I also see the shenanigans of adding new 'privacy' settings and setting them open by default. Another typical Microsoft ploy by the way.
Previously they’d take your LinkedIn password and try using that to log in to your email account to grab your contacts.
And I kinda get it, some services external to your bank can help you manage your finances etc. But it's why banks should offer APIs where the user can set limited and timed access to these services. In Europe this is PSD2 (Revised Payment Services Directive).
In light of that, perhaps reevaluate their ATT efforts as far less about meaningful privacy and far more about stealing $10B a year or so from Facebook.
A perfectly privacy respecting app store isn't going to do any good if it doesn't have any apps. Just look at f-droid. Most (all?) of the apps there might be privacy respecting, but good luck getting any of the popular apps (eg. facebook, tiktok, google maps) on there.
>In light of that, perhaps reevaluate their ATT efforts as far less about meaningful privacy and far more about stealing $10B a year or so from Facebook.
What would make you think Apple's pro-privacy changes aren't "about stealing $10B a year or so from Facebook"? At least some people are willing to pay for more privacy, and pro-changes hurts advertisers, so basically any pro-privacy change can be construed as "less about meaningful privacy and far more about stealing".
That makes sense, considering they’re not privacy respecting.
40 years ago apps were sold on floppy disks. 30 years ago they were sold on CD-ROMs. 20 years ago, DVDs.
Online-only apps are a recent thing. A privacy respecting app store certainly can be a thing. Apps being blocked or banned from stores for choosing to not respect your privacy is a good thing.
I'm not sure you're trying say. I specifically acknowledged the existence of f-droid as a "privacy respecting app store" in the quoted comment.
>Apps choosing to not respect your privacy, and being blocked or banned from stores, is a good thing.
"a good thing" doesn't mean much when most people haven't even heard of your app store, and are missing out on all the popular apps that people want. Idealism doesn't mean much when nobody is using it. Apple might not be the paragon of privacy, but they had a greater impact on user privacy than f-droid ever will. To reiterate OP's point: what's the point of having a perfectly private OS and app store, when there's no apps for it, and your normie friends/relatives are going to sell you out anyways by uploading their entire contact list and photos (both with you in it) to google and meta?
Sorry, that's nonsensical, unless you mean a negative impact. Apple's privacy is pretend only, as this article makes quite clear.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
This wording is actually a lot weaker than I remember it back when I wrote iOS apps. The developer also was not allowed to exit the app or close it against the user’s intent, however I can’t find that rule anymore.
> For example, if a user declines to share Location, offer the ability to manually enter an address.
This is a reasonable ability, but I think that the operating system should handle it anyways. When it asks for permission for your location, in addition to "allow" and "deny", you can select "manually enter location" and "custom" (the "custom" option would allow the user to specify their own program for handling access to that specific permission (or to simulate error conditions such as no signal); possibly the setting menu can have an option for "show advanced options" before "custom" will be displayed, if you think it would otherwise make it too complicated).
> that include the ability to post photos to a social network must not also require microphone access before allowing the user to upload photos
This is reasonable, that apps should not be allowed to require microphone access for such a thing.
However, sometimes a warning message makes sense but then to allow it anyways even if permission is not granted; e.g. for a video recording program, it might display a message about "Warning: microphone permission is not allowed for this app; if you proceed without enabling the microphone permission, the audio will not be recorded." Something similar would also apply if you denied camera permission but allowed microphone permission; in that case, only audio will be recorded. It might refuse to work if both permissions are denied, though.
It's kind of weird that Apple introduced this big fat tracking consent popup, but they don't really do anything to actually prevent cross-app tracking...
I'm always wondering why these idiots force the creation of an account with their direct competitor. It's the only app I have that does this. But anyway I don't use their app for that reason, only use them a bit through API.
I used that when submitting parental leave at work. I didn't want to provide full access to all my photos and files for work, so all they got was a folder with a pic of a birth certificate.
Apple is also pushing developers toward using native picker components. That way, you don't need to request consent at all, as you only get access to the specific object that the user has picked using a secure system component.
This is an interesting contrast with the earlier philosophy of phone OSes that the file system is confusing to users and they should never be allowed to see it.
From an user perspective, photos aren't files. Music isn't files. Contacts aren't files. Apps aren't files. App data isn't files.
The only things that "walk like a file and quack like a file" are documents, downloads, contents of external storage, network drives and cloud drives, and some Airdrop transfers.
Yes, it's technically possible to use the files app to store photos, music etc, but if you do that, "you're holding it wrong."
There's also the fact hardware remote attestation is creeping into the Android ecosystem. There's absolutely no way to daily drive something like GrapheneOS if essential services such as banks and messaging services start discriminating against you on the basis of it. Aw shucks looks like your phone has been tampered with so we're just gonna deny you access to your account, try again later on a corporation owned phone.
GrapheneOS is amazing from a security and privacy perspective but it doesn't matter. The corporations will not tolerate it because it works against their interests. They will ban you from their services for using it. Unlike Google and Apple, they have no leverage with which to force the corporations to accept terms unfavorable to them.
But it's only available in China.
https://tinyapps.org/blog/202209100700_ios_disable_wifi_per_...
Its not. Apple still owns your stuff. There is no difference between Apple and other 3p retailers. Apple just wants more of your money.
That could be taken to mean anywhere between "Apple controls the software on your iPhone, therefore they control your contacts" and "Apple gives out your data like the data brokers mentioned in the OP". The former wouldn't be surprising at all, and most people would be happy with, and the latter would be scandalous if proven. What specifically are you arguing for?
Remember, the big celebrity photo leak happened because of a vulnerability within Apple Software.
>The images were initially believed to have been obtained via a breach of Apple's cloud services suite iCloud,[1][2] or a security issue in the iCloud API which allowed them to make unlimited attempts at guessing victims' passwords.[3][4] Apple claimed in a press release that access was gained via spear phishing attacks.[5][6]
Regardless of their security practices, it's a stretch to equate getting hacked with knowingly making available data. Moreover you can opt out of icloud backup, unlike with whatever is happening with apps mentioned in the OP.
GrapheneOS, which I use, also has contact scopes, so troublesome apps that refuse to work without access will think they have full access. You can allow them to see no contacts or a small subset.
There's also multiple user profiles, a "private space", and a work profile (shelter) that you can install an app into, which can be completely isolated from your main profile, so no contacts.
It surprises me how far behind iOS is with this stuff. Recently I wanted to install a second instance of an app on my wife's iPhone so she could use multiple logins simultaneously, there didn't really seem to be a way to do it.
A relative did a genealogy test through ancestry.com and suddenly I'm doxed for all eternity.
I do agree that iOS is behind by not providing profiles and multiple isolated installations of apps, and it would be great if it did.
E.g.: I might be okay with sharing a friend's phone number or email, but I don't want to share their photo, dob, home address, etc.
So in case Apple allowed for “share all” it means that they did it by design and are changing it now only because of backlash.
>As soon as your cousin clicks "Yes, I would like to share the entire contents of my contacts with you" when they launch TikTok your name, phone number, email etc are all in the crowd.
Fortunately this is changing with iOS 18 with "limited contacts" sharing.
https://mobiledevmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image.p...
The interface also seems specifically designed to push people to allow only a subset of contacts, rather than blindly clicking "allow all".
The far bigger issue is the contact info you share with online retailers. Scraping contact info through apps is very visible, drawing flak from the media and consumers. Most of the time all you get is a name (could be a nickname), and maybe some combination of phone/email/address, depending on how diligent the person in filling out all the fields. On the other hand placing any sort of order online requires you to provide your full name, address, phone number, and email address. You can also be reasonably certain that they're all accurate, because they're plausibly required for delivery/billing purposes. Such data can also be surreptitiously fed to data brokers behind the scenes, without an obvious "tiktok would like access to your contacts" modal.