Facebook takes out full-page ads slamming Apple's iOS 14 anti-tracking feature

midian182

Posts: 9,662   +121
Staff member
What just happened? When big tech companies attack each other publicly, they make a lot of noise about it. Just look at Facebook, which has lambasted Apple, again, in a series of full-page newspaper ads, claiming the privacy changes in iOS 14 will damage small businesses that rely on targeted advertising.

The privacy feature set to appear in iOS and iPadOS 14 has already caused concern among Facebook- and Google-backed firms whose ads track users across apps and websites to create detailed profiles and targeted ads. Essentially, the feature requires developers to detail how their apps collect and use data while also requesting users' permission.

The data transparency feature was supposed to be implemented in September's release of iOS 14, but Apple decided to delay its arrival until early next year so developers have more time to prepare---likely prompted by the outcry from companies such as Facebook. The postponement resulted in a letter addressed to Tim Cook from a coalition of civil and human rights organizations expressing their disappointment.

The delay didn't appease the social network, which is running full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal calling the changes "devastating for small businesses" that rely on personalized ads for sales. Facebook's message includes an address for its "speak up for small business" site, where business owners can vent against the iOS changes.

The Verge notes that Apple's new App Store Privacy labels arrived this week, highlighting how iOS apps use people's data. Facebook's entry is so long it reaches across several pages.

Apple's senior developer of global privacy, Jane Horvath, said the upcoming anti-tracking feature isn't designed to prevent advertising, but is way of encouraging advertising that respects user privacy on the same level as Apple.

Facebook is unlikely to find a lot of sympathy from everyday users who don't want their browsing habits tracked across the internet. It's also strange to see the company apparently stand up for the little guy so soon after the FTC and attorneys general from 48 states and territories filed two separate lawsuits against it for alleged anti-competitive conduct.

Permalink to story.

 
Even though I applaud Apple for protecting the user's privacy and yes f u Facebook.

But Apple needs to stop their draconian BS at their apps store.

They havent provided any logical or good reason to block SteamLink, Stadia and Xcloud.

Yes, I'm aware of the workaround using web apps, but thats an excuse, not a solution.
 
Is apple even preventing Facebook from continuing to operate as they always have so long as they inform and get permission from owner of the device they are tracking?

If so, is their defense really just "well small businesses benefit from our tracking you without your consent, so we should he able to continue to do it"?

Because if so I dunno why they wasted they money on ads.
 
I love it how Apple is trying to care about their user's privacy but ignoring the fact that their products are made with slave labor!
 
Apple isn't stop facebook practices. They are only force Facebook to have transparency and getting permission from user for what they are do. I don't seeing problem with that.
 
I applaud Apple, and despise apple in the same breath. I like that they're tackling application tracking for the standard home user. But in a business environment where corporations need to monitor every endpoint to comply with government audits, that also means endpoint management, antivirus, data loss prevention, and even VPN software needs permission from the user to run in the background. There are ways around some of this by joining endpoints into a MDM, but it's been one hell of a year to even attempt to bring such a project into our business environment. I'm relying on employees to click prompts that I have no remote control over, and from a corporate perspective, that's just asking for a security breach.
 
I am happy to see Facebook finally supporting print publications with its advertising dollars.... Doesn't mean that I will get a FB account, though.
 
Aww... Facebook can't steal our private data without knowing that they're doing it. My heart bleeds.

NOT!!!

Facebook, go f**k yourselves!!! My private data is my private data, you have no right to it unless I say so. And I don't say so.
 
So difficult to pick a side in a case between two of the most morally bankrupt organisations...
Is it though? I don't like apple, nor do I have any apple products. However I just can't understand why anyone other than Facebook would be opposed to Facebook having to disclose what they do with the access they have to consumer devices.

Seriously, I just don't understand why Facebook thinks they can win the public opinion on this.
 
Is it though? I don't like apple, nor do I have any apple products. However I just can't understand why anyone other than Facebook would be opposed to Facebook having to disclose what they do with the access they have to consumer devices.

Seriously, I just don't understand why Facebook thinks they can win the public opinion on this.
Human rights, The Environment, Paying Taxes at every turn Apple prove themselves to be utterly morally bankrupt, but yes in this case I agree it is difficult to see what public sympathy Facebook think they might garner.
 
I applaud Apple, and despise apple in the same breath. I like that they're tackling application tracking for the standard home user. But in a business environment where corporations need to monitor every endpoint to comply with government audits, that also means endpoint management, antivirus, data loss prevention, and even VPN software needs permission from the user to run in the background. There are ways around some of this by joining endpoints into a MDM, but it's been one hell of a year to even attempt to bring such a project into our business environment. I'm relying on employees to click prompts that I have no remote control over, and from a corporate perspective, that's just asking for a security breach.
That’s entirely the problem of your business you are working for.
They (senior management) simply can’t understand even if you explain it in layman’s terms what MDM does (Jamf/Airwatch) and why is it helpful for the business (productivity tool) and IT while they have to spend less time with troubleshooting permissions and new app/OS version issues...not to mention zero touch deploy...etc
Hope this will get resolved within your business ;)
When finally we had permission and budget, my previous workplace scrapped this plan due to COVID :D
 
Human rights, The Environment, Paying Taxes at every turn Apple prove themselves to be utterly morally bankrupt
I doubt you can support any of those claims -- with the possible exception of their careful reading of the tax code so as to not pay more than the legal minimum. But unless you yourself write a check to the IRS every year for more than what you actually owe, I don't believe you can criticize them for that.
 
Human rights, The Environment, Paying Taxes at every turn Apple prove themselves to be utterly morally bankrupt, but yes in this case I agree it is difficult to see what public sympathy Facebook think they might garner.

It should be noted that money in and of itself has no morals or ethics. It seems the same holds true for shareholders, and by extension the company they hold shares in. Until one can imbue an inanimate object with humanistic traits (or animate objects, such as shareholders...), this will not change.
 
I applaud Apple, and despise apple in the same breath. I like that they're tackling application tracking for the standard home user. But in a business environment where corporations need to monitor every endpoint to comply with government audits, that also means endpoint management, antivirus, data loss prevention, and even VPN software needs permission from the user to run in the background.
I would argue that:
A.) To the extent this is the case I would very much prefer the Fed relax their regulations to the point it doesn't necessitate a complete disregard for its citizens privacy.

B.) If for whatever reason these regulations and monitoring standards are essential then the company in question should be providing and maintaining whatever equipment is being monitored. Then IT can always take the device and do whatever is required.

There are ways around some of this by joining endpoints into a MDM, but it's been one hell of a year to even attempt to bring such a project into our business environment. I'm relying on employees to click prompts that I have no remote control over, and from a corporate perspective, that's just asking for a security breach.

Not if failure to click the prompt results in the inability to access the data your trying to secure.

I fully appreciate that companies are put in ridiculous situations regarding regulations that in some instances are quite literally impossible to follow. However I'm definitely not on board with the: "Hey this stuff is so complicated your just going to have to trust us to do whatever we want to your personal device." solution.
 
Back