SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-the-advertisers-don't-like-it,-it-sounds-like-a-good-idea dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow5743
Apple's limits on tracking will "sabotage the economic model for the Internet."
Apple's latest operating systems for the Mac and iPhone will soon be rolling out, and with that comes new restrictions on ad-tracking in the Safari browser. Adding a 24-hour limit on ad targeting cookies is good for privacy under Apple's new "Intelligent Tracking Prevention" feature. But if you're an advertiser, the macOS High Sierra and iOS 11 Safari browsers spell gloom and doom for the Internet as we know it. The reason is because Safari is making it harder for advertisers to follow users as they surf the Internet—and that will dramatically reduce the normal bombardment of ads reflecting the sites Internet surfers have visited earlier. Six major advertising groups have just published an open letter blasting the new tracking restrictions Apple unveiled in June. They say they are "deeply concerned" about them:
The infrastructure of the modern Internet depends on consistent and generally applicable standards for cookies, so digital companies can innovate to build content, services, and advertising that are personalized for users and remember their visits. Apple's Safari move breaks those standards and replaces them with an amorphous set of shifting rules that will hurt the user experience and sabotage the economic model for the Internet.
Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful.
The letter is signed by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the Data & Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and the Network Advertising Initiative.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @10:01AM (11 children)
Most importantly, from the PRIVACY section:
I.e. the user agent (browser) is free to discard cookies at any time before their expiration date (though it is required to discard them at this point) and may present any UI for doing so (for example, a checkbox saying 'delete tracking cookies from scumbags automatically' is fine). I used the Self Destructing Cookies plugin with Firefox on Android for quite a while to do exactly this: it deletes cookies as soon as you leave a site (and deletes known tracking cookies almost immediately) and stores them in a separate location where the user can explicitly undelete them (if they actually are useful, for example the login here).
The real problem with this is that it's probably already too late. Advertisers are now using far more subtle fingerprinting mechanisms than cookies and this can't be fixed easily by the browser.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @10:54AM (10 children)
Emphasis mine.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @11:37AM (9 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @11:50AM (8 children)
I'm exceedingly dubious that resources were their motivation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:04PM (7 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @01:37PM (6 children)
You're twisting meaning to suit yourself. Stop that.
Users are free, and always have been, to take affirmative actions that are not standards compliant. The RFC even acknowledges this. User agents are not. Not without violating the standard.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:58PM (5 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @02:17PM (4 children)
Which is fine as I've repeatedly said.
Bullshit someone else. There is no possible way that cookies could become a resource issue on any modern, or even quite old, computer. Any resource policy that says otherwise has nothing to do with resource allocation at all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:38PM (3 children)
The hoops you will jump through to try to color this as against the standards is sickening TMB.
I honestly don't think you have a horse in this race except you refuse to admit when you are wrong.
YOU ARE WRONG SLUGGER.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @10:41PM (2 children)
A most well thought out and insightful rebuttal. I stand corrected and humiliated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)
No point in rehashing the same thing you ignore above champ. At some point you just got to call someone out for being wrong and leave it there.
You can lead a horse to water and all that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 19 2017, @05:17PM
Nice excuse but all the excuses in the world won't make a privacy policy into a resources policy. I'm afraid you're just going to have to crank your denial up to 11 or live with all that fail.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.