Et Tu, Procter and Gamble?

Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by pornel on Saturday April 10, 2021 @08:16AM (#26760939)

Apps are heavily sandboxed. iOS controls all local information they can access, so Apple is in position to fight this.

It doesn't need to be perfect. Only hard enough that apps have to resort to more desperate techniques, so that they're detectable and Apple can ban them for trying.

Overall I don't like Apple's sandbox and total control over iOS, but it exists, and in this case at least they can use their power for something good.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by CyberRabbi on Saturday April 10, 2021 @08:51AM (#26761112)

The point of the article is exactly that it isn’t 100% perfect and this slight imperfection has allowed companies like P&G to take advantage of that for large-scale privacy violation. From the article:

   The whack-a-mole1 aspect of Apple’s new privacy rules is that while Apple can restrict access to the API that provides access to the IDFA identifier, clever developers can find (perhaps infinite) other ways to combine things they do have access to into a unique, or even just “close enough to unique to be useful for tracking”, identifier. IP addresses, to name just one example, are a big factor that Apple can’t block would-be-trackers from using.

[ Parent | on HN ]