←back to thread

1957 points apokryptein | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qingcharles ◴[] No.42911578[source]
One big privacy issue is that there is no sane way to protect your contact details from being sold, regardless of what you do.

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.

And I buy this stuff. Every time I need customer service and I'm getting stonewalled I just go onto a marketplace, find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone. (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)

replies(33): >>42911665 #>>42911679 #>>42911714 #>>42911768 #>>42911810 #>>42911853 #>>42911874 #>>42912408 #>>42912465 #>>42912852 #>>42912979 #>>42913150 #>>42913418 #>>42913708 #>>42913974 #>>42914004 #>>42914803 #>>42914807 #>>42915963 #>>42916052 #>>42916619 #>>42916711 #>>42916764 #>>42917374 #>>42918405 #>>42918914 #>>42918920 #>>42920277 #>>42920369 #>>42920873 #>>42920949 #>>42940036 #>>42967302 #
gruez ◴[] No.42911768[source]
>One big privacy issue is that there is no sane way to protect your contact details from being sold, regardless of what you do.

>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.

replies(8): >>42911926 #>>42912101 #>>42912892 #>>42913397 #>>42915871 #>>42915947 #>>42916008 #>>42916767 #
x0x0 ◴[] No.42912101[source]
I think it's not properly appreciated that Apple fully endorses all of this. For two reasons: (1) the provision of the output of billions of dollars of developer time to their users for no up front cost (made back via ads) is super valuable to their platform; and (2) they uniquely could stop this (at the price of devastating their app store), but choose not to.

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.

replies(1): >>42912373 #
gruez ◴[] No.42912373{3}[source]
>I think it's not properly appreciated that Apple fully endorses all of this. [...] they uniquely could stop this (at the price of devastating their app store), but choose not to.

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".

replies(3): >>42912776 #>>42914059 #>>42914097 #
inetknght ◴[] No.42914097{4}[source]
> A perfectly privacy respecting app store isn't going to do any good if it doesn't have any apps.

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.

replies(2): >>42914344 #>>42915212 #
1. gruez ◴[] No.42914344{5}[source]
>Online-only apps are a recent thing. A privacy respecting app store certainly can be a 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?

replies(1): >>42922198 #
2. x0x0 ◴[] No.42922198[source]
> [Apple] had a greater impact on user privacy than f-droid ever will.

Sorry, that's nonsensical, unless you mean a negative impact. Apple's privacy is pretend only, as this article makes quite clear.