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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @12:53PM (2 children)
Please don't call them EU warnings. The EU law doesn't require warnings, it simply forbids setting cookies without consent.
1: They set cookies before even showing the warning.
2: They don't have a no button. Refusing to accept a no is not consent. Ask any feminist if in doubt.
3: Even if you don't click yes, they just say that you accept anyway. That's not legal in the EU. It may or may not be in the US.
If you want to call them anything EU related, call them those "we refuse to follow EU law" warnings.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:10PM
Actually, the EU law forbids setting tracking cookies without consent and goes to quite a length to define exactly what is allowed. 99% of the sites that prompt you about cookies do not need to do so: As long as the cookie is only used to store state for visitors to a single site, they're fine.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @03:09PM
I guess most of those are actually "we don't really have a clue, but we heard somewhere that the EU requires us to show a warning if we set cookies so here it is"-warnings.