The news alert from the Wall St. Journal hit my phone about an hour ago, pulling me away from tasting “Texas Bourbon” in San Antonio to sit down and grok this headline: Google’s iPhone Tracking.
Now, the headline certainly is attention-grabbing, but the news alert email had a more sinister headline: “Google Circumvented Web-Privacy Safeguards.”
Wow! What’s going on here?
Turns out, no one looks good in this story, but certainly the Journal feels like they’ve got Google in a “gotcha” moment. As usual, I think there’s a lot more to the story, and while I’m Thinking Out Loud right now, and pretty sure there’s a lot more than I can currently grok, there’s something I just gotta say.
First, the details. Here’s the lead in the Journal’s story, which requires a login/registration:
“Google Inc. and other advertising companies have been bypassing the privacy settings of millions of people using Apple Inc.’s Web browser on their iPhones and computers—tracking the Web-browsing habits of people who intended for that kind of monitoring to be blocked.”
Now, from what I can tell, the first part of that story is true – Google and many others have figured out ways to get around Apple’s default settings on Safari in iOS – the only browser that comes with iOS, a browser that, in my experience, has never asked me what kind of privacy settings I wanted, nor did it ask if I wanted to share my data with anyone else (I do, it turns out, for any number of perfectly good reasons). Apple assumes that I agree with Apple’s point of view on “privacy,” which, I must say, is ridiculous on its face, because the idea of a large corporation (Apple is the largest, in fact) determining in advance what I might want to do with my data is pretty much the opposite of “privacy.”
Then again, Apple decided I hated Flash, too, so I shouldn’t be that surprised, right?
But to the point, Google circumvented Safari’s default settings by using some trickery described in this WSJ blog post, which reports the main reason Google did what it did was so that it could know if a user was a Google+ member, and if so (or even if not so), it could show that user Google+ enhanced ads via AdSense.
In short, Apple’s mobile version of Safari broke with common web practice, and as a result, it broke Google’s normal approach to engaging with consumers. Was Google’s “normal approach” wrong? Well, I suppose that’s a debate worth having – it’s currently standard practice and the backbone of the entire web advertising ecosystem – but the Journal doesn’t bother to go into those details. One can debate whether setting cookies should happen by default – but the fact is, that’s how it’s done on the open web.
The Journal article does later acknowledge, though not in a way that a reasonable reader would interpret as meaningful, that the mobile version of Safari has “default” (ie not user activated) settings that prevent Google and others (like ad giant WPP) to track user behavior the way they do on the “normal” Web. That’s a far cry from the Journal’s lead paragraph, which again, states Google bypassed the “the privacy settings of millions of people.” So when is a privacy setting really a privacy setting, I wonder? When Apple makes it so?
Since this story has broken, Google has discontinued its practice, making it look even worse, of course.
But let’s step back a second here and ask: why do you think Apple has made it impossible for advertising-driven companies like Google to execute what are industry standard practices on the open web (dropping cookies and tracking behavior so as to provide relevant services and advertising)? Do you think it’s because Apple cares deeply about your privacy?
Really?
Or perhaps it’s because Apple considers anyone using iOS, even if they’re browsing the web, as “Apple’s customer,” and wants to throttle potential competitors, insuring that it’s impossible to access to “Apple’s” audiences using iOS in any sophisticated fashion? Might it be possible that Apple is using data as its weapon, dressed up in the PR friendly clothing of “privacy protection” for users?
That’s at least a credible idea, I’d argue.
I don’t know, but when I bought an iPhone, I didn’t think I was singing up as an active recruit in Apple’s war on the open web. I just thought I was getting “the Internet in my pocket” – which was Apple’s initial marketing pitch for the device. What I didn’t realize was that it was “the Internet, as Apple wishes to understand it, in my pocket.”
It’d be nice if the Journal wasn’t so caught up in its own “privacy scoop” that it paused to wonder if perhaps Apple has an agenda here as well. I’m not arguing Google doesn’t have an agenda – it clearly does. I’m as saddened as the next guy about how Google has broken search in its relentless pursuit of beating Facebook, among others.
In this case, what Google and others have done sure sounds wrong – if you’ve going to resort to tricking a browser into offering up information designated by default as private, you need to somehow message the user and explain what’s going on. Then again, in the open web, you don’t have to – most browsers let you set cookies by default. In iOS within Safari, perhaps such messaging is technically impossible, I don’t know. But these shenanigans are predictable, given the dynamic of the current food fight between Google, Apple, Facebook, and others. It’s one more example of the sad state of the Internet given the war between the Internet Big Five. And it’s only going to get worse, before, I hope, it gets better again.
Now, here’s my caveat: I haven’t been able to do any reporting on this, given it’s 11 pm in Texas and I’ve got meetings in the morning. But I’m sure curious as to the real story here. I don’t think the sensational headlines from the Journal get to the core of it. I’ll depend on you, fair readers, to enlighten us all on what you think is really going on.
Are you (and apparently ParisLemon) totally lost? Both of you only care about the corporate fight between Google and Apple.
Google has been delivering yet another arrogant slap in the face of the users and you are trying to shift the blame over to Apple? By having another business model Apple is able to offer their users better privacy as setup by default. What do you think Apple should do? Remove all defaults in case someone is offended??? For all users through all settings of all software???
Apple know that many customer care about privacy. They tighten up as much as they think possible. Sometimes they screw up (like the address book) but mainly they are o.k.
If Google software doesn’t like these settings what is wrong with asking the user “To use this service we need to reduce you privacy settings to the same level as our own Chrome browser, is this o.k.?”
I personally don’t like the free stuff where some fat cat corporate ad-guy decides about products and content. But, hey, I am just the user. According to Battelle and ParisLemon my computer and my data and my metadata all belong to Google.
There is an ugly word that describes the situation when corporate power and the state power mix and cooperate. That word is far to strong for this. But here we have the “webberati” and big corporates like Google mixing and cooperating and treating users not as free human beings but as enslaved consumer drones. God help us if we happen to have our privacy setting to tight.
I agree – Google should ask, I just don’t know if it’s technically feasible.
I agree with Wilhelm on this one.
#1. My privacy settings were NOT set to private to begin with. So I am sure there are millions of people who DID change their settings to private. So for all of those people Google/WPP went around their back.
#2. Google/WPP knowingly bypassed these settings as they edited their code to do it.
#3. And if the WSJ is correct… “Until recently, one Google site told Safari users they could rely on Safari’s privacy settings to prevent tracking by Google. Google removed that language from the site Tuesday night.”
Within the past 2 months Google’s reputation has fallen off a cliff.
Ah your logic.
Can I have your house?
No??? I’m taking it anyway, I must have it, I don’t care what you say or wish.
You’re not really thick-headed, are you? Per the article, and per Google’s promises, and per Apple’s software, you have to TRY to go around the user’s preferred security setting.
It was (would’ve been) easy to do the right thing.
There are lots of sites that ask you to enable cookies…
I guess this is different since they wanted to track every site you went to, but the minute you actually used their service or website they could ask you.
“What do you think Apple should do?”
Fix their stupid browser… They’ve known about the exploit for how long already…
IE was hacked too. The point is google has smart engineers and they went out of their way to over-ride the user or browser’s settings and hack and track anyway.
#GFail
Google long ago became an evil corporation, surpassing all other corporations — many of which have historically been Google’s ideological and commercial enemies (most notably Microsoft).
I think history may judge Google with a more gentle verdict, and Apple with a more harsh one.
The way things are going, that could prove true.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.
I don’t. Google jumped to the dark side Google Books and has gone downhill since that point. They long ago lost their way.
Appears to be Google is more bad than Apple is bad here. The high-technology industry is transitioning to a new leader from Google to Apple as it did about ten years ago from Microsoft to Google. Folks in the Windows/Google world are going to find themselves lost for quite a while as Apple sets the agenda for the future of computing which others will have to follow grudgingly including in areas such as privacy.
As I point out, I’m not sure Apple is doing this simply for privacy. Let’s not forget it is now in the advertising business….big time.
Apple has a vast trove of data about its customers including personal details because they sell paid content. Apple doesn’t need to crawl web sites as it is voluntarily given the data. When the move to iCloud is complete, the volume of data will increase further. There is no reason why Apple cannot mine this data to recommend other products, content and even ads. However, as Chris Riley mentioned above, advertising is not Apple’s core business and never will be but it is Google’s core. If Apple can take a portion of Google’s ad business then it damages Google but won’t affect Apple if the roles are reversed. Apple wants to take out (hurt) Google as Jobs inferred said many times.I’m a fervent proponent of the open web but as can be seen from the proportion of anti-Google responses, the shine is coming off Google.
That would make sense if advertising earned Apple enough to at least merit a line item in their earnings. Meanwhile, Apple’s current (quite transparent) business model of selling people hardware is earning them billions and has made them the most valuable tech (any sector?) company in the world.
So what?
I don’t care why Apple does it as long as it is what is good for me. And I certainly do not judge people (or corporations) on their motivations but on their doings. If it helps people to regain some privacy, it is ok. It is NOT destroying the free Internet to keep ad companies from tracking user behaviour.
No matter what is common practice, I think it really is better do prevent third party cookies by default.
While no company is entifely innocent, Apple isn’t innocent but Google is the major offender in tbis instance.
By the “open” web, you must mean “google open.” Which means an invasion of personal privacy that would make the Stasi jealous. Seriously. Reading your mail. Monitoring all you read. Tracking your relationships. How dare Apple interfere with this as a business model!
I very much prefer to be the customer rather than the thing being sold.
I remember the uproar when the government was going to search library records. Google and FB are doing this with everything one reads on the web and there’s barely a peep. And whatever their rhetoric they’re working very very hard to make sure they have your exact identity.
Yes the WSJ is pretty clueless about technology. But should a user really have to figure out Tor to have any privacy any more?
Apple can screw up as much as any company, but at least their entire business isn’t based on invading my privacy.
And in fact I had no trouble finding the privacy setting on the iPhone. Maybe the default has changed over time because mine was off. Not any more.
I can understand your argument, not agree mind you but understand, about Safari in iOS. But if, as claimed, it is also doing this for Safari on the desktop which does expose these settings to the user in the same manner as Firefox and Chrome then this is 100% Google’s fault.
As another commenter noted, if the Safari default setting bothers them then they can ask/threaten you for opt-in approval.
Hmmm, I wonder if Google is doing any shenanigans for those who change the default setting on Firefox (not to mention Chrome!) to mirror Safari’s.
I don’t think Do Not Track is default on web browsers. But I may be wrong.
It is not Do Not Track that is being circumvented.
It is Do Not Allow Third Party Cookies.
Safari on the Mac doesn’t have Do Not Track (or at least I can’t find it).
Thanks.
These days privacy has become a big issue, and i think that there are Internet users who don’t know what this exactly means and what are the risks involved. Information has always been synonym with power – and (in my opinion) this is the same case with Google.
I was going to read your take on things until I got to: “Then again, Apple decided I hated Flash, too, so I shouldn’t be that surprised, right?”.
Apple decided that Flash was crap, especially for mobile devices. Adobe tried to fix it to work on Android for years . . . and finally admitted that it couldn’t be done. Get over it.
I’m over Flash. Decisions being made for me? Not over that.
Flash wasn’t decided for you, you decided to buy an iOS device knowing there was no Flash.
Google decided for you that they should circumvent the privacy settings in your browser.
So, why are you OK with other browser vendors making the decision that third-party cookies are perfectly fine, and you will accept them?
They also made the decision of only having one physical button, and the decision to use a 3.5″ screen for you. What’s your point? Where’s the outrage about that?
The cookies setting is front and center in the settings app, and default settings are always “made for you” so that’s a logical fallacy
What a bizarre opinion. Allowing third party cookies by default is giving you choice buy no allowing them by default is robbing you of freedom?
Also, does any average consumer really bemoan that they have to tap a box to allow people to track their activity? Or is that just something people who are in the business of writing about a business dominated by advertising?
By ‘default’ I don’t give retail stores my phone number or zip code when they ask. Maybe they should stop me on the way out and demand to see my license?
Adobe themselves have finally discontinued Flash mobile support for Android and the new Android, JellyBean, finally admitted Flash is not good enough and dropped it too. The reality that mobile Flash really does kinda suck and there are better options has made the decision for us.
Yay. Now we can all be on the same page with mobile Flash.
Beyond your point, Apple went so far as to publicly state why it thought Flash was a bad choice for mobile devices. You can’t get much more up front about a policy than they were with that decision.
Yep, they did. Steve called it crap. And perhaps it is (I’ve certainly not heard a lot of defense of it from developers). Then again, it was used by everyone, and from what I heard from folks at Adobe, the way Apple did it, there were other things in play.
It is crap. And if you ever tried with/without you should know it. Just because “everybody is using it” is not reason enough to keep it alive. Once upon a time everybody was walking to get from A to B. Now, everybody uses cars/airplanes/busses/trains.
I am a user and a customer. I do not care about politics between companies and which “things were in play” for business decisions. Thats gossip style. Please stick to facts.
No John, there weren’t other things in play.
Steve Jobs wrote his opinion of Flash explicitly, but not until after Apple gave Adobe time to fix Flash. Flash is buggy (crappy) software. What you “heard” from Adobe is self serving; why do you trust them over Apple when you can see for yourself how suspect Flash is on mobile, not to mention buggy, insecure, and unreliable on desktop as well. ???
The point is that Apple made that decision for everyone else, whether they wanted it or not. That is the problem. Apple can hold whatever beliefs they want – when they start *forcing* me to believe the same, they’ve crossed the line.
They’re not forcing their beliefs on anyone. Don’t like their policies? There are HUNDREDS of non-Apple phones out there. Vote with your dollars.
If a default setting reasonably chosen to protect your privacy can be changed, how is that “forcing you”?
Apple did not force you to believe anything they simple recognized a basic technical reality about which you are apparently still in denial!
I want my Linux code to run directly on Windows 7. For some strange reason, Microsoft doesn’t support that. They’ve crossed the line too.
Apple hasn’t forced you to “believe” anything. Yes, if you insist on buying Apple products then you are limited to using software they support. I assume you are referring to Flash support on mobile. So, while Apple won’t let you use it on their product, Android supports it. Of course, since it doesn’t work very well, it’s not really a good selling point for Android.
You might as well be mad at Ford for not allowing you to buy a four wheel drive Ford Taurus. Taurus isn’t suited to four wheeling, yet even though four wheel drive is a something Ford does fine (compared to Flash which is buggy, insecure and crash prone in just about every use case) they don’t offer it where it doesn’t make sense. So are you mad at them for “forcing” you to go without four wheel drive on a sedan they sell? You paid for it you should be able to have “whatever options you want.”
No, sorry….
The inter-company rivalry is important to highlight — but there’s an interesting angle addressed in the EFF response (link below): this may be more evidence of internal management cock ups at Google — at least lack of coordination between the privacy police and those charged with pushing Google+. Once again, I’d really like to know what the recent changes are doing to the company internally.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/time-make-amends-google-circumvents-privacy-settings-safari-users
I agree there’s a larger discussion here to be had, and that in a company as large as Google (or Apple), there will be different points of view.
1. Google is not the only browser that comes with iOS, as you claim. It is the default browser, but Yahoo! and Bing are also offered as options.
2. I think you want “ensuring”, not “insuring”.
3. Re: “That’s at least a credible idea, I’d argue.” Sure, it’s a credible idea worth considering, but I don’t think it’s the right explanation.
Another credible way of looking at it is that Apple recognizes that privacy is important to customers. You seem to confuse this with Apple being benevolent, but that’s unnecessary. For Apple, a company whose relatively traditional business model is selling devices, such things are important for maintaining loyal customers. Google has a different set of customers (advertisers), and so their attitude toward privacy will be accordingly different.
These are basic economic incentives. There’s no reason for all of the emotion.
Yahoo and Bing are not browsers.
And yes, another credible way is to say that Apple is doing this because it believes it understands a user’s privacy better than a user does. Which I think is paternalistic. Truth is, privacy is a far bigger issue, with far more nuanced points.
And it is not paternalistic for Google to decide that my choice of Safari, in part because I like the default to Do Not Accept Third Party Cookies and want to encourage that behavior in other browsers, should be disregarded.
And, no, this is not just some obscure default setting that no one knows about. Steve Gibson, on the TWiT network’s podcast “Security Now”, has several times noted and commented favorably that Safari defaults to this setting and encouraged privacy concerned folks to adjust their browsers to mimic Safari.
This is a know privacy behavior enhancement that Google has circumvented.
We are where we are right now. I am looking forward to more nuanced approaches than “this sucks, no, wait, this sucks more.” And then arguing about it.
I apologize about the search engine/browser thing. That was an awful misreading and it carried over into my comment. I hereby pledge to do no more commenting before morning coffee.
But regarding paternalism, don’t you think this is something that a lot of customers desire? Apple has had a very pronounced paternalistic streak for ages, one that has only become more prominent during the iOS era. If it really bothers you so much, maybe iOS just isn’t for you?
On a personal note, I don’t find this sort of paternalism so odious in cases like privacy settings, mandatory sandboxing of apps, etc. What drives me insane are the completely arbitary decisions. If you’re a long time Apple user, there’s a good chance your favorite preference was eliminated from settings for no good reason at some point.
Good poitns.
Looks like that bourbon is back firing. Maybe you need an Irish Coffee… 🙂
Hey, it’s MORNING now. I just am a sloppy typer!
just kidding – figured you needed a hair of the dog cocktail. 🙂
This isn’t paternalism, these are defaults. All browsers have defaults that try to strike a balance between end-user usability and end-user protection. For instance, the popup that asks you if you really want to download a file.
Browsers need defaults – the 50 question survey browser never got traction because the experience sucked.
Safari’s defaults work well for the end user. Apple does not serve “the open web” if you define the open web as advertising companies – it serves the end user.
I agree the breathless nature of the article was too much, but this post isn’t much better.
WOW! In this response one can see your bias.
“… another credible way is to say that Apple is doing this because it believes it understands a user’s privacy better than a user does.”
The point was Apple gives user a more secure default setting to give the user a better experience and therefore build more customer satisfaction and insure they remain Apple customers. Do you not see how Apple can do what is in their own best interest and still serve their customers interest?
No, it is not paternalistic. For the average user, it is true. I know many people who do not have the slightest idea what cookies are, where they can change the settings or what those settings mean. Do you want to deny them using the internet to protect them? Or do you think thats natural selection – people who do not know do not deserve privacy?
I think delivering reasonable privacy settings by default is customer service.
I think this discussion is turning into a general rant about privacy. And that’s probably the worst defined term in the world, it’s very, very subjective.
I am reading all the new comments from Gruber’s post, and respect all your voices. I can’t respond to them all now, but will write more and again on this subject. As I said in my initial post, there’s a lot more reporting and thinking to be done. Hence the conditional tone.
Google, Yahoo! and Bing are search engines. You could have pointed out that there other web browsing apps, but due to app store policies, they are wrappers for the same engine Safari uses.
How about about a browser that actually gives you a Choice – something that you can control. It’s straightforward enough to build. The only issue is – is someone willing to do it.
Most web browsers have exactly that.
I don’t think so.
Where’s the panel that i can control every aspect of what is shared? For example where can i type in my ad preferences and ask them to only track my location for the next 30 minutes? I have every browser you can download here – the only thing that “some of them have” is a Do Not Track option which as your post points is absolutely worthless. So in essence there’s no user control to stop this kind of behavior.
I think there should be.
There is.
““Google Inc. and other advertising companies have been bypassing the privacy settings of millions of people using Apple Inc.’s Web browser on their iPhones and computers…”
I repeat ” Apple Inc.’s Web browser on their … computers…” Not just iOS Safari but also Mac Safari. The web browser to lead the industry in Do Not Track options — a strong new privacy trend supported by every browser maker except Google, a web browser which does allow you to decide what you want to do with your own privacy.
You do yourself a great disservice by pretending that it’s Apple breaking the web or the default expectation and pretending that it’s only Safari on iOS.
“In this case, what Google and others have done sure sounds wrong – if you’ve going to resort to tricking a browser into offering up information designated by default as private, you need to somehow message the user and explain what’s going on. Then again, in the open web, you don’t have to – most browsers let you set cookies by default. In iOS within Safari, perhaps such messaging is technically impossible, I don’t know. But these shenanigans are predictable, given the dynamic of the current food fight between Google, Apple, Facebook, and others”I do not view Do Not Track options as Apple breaking default expectations of non-privacy solely to tweak Google’s nose. Are Mozilla Firefox, Opera, and Microsoft’s IE doing similarly for the same reason?
I honestly do not know if it’s also on the computer. Safari by default does on the PC web what it does on iOS? As for Do Not Track, I am not in favor of this as a default setting, because I think there is much good to be done in the world with what is labeled “tracking” – I think we need an educated public (see Hawk’s comments) who understand that “tracking” can in fact improve your web experience. I prefer the ablity to block bad actors, not lock down an entire technology due to vague and unsubstantiated privacy threats.
Because you sell ads.
I prefer to block the behavior. You are saying that if Apple supports what I want, Google has the right to try to exploit vulnerabilities in Apple’s attempts to provide what I want and to disregard me as the user.
nope, as I said many times, i don’t think the way Google went about this sounds right.
Actually yes, unlike Google, I believe that Apple cares about my privacy. Apple wants me to buy another product — that’s how they get me. They want me in the App Stores and iTunes forever, buying things.
They don’t give a shit about my information. They don’t make money selling me advertisements and doing god knows what with my information, like Google does.
Remember, Google derives 98%+ of it’s profit from advertising, and Apple derives less than 1% of it’s revenue from advertising.
Are you really going to tell me that Apple has more motivation than Google to abuse private information?
Apple is the richest company in the world on hardware sales, you really think they’re abusing information? That’s what companies like Google and Facebook, companies without real products for sale, do to make money.
Er…yes they do make money selling you ads. A lot of it, and they are pushing for more. And they give a Big Steaming Shit about your data, trust me.
It is about trust. If customers do not trust Apple any more they won’t buy their hw/sw. If users do not trust Google it does not make any difference for Google, their search machine is dominant anyway.
Right now, I trust Apple.
I trust the individual user over any particular company.
Sent from my iPad
No. You just hate
Sent from my iPad
We have a big disconnect on what the “open web” means. To me the open web means access to any site on any device (see your Flash reference). With and without the option of being tracked. So to you the “open web” means being forcibly tracked for better ads? BTW, just because something has always done in a certain way such as track everyone by default, doesn’t mean it should always be done that way. If you think all privacy controls should be off because it is “standard practice”, we need a talk about what is acceptable standard practice in the web industry.
No, the open web means I have the right to not be tracked *if I chose it.” That choices are not forced upon me.
Did you even look at your iPhone before writing this? You can choose. Go to Settings->Safari->Accept Cookies->Always.
Right, opt in vs out. Choice was made for me one way or another. prefer to be asked, tho don’t think most folks yet understand the trade off.
Blocking cookies is my default on all my browsers including Google Chrome. You speak like someone in the advertising industry, well you are, so maybe you’re not looking at the issue like the rest of us. I depend on advertising for my sites also but I care about my users privacy. I respect their rights not to be tracked by my ad network. Google is WRONG in this instance.
Agree that what Google did is wrong (at least, by the facts presented in the article). I said that in my post.
So let me see if I understand this, maybe I do not. Apple makes a browser that by default blocks the ability for an advertising company to see if I clicked on an ad or to see what ads might be most effective to serve up to me.
An advertising company does a workaround.
Shouldn’t the lead really then read:
“Google Inc. and other advertising companies have been bypassing the default ad tracking settings of Apple Inc’s Web browser on iPhones and computers — tracking the advertising habits that Apple Inc. intended to be blocked.”
Personally I could care less if an ad company knows the things I like. Would I rather see an advertisement for cameras than diapers? Sure. It makes more sense. This is not nefarious or wrong.
I was a huge fan of the iPhone. I spent the night in line to get the very first one that came out. I waited in long lines for hours with each successive release (yes, I am that guy). Personally I ditched my iPhone though mostly because it’s sooooo slow. Once you use 4G on the new Google Nexus Galaxy there is simply no going back. And my God Chrome is such a better browser on ICS than Safari is on the iPhone. Plus Google+ works much better on ICS than on the iPhone.
This seems like much a do about nothing to me. As a consumer I care about things like speed and functionality on my phone, not what ads may or may not get served up to me.
Thanks for the advertisement. I would hope that G+ works better on ICS. BTW, Outlook runs much better on Windows 7 and Quicktime is actually nice on a Mac. In the day when everyone thought that MS was taking over, insuring a better experience on your own platform while maintaining a 2nd rate experience on others was called tie-in. Enjoy fiddling with your openly tracked phone, seriously.
Toby, I think you meant to say enjoy fidding with my *MUCH FASTER* openly tracked phone. Once you go 4G there is no going back. Seriously. This is not an advertisement for Google. It’s simply a fact.
Having my internet on my phone go really really really fast actually matters to me ALOT — much more than if I get pitched Ford or Chevy when visiting Salon.com.
I still love Apple products as much as the next guy. I’m typing this on a MacBook Pro right now. I’ve got two other Macs in my house, an iPad and three Apple TVs. But I’m not going to use a slow ass phone like the iPhone or a slow ass browser like Safari. Nothing personal, the Nexus and Chrome are just faster technology is all.
Well said Thomas.
That’s fine. You have the right not to care – that’s why it’s a *setting*. But a large number of people – a majority I would argue – find it creepy to think that some advertising network is tracking them across every website they visit, slowly accumulating data, to sell it to whoever has the cash.
Oh, give me a break. People like you are so lost its sad. You just rationalize things however you see fit to make yourself feel better.
And are you honestly accusing Apple of hating an “open web?” News flash, remember Webkit? Yea, that groundbreaking engine that basically enabled mobile Internet, for every single other phone manufacturer? Or, remember when Apple pushed HTML5 (an open standard) over Flash (proprietary). Oh but wait, did you just say you LIKE flash? I thought you were preaching about this “open” Internet?
Your argument would be rational if Apple didn’t give you the option to change your settings in Safari, but THEY DO. It has to default on something, right? Not everyone wants to share everything they do with advertisers.
By that’s it, just twist the blame on Apple, and accuse them of tyranny or whatever nonsense. When Google were the ones EXPLOITING a bug, and flat out misleading and LYING to consumers. Ya, that’s it. Apple is so evil, Google are nothing but Saints who love treating users fairly.
I did not defend Google (read it again) I asked an open question of Apple. I’m glad there is a setting to change in Safari, I plan on changing mine. I agree with Thomas Hawk, I’d prefer ads that are relevant.
I honestly don’t think this is about privacy. I think the ad industry has a lot of work to do, and I intend to be part of that work.
John,
If you want an interesting read on Privacy check out what the W3C are up to regarding the Do Not Track header. You can find the mailing archives here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/
As you’ll see there’s a lot of confusion and no easy answer in this arena.
I totally agree. Thanks for the pointer
No blogging while drunk, please.
I was tasting, not quaffing!
A little off topic, but how was the Texas Bourbon? 🙂
We had a little Whiskey celebration at work yesterday and enjoyed some BTAC, Pappy Van Winkle 15, 20 and 23 & some Abraham Bowman uncut Bourbon Whiskey.
http://instagr.am/p/HEuFh5y7O2/
It was a bit hot, young. To be expected, it’s a new kid on the block. But it was certainly not bad. Thanks for asking.
It’s very simple. Google is evil. Apple is evil. Facebook is evil. The internet has become their battle ground for waging their evil wars to control and exploit the masses for their own profit. Not one of them is on your side (‘you’ being the general internet user). Is this really a surprise? Is this this news?
Yes, it’s news. Because we have to become informed consumers of this Internet thing, and we need to be able to create a social contract with these companies that is in the common good.
Many iPhone users know how to change Safari privacy settings and yet keep the default of not allowing 3rd party cookies. For them, what Google and others did was evil.
History shows that Apple protected computer users better than Microsoft and thereby increased customer loyalty. Paternalistic? No, just smart marketing.
Fine points, well taken.
And as Dave Murdock pointed out above, Safari had this as the default setting back in 2005 prior to prior to Chrome, iPhone or iAd.
Did I misinterpret something in the article? It seemed to say that the tracking only occurred when the user clicked +1 on the ad. If that’s true, then how does this violate privacy when the user actually wanted others to know about his/her advertising “likes”? In this case, then this strikes me as a bit overheated reaction. Of course, if I’m wrong, I will just go back into my room and turn the light out……
No, I think the “problem” was that it could only happen *if* someone clicked on the ad, which of course very few do. So Google used this workaround.
boss, back to the Texas Bourbon,
dial up radio nowhere. soon you’ll be comin’ down. like livin’ in the future. forget your own worst enemy, brother.
I would love to hear how you would respond to this:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/google-hit-with-ftc-complaint-says-circumventing-safari-privacy-features-accidental.ars
But Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project Director John Simpson claimed in a letter to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz that Google’s action’s violate the “Buzz Consent Agreement,” which requires Google to get consent from users any time it changes its services in a way that results in the sharing of more information.
Simpson blasted Google for giving “false advice” to Safari users regarding the ability to permanently opt out of receiving targeted advertising. “Google has developed a so-called browser ‘plugin’ for Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Google Chrome that makes the opt-out persistent,” Simpson wrote. “Google has not developed a plugin for Safari.” Instead, Google tells Safari users “While we don’t yet have a Safari version of the Google advertising cookie opt-out plugin, Safari is set by default to block all third-party cookies. If you have not changed those settings, this option effectively accomplishes the same thing as setting the opt-out cookie.”
Sounds like Google is contradicting itself if this complaint is accurate. I’ll dig in more over the coming weeks. About to head out for a week off…
How can you so dumb John? They are many browsers on the market, if I use Safari I expect legit companies to respect their and mine privacy settings. Nothing else matters. You cna have a discussion about Apple’s paternalism tomorrow or the day after (no that anyone is forced to buy Apple). Google tried to save us from Apple, right? Please.
Google is a crooked company, all these “incidents” show that they have no moral foundation, no ethics and that the government should step in.
fixed 🙂 >>>
How can you be so dumb John? They are many browsers on the market,
if I use Safari I expect legit companies to respect Safari’s /my privacy settings. Nothing else matters. You can have a discussion about
Apple’s paternalism tomorrow or the day after (no that anyone is forced
to buy Apple). Google tried to save us from Apple, right? Please.
Google
is a crooked company, all these “incidents” show that they have no
moral foundation, no ethics and that the government should step in.
You seem to be a real Apple hater. Why did you buy an iPhone? If Apple is so abusive in its practices, shouldn’t you have opted for Android phone, which I’m sure isn’t nearly as draconian about protecting you from the glory of advertising.
Sigh. I have both.
The state of tech journalism is really sad. While Google’s acts are sneaky and infuriating, I am sickened more by the Journal’s blatant Apple lapdog behavior on this.
In the past, if something like this had happened on say Internet Explorer – the headlines would have screamed “Google exposes big security hole in IE”. Apple has to accept the flaw in its browser software that allows folks to do that and fix it ASAP. Spinning a story just to show Google in bad light cannot cover that up.
If a blogger in India can do it, I am sure any other hacker can as well and cause much more serious harm than merely showing ads.
Please, you sound like the lapdog. Google didn’t find an exploit; they EXPLOITED the hole someone else found.
Are you trying to contradict me or agreeing with me 😉
I mentioned the blogger in India who found the exploit and you seem to agree that an exploit does exist in Safari. I have no love lost for Google either.
So whose lapdog are you accusing me of being? Not seeing the logic here (or is that just a result of a momentary hole in your reason).
maintain an account in facebook privacy is very important for the safety of each person,
Zoe-juegos de cocina
All this brouhaha has altered my social browsing habits. In iOS and OS X I use a secondary browser dedicated to social site browsing, and nothing more. The paid version of Fluid works to keep social cookies private from other browsing as well. Oh, and I shut down my Google+ account. I don’t want to have to worry about this stuff when I’m using the web!