You have control over your data: you can choose whether GasBuddy has access to your location always, never, or only during use.

This is one case where iOS widgets can impact your privacy: setting it to 'only during use' also qualifies the widget to refresh your location when it displays. It's not obvious to me whether any access of the widget screen is sufficient or whether you have to scroll past/to the GasBuddy widget to explicitly trigger that.

Anyway, Apple has been a loud advocate for privacy, and its CEO has strong personal reasons for valuing it.

>its CEO has strong personal reasons for valuing [privacy]

I don't know what this is referring to, could you please share?

A gay man raised in Alabama.

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/15...

He's gay.

> They allow apps like gas buddy to wholesale sell your real time location…

You control this. I don't recall whether this app supports "Never" as a Privacy > Location Services choice, but you can choose "While Using" instead of "Always".

The developer doesn't get to choose not to support 'Never' and with iOS 11 doesn't get to choose not to support 'While using' either. It maybe though that the app can't work without knowing your location, which sounds likely for an app that is supposed to tell you something related to your location.

You _really_ control this. If you don't like Gas Buddy's privacy policy just don't install it.

My thoughts exactly. When I don't like something an app is doing I don't install it. I remember when I'd try free games on Android that requested every permission under the sun I would not install those apps. I've even seen some apps share in the description "Removed the crazy permissions due to complaints, sorry guys did not mean to upset you" or something along those lines. So sometimes it's not malicious, but it is scary that an offline only game needs so much access to your phone.

"Never" is always an option from my experience. I have never seen an app that doesn't allow to completely deny location access.

> I have never seen an app that doesn't allow to completely deny location access.

That's because Apple explicitly tests for that during app review, and will reject apps which crash or refuse to work if they're denied access to Location Services or other APIs (photos, contacts, microphone, etc).

So this is a non-issue. But technically, even if an app slips through the cracks and only allows "Always" and "While using the app" as options, you can force-quit the app without pressing either of the buttons on the modal and then deleting the app, thus not giving it any location information.

> ...even if an app slips through the cracks and only allows "Always" and "While using the app" as options...

It can't. The permissions UI is rendered by the OS, not by the application. There's no way to hide the option to deny permissions.

Based on your previous reply I thought that the lack of apps that require location was due to Apple’s review process and not the fact that the “Never” button can’t be disabled.

It's both. If your app doesn't work properly when a user taps the "Never" button (which you can't get rid of), Apple rejects it.

This is a new feature in iOS 11.

> Apples fake privacy concerns.

Apple has been a loud, proven advocate and supporter of Privacy. This comment is all snark and nothing factual.

They have been loud, but it remains to be proven. The truth is that we don't really know what they do with our data.

Telling the FBI to bugger off when they came and asked apple to crack their own encryption isn't enough of an example, exigent as it may very well be, whatever your personal opinions of due process are?

No? Facebook and Google also refuse to crack their own encryption, but are still privacy concerns.

I'm extremely glad they did that, and I absolutely give them credit for it. But it only proves that they were willing to stand up to the FBI. It doesn't prove anything else about how they handle your data and privacy. I'm not saying that they abuse it, I'm just saying that we don't know what they do.

All we can do is look at the information so far and it indicates they care about privacy: https://www.apple.com/privacy/ and more specifically https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-request...

Well, that isn't nearly all of the information. That is what they say, just like FB says they they don't abuse your privacy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...

They have already shown that they are willing to violate people's privacy. That is useful information.

So if you're not going to take it straight from the horses mouth, what then is your complaint and how can anyone ever hope to resolve it?

This isn't personal, I just find it increasingly odd when people in online discussions gripe about company not doing x, is then shown clear examples of x and coping back with "that's what they want you to believe" or when asking for an example, is given one and backpedal saying "that doesn't meet these new criteria that weren't up for discussion from the start"

It boggles my mind.

If you won't offer concessions when evidence comes straight from the source what evidence will you?

And I find it insanely naive that anyone would believe what comes from the horses mouth, especially when they don't provide any evidence. Companies say things all the time that aren't true, and I find it silly to believe giant PR groups.

I'm not saying that they violate your privacy, I'm only saying that we don't know what they do with your data, thus we don't know if they protect your privacy or not.

My complaint is easily solvable: Allow me to set up and use a phone/laptop in such a way that they can't violate my privacy.

Is there ANY evidence that they don’t do what their privacy policy says they do?

Since I can't edit my last reply, and I misread this originally: No, I don't have any evidence that they do. Nor am I saying that they violate their privacy policy. I'm simply saying that we don't know what they do with their user's data.

Yeah, there is: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...

That is proof that Apple follows local laws. Just like every other American company doing business in China.

For instance, Microsoft.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/china/china-overview-...

And?

A privacy violation via legal means is still a privacy violation. I fully acknowledge that we don't know what Microsoft does with our data either.

Their specific question was if you had evidence of apple violating their own privacy policy. I'd agree that what they're doing is unethical, but it's not done secretly, and I'd expect that in China their privacy policy makes this clear.

Do you have evidence of Apple violating their privacy policy?

Actually, you are correct, I apologize. I mis-read the question and no, I don't have any evidence of Apple violating their privacy policy. But that's not what I'm stating. I'm only stating that we don't know what they do with our data.

from downvotes on this, gotta love the fanboys take on those issues.

> > app steals user data

> jusy deny gps access or never install it

and then

> > apple throws chinese reporters under the bus

> they are just complying with local law.

like they didn't have an option of not doing business there.

Technically speaking, they have the option. Practically speaking, they do not have an option.

I don't see why not. Plenty of other organizations work that way. Why can't Apple?

Apple’s a publicly-held company, and China is among the largest markets for consumer electronics. Apple’s shareholders wouldn’t be too pleased if Apple simply said “nah” to such a market, and Apple’s obligations are ultimately to its shareholders.

The situation might be different if Apple was a different kind of company, but it is what it is.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Prioritizing your users is completely an option. This is simply a choice in which Apple chooses money over it's users.

Do you want less or more user control? Or should Apple control everything? I'm certainly not a fan of Apple but I respect their ability to mostly just stick the to basics of you give me $100 and I give you this product of equal (sic) value.