and that comes with a privacy policy and some extra
| "features" you might not know about like every sender e-mail on
| iOS Mail being synced to their cloud.
|
| However, at least we can find comfort in the fact that their
| business model so far has been against the
| surveillance/advertising economy and their entire marketing
| strategy has been based on that for the past few years, so at
| least they currently do not have any incentive to misuse that
| data even if they do collect it (and if they do eventually
| think about misusing it, we can hope that there would be some
| actual enforcement of laws such as the GDPR that would
| discourage them from doing so).
| [deleted]
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| There's a fairly simple _cui bono_ aspect to this.
|
| Apple makes money by selling products to their users or taking
| a cut of the users' purchases in their marketplace.
|
| Facebook and Google, on the other hand, make most of their
| money by selling micro-segmented access to their user base to
| third parties.
|
| Which of these two kinds of companies stands to benefit from
| harvesting more data about their users whenever possible?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Apple profits from knowing their users'
| app/music/news/books/siri etc preferences and making purchase
| suggestions, don't they?
| sbuk wrote:
| That's not quite the same as selling that information to
| political 'think tanks' to buy influence in an election.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Sort of.
|
| Apple's recommendations are handled on-device. It's great
| for security, but the downside is that Apple News on my
| iPhone and Apple News on my computer don't have the same
| list of publications I dislike.
| hu3 wrote:
| That's genius! Apple avoided developing synchronization
| of user data and got good PR for doing that.
|
| I'm gonna try that with my clients. "Sir, I wont
| aggregate your store's point of sale data because it's
| more secure if the data never leaves the store. Now pay
| me a premium for the added security, thanks."
| Angeo34 wrote:
| Apple wants all the data for themselves obviously.
| daveisfera wrote:
| > (iii) Artificially increasing the number of impressions or
| click-throughs of ads, as well as apps that are designed
| predominantly for the display of ads.
|
| So they're going to remove most of the games that my kids have
| been duped into installing from an ad in another game? ;p
| beervirus wrote:
| Everybody complains about the walled garden, but damn I love to
| see things like this.
| dayjobpork wrote:
| You do realise Apple could still do this in their app store AND
| allow 3rd party app stores?
| threeseed wrote:
| But 3rd party app stores just mean a race to the bottom.
|
| The app store with the least oversight and cheapest prices
| would be the winner.
|
| Policies like this are good for users but bad for apps and by
| extension app stores.
| ProAm wrote:
| Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run?
| Track you if you want to develop your own code for your own
| fully paid for device?
| ffpip wrote:
| > Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run?
|
| Do you have a source on the them tracking every app a user
| runs? Obviously they have to collect every app I install for
| updates and subscriptions, but collecting every run might be
| too much.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Don't they verify executables for this reason? Do they
| provide info about whether they log this process?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I believe iOS handles this process differently. Apps are
| signed in advance (when the app is approved and published
| to the Store) and the signatures are only checked locally
| against a hardcoded signing key. But even on Mac when it
| comes to notarization, I'm pretty sure the signatures are
| only checked on first run and then the result of that is
| cached (partly for performance reasons).
| sroussey wrote:
| Same on Mac AppStore.
| ffpip wrote:
| Why would they verify it everytime you run the app? It
| already goes through heavy review before it comes onto
| the app store.
| izacus wrote:
| They advertise a whole product which draws all this
| tracking data as nice graphs to developers:
| https://developer.apple.com/app-store-connect/analytics/
|
| It's essentially Google Analytics, just for apps on iOS.
|
| Where do you think those "Daily active devices" data comes
| from?
| anater wrote:
| Users must opt in though. It's part of the iOS set up to
| allow this and you can change it any time
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| This setting is opt out, not opt-in. It's unclear if
| opting out hides the data from Apple or just from the app
| developers.
| slipheen wrote:
| That really does seem like whataboutism.
|
| No one is claiming Apple is perfect, but this is a marked
| improvement of apps requiring tracking to function.
| ProAm wrote:
| No its more about the pot calling the kettle black. Do as I
| say not as I do because I know whats best for you. I can
| see it seems to be whataboutism but that was not my
| intention, it's about hypocrisy.
| samatman wrote:
| whataboutism: n. An accusation of hypocrisy designed to
| deflect from bad behavior on the part of another party.
| ProAm wrote:
| Ha! Ive never actually looked the definition up. This is
| definitely whataboutism (I still havent looked the
| definition up so Im trusting this the actual definition)
| samatman wrote:
| well, I did make that up.
|
| but here's dictionary.com on the subject, and I think
| it's congruent, you'll have to judge for yourself:
|
| https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism
| birthdaydog wrote:
| This is exactly whataboutism.
| ProAm wrote:
| I think we're arguing semantics about business
| philosophy.
| sbuk wrote:
| There has to be be some degree of tying purchases to an
| account. The real issue here is what is done with the data
| after it's been collected. Internal use is one thing; such as
| improving apps etc. When it's used to target individual in a
| bid to influence their thinking, that's when the real problem
| starts. Are Apple guilty of the latter?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Certainly. They use it in app store ads, to determine their
| own product development, and to market their products.
|
| On other platforms, I can install apps on my devices
| without telling anybody.
| anater wrote:
| Which platforms?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Most Android distributions, most Linux distributions,
| Windows, etc.
| sneak wrote:
| Note that "tracking" is used in an intentionally misleading way
| here. Apple's guidelines expressly permit all sorts of silent,
| invisible, no-opt-in tracking within apps, and most apps in the
| app store embed this sort of spyware.
|
| The term "tracking" in this instance refers to GPS or contacts
| permission and other such things that Apple has built an opt-in
| switch for.
| beervirus wrote:
| What sort of "silent, invisible, no-opt-in tracking" does
| Apple allow?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| This policy is straight from GDPR. The Play Store and the
| Amazon App Store also enforce this, despite neither enforcing
| walled gardens.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I've always wondered why do companies call it "opt" in if it's
| not optional?
| dellcybpwr wrote:
| Should not vs may not. Any difference?
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| This is one of the reasons, I am actually in favor of only having
| the App Store on Apple. As soon as you have another way to
| distribute apps on the iPhone, app developers will try to migrate
| to the less privacy conscious store that lets them do all their
| dark patterns.
|
| Sometimes, let the consumer choose does not work. For example, if
| governments did not regulate kids products and just said let the
| consumer choose, the market would be filled with unsafe products.
| Sometimes you need someone enforcing standards.
|
| Apple's enforcement of standards is one of the big reasons why I
| choose their ecosystem.
| spideymans wrote:
| Certain developers (ahem... Facebook) love to cry about Apple's
| walled garden, without acknowledging that the reason that iOS
| and its walled garden is so popular is precisely because these
| large developers have proven to users that they are completely
| untrustworthy. If they conducted their business more
| responsibly, and if users could trust that these developers
| wouldn't abuse their privacy and security, perhaps the mobile
| software ecosystem would be more open in nature.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| "I should still be able to view where I am on this map without
| letting anyone know where I am"
| reaperducer wrote:
| _"I should still be able to view where I am on this map without
| letting anyone know where I am"_
|
| Seems perfectly reasonable. We used to do it before there was
| an internet to feed our locations to. I did it on my Palm III.
|
| Heck, my car does it today. And is able to show me all the
| nearby coffee shops with zero internet connection, thus no
| snitching.
| prophesi wrote:
| Would this also apply to forcing users to enable location for
| content that only partially requires it? In particular, Snapchat
| has some location-based filters, but even the ones that don't
| require location (purely cosmetic, rewind, slow-mo, etc filters)
| are disabled.
| canadianwriter wrote:
| "Apps should not require users to rate the app, review the app,
| watch videos, download other apps, tap on advertisements, enable
| tracking, or take other similar actions in order to access
| functionality, content, use the app, or receive monetary or other
| compensation, including but not limited to gift cards and codes."
|
| Bunch of apps started doing the above "enable tracking" part
| already - good thing Apple specifically disallowed it, should nip
| that problem before 14 comes out.
| dathinab wrote:
| I do not think Apple should have the power to do such decisions.
|
| I do not like tracking at all.
|
| But I think this is something which needs to be handled by
| governments (laws/regulations) not by apple forcing their opinion
| about what is right onto everyone else by abusing their marked
| positions.
|
| In this case it might be beneficial for the users.
|
| In others cases it was not beneficial for the users at all but
| only for apple. Like if I remember correctly apps where not
| allowed to state that they are Pebble compatible because Pebble
| did compete with the Apple Watch at least theoretically, similar
| platforms like Netflix/Amazon Prime got special terms wrt. the
| pay cut but a Netflix/Amazon Prime for gaming wasn't allowed at
| all for dubious reasons (with that reasons any content gateway
| like browsers, newsfeeds, Netflix etc. would not be allowed) oh
| and guess what it seems Apple is currently working on their own
| Gaming/Game Streaming platform...
|
| So yes anti tracking is good. But I still belive Apple is again
| abusing their monopoly like positions for their own benefits,
| let's not forget Apple has their own app network which likely
| isn't affected by this.
| gpanders wrote:
| > But I think this is something which needs to be handled by
| governments (laws/regulations) not by apple forcing their
| opinion about what is right onto everyone else by abusing their
| marked positions.
|
| Why should governments force their opinion about what is right
| onto everyone else? Why not allow freedom in the market so that
| users can choose what matters most to them? Right now, Apple is
| serving the market of those opposed to tracking and in favor of
| greater privacy. If it turns out this is what consumers want
| and are willing to pay for, competitors will feel pressure to
| follow suit. No heavy handed government regulation needed.
| slipheen wrote:
| Governments ought to be the place for this level of regulation,
| absolutely - But right now, governments aren't regulating.
|
| In the mean time, I'm glad Apple is. If Apple wasn't doing
| this, no one would be.
| spideymans wrote:
| Government regulation would be at the mercy of Google and
| Facebook and their hoard of regulators, so I'm not convinced
| this would protect iOS end users better than the status quo.
| Facebook and similar developers might be happy about it though
| ATsch wrote:
| This is already legally required by GDPR but I guess it's good
| for apple to check for it.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The GDPR so far doesn't have any enforcement for stuff like
| this. All the links to "enforcement tracker" (which I'm sure
| someone will reply with down below) have been either about a
| technicality like a badly worded privacy policy or the amount
| of the fine was peanuts compared to the size of the offending
| company.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| This is not required by GDPR.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| the tracking thing is
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-11 23:00 UTC)