Strava, a social media app for exercise, has selective access to "health" data about exercise stored on the phone, but that's the closest I can think of.
I am completely unfamiliar with what that implies or what access would actually be allowed, but I can see how that would raise concern.
An altruistic guess -- maybe another way for them to achieve geolocation if other methods are hindered?
So what are we really talking about here?
The very first thing in the listing for the app in the AppStore. Why are you so obtuse to this?
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/threads-an-instagram-app/id644...
DATA LINKED TO YOU The following data may be collected and linked to your identity:
Health & Fitness Purchases Financial Info Location Contact Info Contacts User Content Search History Browsing History Identifiers Usage Data Sensitive Info Diagnostics Other Data
Think instead of all the data that all huge number of advertising networks, like the one paying qz.com's bills, that have massive hoards of data about you, without your consent, that gets bought and sold every single day.
This is not a trivial distinction! The health data on an iPhone is secure, and Threads is not getting access to it. What this is talking about is Threads linking up with all the data that all the other advertisers are already doing!
I deleted my Facebook account circa 2012 when I heard what some of their ML engineers were up to at a casual meet up, like geolocation all photos and and doing facial recognition to place which bars everyone had been in over the weekend. Back then, before the deep learning revolution, this was a mind-blowing capability. These days, I have no idea what ad networks are up to but rest assured, by getting all of HN to load the ads that are served from qz.com the advertisers have now gained far more than they did when I installed Threads (because I already have an instagram account and that does all these same things. Five years after deleting my Facebook account I was ready to give in because the rest of the networks had the data anyway).
Because you became weak and caved does not mean the rest of have to give in as well. I have never created an IG account, nor will I be using Threads. I abhor Meta, and will never allow their apps to be installed on my devices. Your cavalier attitude about your data is your business, and my attitude is polar opposite. You coming in and trying to white knight the Threads listing as "nothing to see here, move along" is just this side of being a Meta shill. Some of us still have principles.
If you care about privacy, then you should care about the specifics of how it is being abused so that you can defend against it. So you should care that the health data is not coming fro, your phone, it's coming from the massive databases of information that Facebook/Meta and toooooooons of other companies have on you and sell trade and swap.
If you care only should maligning Threads, then continue to obscure the threat to privacy and how the massive network of advertisers is monetizing your health data against your will. Because bringing up laws about banning apps from taking your health data from your mobile phone, which is what spawned this thread, will only detract from efforts to improve privacy, because it would do nothing to 8pm rove privacy here.
So instead of insulting me and throwing around fake "white knight" allegations, at least try to keep up with the conversation.
I don't even see an option to give it access to health information, which is tightly controlled on iOS.
An incorrect interpretation, sure, but not one you have to be dumb to make.
This information is provided by the app developer; in this case Meta are telling Apple they use your health data and Apple is merely showing that information in the App Store.
How so? There is no hidden meaning here; Facebook are simply telling Apple that they will access your health information, and Apple is passing that information along. There’s no misinterpretation. The fact that the app doesn’t currently request this information is immaterial – Facebook are saying they will. The straightforward interpretation of the privacy card is the correct one.
In this case Facebook appear to have simply ticked every possible box for data collection regardless of whether the app actually does it or not. Note you can't just get health data on iOS without asking, so people would notice if they tried. My guess is that actually figuring out what they do/don't collect was too hard, so they just said yes to everything.
Seriously I could barely even find the claim you speak of, when every other sentence is punctuated by a half-screen advertisement.
Why accept the claims of such obvious click-bait without evidence? There's no reason to believe anything said in the article, particularly when it's claims can easily be checked and shown to be false.
This is data that is linked to you, and the spamminess of the ads on qz.com is likely doing far more invasion of people's privacy than Threads could even dream of.
This comment thread was about Threads taking health data "from your phone," Which is does not do, and which that sceeenshot does not say it does.
This sort of data linking is absolutely pervasive in the web advertising industry, and it is bad. But let's not falsely say it's coming from the store of data on your phone, it's coming from advertising networks like those that pay for qz.com's hosting bills and profits.
If I want to disable all the toggles and have a non-functioning app, I’d be ok with that. At least I could selectively enable the bare minimum and then have a more deliberate decision regarding how much of my privacy I want to give away, rather than what an app developer might be hungry for (and not actually need).
Threads is currently not available in Europe because its privacy policy isn't compliant with EU law, that's literally what the article is about. We're not talking about individual choice here, or absolutists behind Tor. I don't understand what your post has to do with the topic. Clearly we have with privacy legislation at least accomplished that Meta must follow the rules or not operate here.
You're right that individual users agreeing with TOS's is meaningless, but we've been beyond that for years.
I don't think the severity of tracking is important when comparing insta vs threads, just the inertia of an old vs new product.
Now if you are saying there is no willpower to follow through over the long arc aka this fight is over and lost, then I disagree but could be wrong.
The reality is that the privacy policy will almost never be a determining factor in whether somebody will use a service. The Facebook haters on HN were never gonna use a Facebook product anyways, regardless of what the policy said, and the same goes for the people that are happily using threads now. Does the privacy absolutist who refuses to do anything outside of a VM behind Tor exist? Of course, but not in any meaningful amount for it to matter.
The people closely reading terms of services and opting out of arbitration provisions or whatever are wasting their times with busywork. It's doing work that feels meaningful and feels like giving it to the man without actually accomplishing much of anything.