Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 17 2017, @11:35PM   Printer-friendly
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.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/ad-industry-deeply-concerned-about-safaris-new-ad-tracking-restrictions/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @10:43AM (8 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 18 2017, @10:43AM (#569689) Homepage Journal

    That would be both this one [ietf.org] and the even older de facto standard implemented by Netscape in 1994 and used by every browser with more than three users since 1995.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:12PM (7 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Monday September 18 2017, @01:12PM (#569735) Journal
    The standard that says:

    User agents should allow the user to control cookie destruction.

    Followed almost immediately by:

    One possible implementation would be an interface that allows the permanent storage of a cookie through a checkbox (or, conversely, its immediate destruction).

    Sounds like Apple's implementation is exactly what the standard permits.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @01:33PM (6 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 18 2017, @01:33PM (#569738) Homepage Journal

      In fact, no. That is not what it looks like. Defaulting to destroying them after X-time-period is not remotely what that looks like. That looks precisely like letting the user do what they damned well please but defaulting to storing cookies until their expiration time.

      If you don't like the standard, get the standard changed. This ain't politics though so don't go trying to redefine things to suit yourself, meaning be damned.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @02:25PM (1 child)

        by TheRaven (270) on Monday September 18 2017, @02:25PM (#569750) Journal
        Okay, so we've established that you can't read standards, even when the relevant parts are quoted for you. I don't think there's any more of value to say on this topic.
        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @02:37PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 18 2017, @02:37PM (#569753) Homepage Journal

          I was going to say the same of you. My statement would have the benefit of actually being true though. You're attempting to twist a well-documented standard to mean something entirely other than what it means. You sound like SCOTUS talking about the Commerce Clause.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:41PM (#569754)

        Let me highlight the relevant part for you:

        One possible implementation would be an interface that allows the permanent storage of a cookie through a checkbox (or, conversely, its immediate destruction).

        If the checkbox allows it, then it is disallowed by default. Therefore an implementation that defaults to not permanently storing a cookie is explicitly permitted.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:12PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:12PM (#569927)

        What I see in Cookie Management:

        Because user agents have finite space in which to store cookies, they
              may also discard older cookies to make space for newer ones, using,
              for example, a least-recently-used algorithm, along with constraints
              on the maximum number of cookies that each origin server may set.

        This explicitly states that the user agent (I assume this means browser) may discard old cookies. It gives an example of a "least-recently-used" algorithm, but an "anything older than a day" algorithm would still fit with this statement.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @09:21PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 18 2017, @09:21PM (#569931) Homepage Journal

          to make space for newer ones

          If that were why they were dropping them after N hours, that would be fine. It's not. Not even sort of. Their explicitly stated purpose is other than resource management and thus breaks the standard. Period. End of story.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.