Apple Responds to iTunes Spying Allegations

This is just fud by filenavigator · 2006-01-12 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This spying news with iTunes sounds more like jealous FUD coming from their competitors.

Re:This is just fud by MountainMan101 · 2006-01-12 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

The info it was supposedly spying on (what music you bought - it was used to make suggestions for other people) can be obtained perfectly easily by logging your purchases. For example Amazon offers me "suggested titles" and also uses my purchases to tell others "people who bought ... also bought ...", and they do that without using spyware to look at my bookshelf :-)

Now if iTunes spied on the music you ripped then that might be news, but still not that important. I mean all they'll do is say "people who have Take That mp3s also buy other tasteless crap" etc.

In short, yes, FUD.
Re:This is just fud by StupidHelpDeskGuy · 2006-01-12 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are mistaken. It collects information about music in your library, not just what you've purchased.
Re:This is just fud by yobjob · 2006-01-12 04:37 · Score: 1, Funny

This sounds like sneaky marketing for Apple's upcoming iSpy product.

--
Czech language for absolute beginners
Re:This is just fud by Basehart · 2006-01-12 04:38 · Score: 0

It doesn't look at stuff you ripped yourself. Only the purchases you made from the iTunes store.
Re:This is just fud by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 04:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Oh yes it does. ANY song that you select, whether one you bought or one you ripped yourself will cause the mini-store to update with other products from the same artist.

But so what? It can be a useful feature. If you don't want it, it's 1 click to turn it off. At which point, no more queries will be made of the Apple store for the artist name. Problem solved.
Re:This is just fud by StupidHelpDeskGuy · 2006-01-12 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

The issue is, that the music I rip personally, is none of Apple's business. They are free to recommend based on what I've purchased, or even browsed, but not what I've personally ripped. It's an invasion of privacy, especially if it's not mentioned in the EULA.
Re:This is just fud by krakelohm · 2006-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

If it bothers you so, disable.

--
You are all a bunch of idots.
Re:This is just fud by Golias · 2006-01-12 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want the tool to look at what I actually listen to, not just what I buy from them. It's far more likely to give me good suggestions that way.

This tool looks at what song is currently playing, and suggests possible other albums you might like. It's actually kind of nice, when you want to use it, and does nothing when you don't. Win.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:09 · Score: 0

This isn't the first time that software doing this has been called spyware. Realplayer tried this and faced hell for it. But because Apple has such a cult fanbase I guess they'll react blindly to Apple blatantly overstepping their bounds here. When they send usage data so they can target you with ads without telling you and make it opt-out, it's spyware with a pretty face.
Re:This is just fud by GoodOmens · 2006-01-12 05:12 · Score: 1

I agree completly. Itunes is completly free. All Apple is trying to do is generate more itunes music store purchases by making the choices more relevant to what your currently listening to.

Google has done the same thing with adsense by taking what your searching for and displaying adds relevant to what your looking for.

This will blow over real soon as its not a big deal. If you really care about it, I would suggest disabling the feature or using a product from a company / group that is not trying to make a profit (ie open source).

I still will use and love itunes!
Re:This is just fud by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 05:15 · Score: 0, Troll

Explain what harm it causes you. Otherwise this is just hysterical whining.
Re:This is just fud by BrettJB · 2006-01-12 05:17 · Score: 1

Yes, it does look at what you've ripped too. Test it yourself: create a smart playlist based on a single artist in your library that you've only ever ripped (not purchased tracks from iTMS). With the mini store turned on, browse that playlist. Hey, what do you know, the mini store is suggesting everything they have from that artist, despite the fact that you've never purchased a single track from that artist via iTMS.

Naturally, this works better with artists that are actually sold through iTMS-- I was silly and tried this with my Beatles playlist first, before the other brain cell I have woke up and reminded me that Apple and Apple Corps don't exactly see eye to eye on the iTMS issue.

As to the implications for me: so what. I don't give a flying fig if Steve Jobs cares about the contents of my music collection. Heck, if I'm going to receive advertising, I'd prefer it be targeted to items that I might actually care about, not the lastest from $pop_star_flavor_of_the_week_artist.

FWIW, I turned the mini store off, not over privacy concerns, but because it was giving me an annoying lag when switching playlists on my creaky old G4 Gigabit Ethernet!

--
Smell that? You smell that? Burning karma, son. Nothing in the world smells like that...
Re:This is just fud by databyss · 2006-01-12 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let me do a quick word swap here:

I want the spyware to look at what I actually look at, not just what I tell them too. It's far more likely to give me good suggestions that way.

This tool looks at what webpage is currently displayed, and suggests possible other products you might like. It's actually kind of nice, when you want to use it, and does nothing when you don't. Win.

Except that it's enabled by default and doesn't tell you that it's doing it in the first place.

--
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Re:This is just fud by StupidHelpDeskGuy · 2006-01-12 05:28 · Score: 1

You are trolling, but I'll bite. I don't have to be harmed for it to be an invasion of privacy. I am also not hysterical, nor am I whining. if you actually read the post, I was commenting on the fact that even a group of fairly knowledgeable readers are getting simple facts about this matter wrong. If this was a Microsoft product, the forums would be hysterical about the data being gathered, that it was being used by the RIAA to track licensed music, etc, etc.
Re:This is just fud by StupidHelpDeskGuy · 2006-01-12 05:31 · Score: 1

Mod databyss' comment up! The point is exactly this "Except that it's enabled by default and doesn't tell you that it's doing it in the first place."
Re:This is just fud by orthogonal · 2006-01-12 05:37 · Score: 1

This spying news with iTunes sounds more like jealous FUD coming from their competitors.

Ok, then explain to me why my iTunes 6.0.1.3 (prior to 6.0.2, presumably), according to my firewall, regularly makes connections to the address of my HTTP proxy?

(Oh, incidentally, I'm an iTunes user, not a competitor. I'm not listening to Apple's "competitors", I'm looking at my own firewall logs.)

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:50 · Score: 0

So what? It may be spyware but Apple has shown us what reasonable DRM looks like, they are now extending to how reasonable spyware can be implemented. If you don't like DRM or spyware at all just don't use Apple products.

I trust Apple.
Re:This is just fud by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-12 06:00 · Score: 1

This is categorically untrue. It looks at the playing song only, makes a recommendation, and then discards the data. That's what TFA says -- if you have reliable information contrary to this, of course you are welcome to post it. But saying that "itunes scans your library" or something to that effect is totally unsubstantiated by anything I've seen, other than a bunch of other hotheaded slashdot posts. I think it's just a groupthink meme that's popped up and people are taking as fact.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:This is just fud by KURAAKU+Deibiddo · 2006-01-12 06:04 · Score: 1

Ok, then explain to me why my iTunes 6.0.1.3 (prior to 6.0.2, presumably), according to my firewall, regularly makes connections to the address of my HTTP proxy?
Do you have it set to look for shared music?

As far as I know, this is a default setting in iTunes, and might be the reason why iTunes is attempting connections.
Re:This is just fud by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-12 06:07 · Score: 1

I'm not sure exactly how some of the more advanced features of iTunes works, but I can think of several reasons.

1) It's checking for software updates.
2) It's looking for other iTunes users on your subnet, using Rendezvous (or whatever they're calling it this week) so you can browse them.
3) It's prefetching iTMS stuff, or doing a 'keep alive' ping once in a while to keep you from being logged out, if you're logged into the store.

I'm sure I could come up with a few others. The fact is, iTunes is basically a web browser in addition to an MP3 player at this point, it's fairly normaly that it would be making outbound network connections to your proxy. Without looking at the content of the packets it seems to be jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that it's spying on you.

Sure, maybe it's a keystroke logger or it's sending everything on your hard drive to Major Leage Baseball's secret satellite. More than likely it's not though. (And if you use a Mac, how do you know the OS kernel isn't spying on you itself? Why stop being paranoid with iTunes?)

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:This is just fud by kc0re · 2006-01-12 06:12 · Score: 1

No it doesn't.

If you play a song you have downloaded from iTunes, it will recommend stuff that is similar. If you play a song that is ripped off, it just displays the most downloaded tunes for ALL of iTunes. Not yours. Test before talking.
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:13 · Score: 0

iSpy my my little eye something 'evil'
Re:This is just fud by kc0re · 2006-01-12 06:15 · Score: 1

Clarification -- Ripped off in my defination does not mean "Ripped off a CD", I mean ripped off as far as Limewire..etc..

I've tried it several times to get it to do it. Doesn't do it.
Re:This is just fud by Seanasy · 2006-01-12 06:17 · Score: 1

Oooh, I know how to play this game. Let me do a quick word swap here:

I want the child raper to look at what I actually look at, not just what I tell them too. It's far more likely to give me good suggestions that way.

Apple installed a child raper on my computer without telling me!
Re:This is just fud by Paradise+Pete · 2006-01-12 06:22 · Score: 2, Funny

The issue is, that the music I rip personally, is none of Apple's business.
But you are, in essence, walking into the store humming that tune, and the clerk says "hey, we've got some other stuff by those guys."
Re:This is just fud by jacksonj04 · 2006-01-12 06:25 · Score: 1

MiniStore doesn't know the difference between bought and ripped music. Try renaming a track you bought on iTunes to a non-existant title and artist, and it won't find matches.

--
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Re:This is just fud by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-12 06:34 · Score: 1

xcept that it's enabled by default and doesn't tell you that it's doing it in the first place.

It does tell you what it's doing. It's recommending music based on your favourite artists/albums. To do that, tit must know what you're listening to, so it's pretty obvious that it's going to transmit some information about what is in your library. If no-one ever sees this information, however, and they don't collect it, then there's no big deal.
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:44 · Score: 0

But if it were Microsoft doing this you would scream like a stuck pig. You fanboys are beyond amazing.
Re:This is just fud by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 06:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're just putting ever more labels on it without actually considering what's going on. You are hysterically calling iTunes retrieving info about an artist from a server "invasion of privacy". Implication it's bad. But IS it bad? Of course it isn't. I ask again, what harm has it doing. If no harm then why is it bad?

Yes, Slashdot would be hysterical about it if it was Microsoft, but they are being hysterical about it when it's Apple, so what's your point there?
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:51 · Score: 0

Lets drop the Apple religion here!!

A) If it were another company that dominated its market, yes there would be more out rage from the community of lemming open-source and Mac rebels. And there has been, and it blows over.

B) This isn't a big deal. As long as they don't share it tied to identities, it would be better if they agreggated the data rather than tossing it, the system could be a real help in finding new music you like.

As long as those who are very precise about their digital privacy can turn it off, it is a service.

Apple people, now that Apple is the clear leader in online music and music players, get ready for this kind of abuse, we all dream of success and way too many see success as a reason to distrust. I don't like Apple's business model, but they are up front about it, buy an iPod you are committed to iTunes.

But this isn't FUD, because most other services do it and have had simular stories and it blows over. This is just the socially paranoid, lemming rebels reacting to Apple's success. Welcome to reality :)
Re:This is just fud by Golias · 2006-01-12 06:57 · Score: 1

The point is exactly this "Except that it's enabled by default and doesn't tell you that it's doing it in the first place."

Except that it does tell you what it's doing. Unless you think your suggested tracks related to the song you are currently listening to are the result of some kind of magic powers.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:This is just fud by starphish · 2006-01-12 06:58 · Score: 1

Not for me. I tested it. Did you? If I play a song that was ripped from a CD, the mini store shows other albums from ONLY that artist. If I click on another artist that I riped from a CD, the store changes to show JUST the next artist that I select. I don't get a list if all of the most downloaded songs from iTunes like you indicate.

--
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
Re:This is just fud by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 07:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Excuse me, but YOU haven't tested it properly. I have it right here, right now. I have 4 songs downloaded from iTMS and 2065 that were ripped. If I select any one of those 2096 tracks, then the mini-store will display other products from that artist. If the artist isn't known by iTMS it will display New Releases instead.

You are wrong. And you're an idiot for telling other people to test it when clearly you haven't properly tested this out yourself.
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 07:08 · Score: 0

You are also incorrect. The Mini-Store is updated when you SELECT a song, not when you play it. I happen to like the feature, but also turned it off because of screen real-estate on my little 12" iBook.
Re:This is just fud by pjp6259 · 2006-01-12 07:21 · Score: 1

Well, in theory, they could make a deal with the RIAA, and report which songs I have on my computer. Maybe the RIAA would give them a deal on the songs they sell through them, or even make it a condition of their continued partnership. Don't you think it's at least possible that Apple would comply?

Now sure, I pretty much trust Apple not to do this, and I believe them when they say they don't store this information, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it. I think it sets a bad prescident, and it wouldn't surprise me if they changed how they handle this information in the future without letting the users know.

--
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
Re:This is just fud by Angostura · 2006-01-12 07:26 · Score: 1

It looks at any audio you play, yes including stuff you rip.
Re:This is just fud by Secret+Agent+X23 · 2006-01-12 07:33 · Score: 1

If you really care about it, I would suggest disabling the feature or using a product from a company / group that is not trying to make a profit (ie open source).
But, of course, if Apple really wants iTunes to send them the info, they'll design it to do so whether the ministore is visible or not. The only way to be sure is not to use iTunes.
Re:This is just fud by drewsome · 2006-01-12 07:33 · Score: 1

well, here's one way it could be bad:

1) Say that you watch porn in quicktime format
2) That ends up being displayed via iTunes (in the future if not now, I don't actually know for sure if it does or doesn't).
3) Now your ministore is logging what pr0n you watch. (And making recommendations? Hmmm... :P)
4) The government gets even more hinky about invading our privacy and makes pr0n watching a felony under "child neglect" or some such nonsense.

So, the government can sue Apple for your porn watching habits and cart you off to jail.

Perhaps a somewhat unlikely chain of events, but then, look at the world today... stranger things have happened.
Re:This is just fud by Blakey+Rat · 2006-01-12 07:41 · Score: 1

Just FYI, it does look up (some) of the MP3s you've added yourself, although you'll find it will say "no match" for most of the more obscure items. (I tested it on the 2000 Gorillaz CD and Rob Zombie Hellbilly Deluxe, which it recognized, and some Lemon Demon songs downloaded from their homepage, which it didn't.)

--
Comment of the year
Re:This is just fud by Blakey+Rat · 2006-01-12 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

To be fair, it's possible all his ripped songs are obscure enough that they aren't in the iTunes database. iTunes showed "no match" for several of my more obscure tracks ripped from CD.

--
Comment of the year
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 07:46 · Score: 0

For example Amazon offers me "suggested titles"

Yes, but that's while you are browsing their store. You're interacting with their website. Of course they know what you bought from them in the past - you had to give them a credit card number and shipping address too.

Now if iTunes spied on the music you ripped then that might be news

BUT IT DOES. iTunes reports back on whatever you are listening to - if it's a purchased track, a ripped MP3, a podcast, or even a music track you composed yourself. If you're playing something in iTunes, Apple knows about it.

In short, yes, FUD

But if Microsoft did something like this, you'd be screaming from the rooftops about the "Evil Empire". I've got news for you: any company - by it's very nature - will value profits over the well-being of their customers.

All it takes is for the RIAA to say:

"Hey, nice music store you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it. Now, about making iTunes always report what's being played, and giving us access to that data..."

Hell, if I were the RIAA (and as evil as I think they are after what's going on with the RIAA influencing Canadian copyright law) - that's exactly what I'd be saying to Apple right now.
Re:This is just fud by Golias · 2006-01-12 07:54 · Score: 1

Yes, but that's while you are browsing their store.

With iTunes it's the same thing. It only scans your currently selected song and offers suggested titles based on it while you have the suggested songs window open.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:This is just fud by Angostura · 2006-01-12 08:02 · Score: 1

I'm an Apple fanboy. Do I want Apple grabbing a list of all the music I have in iTunes, without any understanding of what they do with that data? No.

As it happens I'm not too bothered by this since I find the explanation of how they discard the data pretty convincing.

But the fact remains, having corporation X gather a list of files from my machine without permission is not ideal.
Re:This is just fud by shmmeee · 2006-01-12 09:06 · Score: 1

If MS(or anyone else) were offering me a service, that I could decline, that looked at the music I was listening to now and (because I live in the UK) I can see what they've got and how they're using it. I would have no problems.

Dude, this is not some dirty "A Better Internet" or other malware, it's an optional feature of a service you choose to use. Also, you must have noticed it before offering similar songs, how did you think it worked?
Re:This is just fud by kc0re · 2006-01-12 13:02 · Score: 1

Thank you, apparently no one was paying attention when i stated that it wasn't ripped off a CD, but ripped off. Limewire style.
Re:This is just fud by geekoid · 2006-01-12 13:18 · Score: 1

they could have a database built into iTunes that does this.

I don't think it is fair to make people have to assume and infer what software does by looking at the results.

Not that this is an issue, but that argument is faulty.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:This is just fud by Jaseoldboss · 2006-01-13 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't believe I'm reading this. Sony said that they weren't collecting the information sent back from their player software and nobody believed a word they said.

Of course they are storing it, why wouldn't they? Nobody outside of Apple can prove otherwise.

I've nothing against Apple but this new version of iTunes is Spyware pure and simple.
Re:This is just fud by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-13 00:43 · Score: 0

So it's spyware that you can disable then.
Re:This is just fud by Golias · 2006-01-13 04:36 · Score: 1

Build a database of the entire (current) iTMS library into iTunes? You're kidding, right?

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:This is just fud by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-13 05:41 · Score: 0, Troll

I don't believe I'm reading this. Sony said that they weren't collecting the information sent back from their player software and nobody believed a word they said.

Apple is not Sony. The difference in their stance on DRM alone should be an indication that they're not half as likely to mess about with customers.

Of course they are storing it, why wouldn't they? Nobody outside of Apple can prove otherwise.

If they can't prove it, then they shouldn't claim it. There's no reason to assume they're lying. If you're goign to decide that they're guilty, then why be surprised if they transmit some data and why bother to comment about a story where they say they're innocent? You're clearly not interested in discussion.

I've nothing against Apple but this new version of iTunes is Spyware pure and simple.

You're being paranoid. One click turns off the MiniStore ad even when it's on, they don't collect the data. iTunes does the minimum necessary to make recommendations to you. Calling it spyware is hyperbole and makes a poor case against genuine spyware.
Re:This is just fud by Jaseoldboss · 2006-01-13 21:53 · Score: 1

Apple is not Sony.

This is where we're going to differ I think, It's the action that is bad not necessarily the company. I'd have the same criticisms if Linus put code into the kernel that phoned home to kernel.org.
Re:This is just fud by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-14 01:31 · Score: 1

But it's not just 'phoning home.' It's sending a little bit of info about track you just clicked on so that it can recommend similar music to you It doesn't to it behind your back. It can easily be turned off. And no personal information about you is being collected. This is nowhere close to being in the same league as spyware or the antics that Sony have got up to. What exactly do you see as being malicious in their actions.
Re:This is just fud by Jaseoldboss · 2006-01-14 02:04 · Score: 1

Forget about the 'rootkit' part of the Sony software for the minute, I am concentrating on the player software that is installed at the same time. Mark Russinovich found:

I dug a little deeper and it appears the Player is automatically checking to see if there are updates for the album art and lyrics for the album it's displaying. This behavior would be welcome under most circumstances, but is not mentioned in the EULA, is refuted by Sony, and is not configurable in any way. I doubt Sony is doing anything with the data, but with this type of connection their servers could record each time a copy-protected CD is played and the IP address of the computer playing it.

The only difference between this and iTunes' behaviour is that you can switch off the ministore.

Now I'm not looking to have Apple publicly flogged over this but they should be upfront about their customers privacy.

Ideally I'd like to see mandatory full disclosure of the purpose of all network communications in a simple checklist form when you install (like the nutritional information on food products?) Unfortunately it isn't going to happen any time soon :-(
Re:This is just fud by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-14 06:30 · Score: 1

Actually, there's another difference: Apple put details on their knoweldgebase site on the day of the update and they advertise the MiniStore as one of the big features of the update. They're pretty open about what it does and it should be obvious to anyone who gives it any thought that they Store must require some sort of communication. By contrast, Sony denied what they were doing, in spite of the evidence. Given Apple's openness, surely they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their statement that they don' collect the data?

In retrospect ... by eldavojohn · 2006-01-12 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable.

If you install a piece of software and it starts to gathering information about you, it's called spyware even if there's some magic button combination or option that turns it off. Until it is turned off, it's spyware. I don't understand why the default setting isn't "off" but I guess that was Apple's decision and now they'll catch flack for it.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:In retrospect ... by Rude+Turnip · 2006-01-12 04:32 · Score: 1

Someone would be bound to complain about it even if it was an option that you had to turn on. The article submission would have read something to the effect of "Nifty hidden feature in iTunes has a nasty secret." You can't please everybody.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:In retrospect ... by BuR4N · 2006-01-12 04:32 · Score: 2, Informative

"They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable."

I think those complaning is in minority, and those in the majority would miss out a feature that actually could be quite handy...

--
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Re:In retrospect ... by non0score · 2006-01-12 04:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does. So Apple opted to enable the automatic collection and hope that people will accept their explanation (which, I think, most people will accept). If need be, Apple has information readily-available on how to disable it for people who're really protective of their privacy (if they believe it's violated).
Re:In retrospect ... by DaggertipX · 2006-01-12 04:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

You seem to miss the point of this statement. According to their claims, it is NOT gathering information about you. As in - the feature, even when it is on, is not doing any form of audit on your song collection.
Ever google band information about a band you're listening to? That is more likely to capture data about you than this would.
Now the next question is whether we trust Apple to be true to it's word about this. If they are lying about this, I would be more concerned with them lying, than with any data they would get from my collection.
Personally, I don't have any reason to mistrust them at this point, as even the dark side of any conspiracy theories about this are fairly harmless, in my estimation.
Re:In retrospect ... by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 04:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, I know that when I fired up iTunes after updating, I saw the ministore down there, decided I didn't care to see it, and clicked the little hide/minimize icon underneath it. Wow it was tough to get rid of it!

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:In retrospect ... by chriss · 2006-01-12 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable.

If they had done that, most people would never have realized that the option exists. If there wasn't a podcast icon on the left side, many people would never have found the option. Better to ask during installation: "iTunes 6.0.2 offers a new option to display recommendations from iTMS matching the music your are playing. For this iTunes has to send the trackname of the current title to iTMS. These informations will only be used to change the MiniStore and be discarded afterwards. Do you want to activate this function [Yes/No]"

Chriss

--
memomo.net - brush up your German, French, Spanish or Italian - online and free

--
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Re:In retrospect ... by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 04:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yuk! I don't think so. A pointless question. Better to let the user see what it is, then if he decides he doesn't want it he can disable it in his own time by a single click.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:47 · Score: 0

How do we know? I buy Apple products, but I don't trust Steve that far ...
Re:In retrospect ... by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bad idea. Few users would have discovered it if it was initially disabled.

No software is "gathering" information about you. Gathering implies storing, and it isn't stored. It's simply a query to the iTMS database for a particular artists tracks.

There's a mania these days about privacy issues, that's going to look as silly as the McCarthy witch hunts or Political Correctness in years to come. The REAL abuses of privacy are in danger of being buried under a pile of complains about things that aren't an issue. Examine each case on it's merits. Don't just try your hardest to categorise each new web-service that comes along as spyware.

As if anyone is interested in what artists an anonymous person on a particular IP address plays anyway. Adding them all together might be of interest though. But how the hell that is detrimental to you as an individual is a question that none of the current breed of privacy hysterics seem to have an answer for.
Re:In retrospect ... by Mr_Silver · 2006-01-12 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
To get around this, Apple should have popped up a dialog box the first time which says something along the lines of "iTunes can recommend new music based on what you are currently playing. This feature requires that the songs you play are sent to the server. Would you like to turn this feature on?" to which the customer clicks on "yes" or "no".
In this way, you get visibility of a new feature (the pro of having it on by default) and the chance to opt out if you don't want it (the pro of having it off by default).

--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:13 · Score: 0

Someone would be bound to complain about it even if it was an option that you had to turn on.
The point of having the "feature" off by default is not stop people from complaining, it is to stop Apple from spying on people by default.
Re:In retrospect ... by arachnoprobe · 2006-01-12 05:15 · Score: 1

... feature you could enable ... ... I don't understand why the default setting isn't "off"...
The apple main market share is between people how DON'T look through menus to look for new cool things. Considering that, most people would never notice it. I for myself would have liked at least a pop up on first startup on iTunes. But of course, seeing the Mini Store, and seeing what it does I knew that the suggestion were not done buy any kinds of telekinese. -- Disclaimer: written on a Powerbook.
Re:In retrospect ... by garcia · 2006-01-12 05:15 · Score: 1

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.

Wah, someone can't collect stats on something that they have NO RIGHT to collect anyway. My movements, purchase habits, etc that are tracked during visits to the iTunes Music *Store* are one thing. My movements, listening habits, etc that could be tracked by their INDEPENDENT player are something else.

People need to continue to stick up for themselves to the companies. It's the only way we will have any shred of privacy left.

The more you stick up for yourself, the more other people are educated to the issues that revolve around the constant battle for the erosion of your privacy rights. Your comment above that "most users will NOT enable it" is great. That's the way it should be.
Re:In retrospect ... by Itchy+Rich · 2006-01-12 05:26 · Score: 1

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.

Absolutely right. Most users wouldn't enable it. Some of them wouldn't enable it because they didn't go looking through options, and some of them wouldn't enable it because it's of no benefit to them.

Automated data collection is rarely for the benefit of users. It's perfectly understandable that people get twitchy about it, especially when companies try to sneak it in without asking. Even Microsoft has started asking explicit permission for some of their data collection.

Companies that want to maintain a good reputation should really ask your permission if they want to use your bandwidth and CPU time for interests other than your own. The fact that they're collecting data about you just raises the stakes.
Re:In retrospect ... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 05:29 · Score: 1

A lot of complains? Who's complaining?

If you install a piece of software and it starts to gathering information about you, it's called spyware even if there's some magic button combination or option that turns it off.

Better not use any web browser then since every major website logs your IP, browser, and OS.

Apple isn't even keeping the data, all they're doing is just searching the store for related purchases while you listen to music. Hell, most of you use Google, and they track every search you do in a cookie, and it's never deleted! Where are the complaints about that? Last time I brought it up, I got modbombed by Google defenders.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:In retrospect ... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 05:36 · Score: 1

It would be against the Apple way for them to pop up an annoying Windows-like Yes/No dialog with a massive paragraph of text nobody will read. Why not just enable it by default and let the user disable it if they don't like it?

People are whining about the silliest of issues, I swear.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:In retrospect ... by Enigma_Man · 2006-01-12 05:40 · Score: 1

This man has the answer, mod parent up!

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:41 · Score: 0

I feel the same way about donations to my personal wealth. If people have to be asked to hand over money to me then its unlikely i'd get any so I take it without asking.

I'm being sarcastic btw, thought i'd better point that out explicitly because you seem to be a bit slow.
Re:In retrospect ... by edumacator · 2006-01-12 05:47 · Score: 1

One of the main issues it seems that software companies have to deal with is a desire to provide the most beneficial features for most of their users.

/. users have to remember that most of us are exceptions. Most users don't care whether companies keep relatively innocous information about their habits or preferences. While I don't share that view, companies are compelled to offer these services.

Any one who deals with customer service will agree that giving these people the "option" to turn one of these services on wouldn't work. They simply want it to work.

I don't agree with the practice of keeping this kind of information, but we need to keep in mind the realistic pressures on companies if we expect to find a workable solution.

--
An important change for education.
Re:In retrospect ... by Sax+Maniac · 2006-01-12 05:54 · Score: 1

No, you have to put in context. A better way would be, in place of the album art, show a big "?" picture with something that says "click here to show the CD art".

When you click on it, then inform the user that the data is sent to Apple to do it. I'm not kidding - many people really think that the track names and CD picture is encoded on the CD! and don't realize that information has to be gathered from an external database.

Putting up a message at a time when they don't care about it (installation time) is just asking for it to be ignored. No matter what you put there, they will ignore the words and assume it says "Press YES to install iTunes". You could put a dialog there says "Do you want to send $100,000 to Steve Jobs?" and people would click YES.

I'm running into this exact problem with the new Windows Media Player. When you open it to play a local MP3, it opens about 10 pointless network connections to napster.com and who knows what else. No obvious way to turn it off, other than "Work Offline" which means then you can't stream anything!

--
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:07 · Score: 0

Does the end justify the means! It doesn't matter what their intent might be. If it is in the EULA and you agree to it, then you have no place to complain or slander them. The only one at fault is yourself for not reading the information presented to you.

If it wasn't in the EULA then they deserve anything you throw at them. Regardless of their intentions.

If they want results from you, push down a survey.
Re:In retrospect ... by Milton+Waddams · 2006-01-12 06:17 · Score: 1

I think a lot of people will disable this purely because it's annoying looking. I disabled it (Menubar -> Edit -> Hide MiniStore) as soon as I saw it because it was taking up room on the iTunes window with information about the store which I don't use.
Re:In retrospect ... by slavemowgli · 2006-01-12 06:22 · Score: 1

It's not really about what Apple actually does, though. I'm inclined to believe them when they say that they discard the personal information that is transmitted them and only ever use aggregate, statistical data, but... who's to say that that'll always be true? The problem is not that Apple is making use of your data; the problem is that Apple is transmitting it without your knowledge or informed, explicit consent.

And burying a provision in an EULA somewhere, full well knowing that 99% of all people don't actually read these, does not count as "informed consent". Whoever came up with the idea that "opt-out" is a valid consent obtainment model, anyway? Suppose I added a note to this comment that said, in effect, "I'll rob your house next week, and by not opting out, you agree to let me do that and waive any rights to sue me for it", would you expect any court to uphold that? Of course not. Why are these things different? You cannot obtain consent "by default"; if it's not explicitely given (as in "opt-in"), it's not there. Period.

And saying (as another commenter did) that if it was disabled by default, most users would not enable it... that's positively ridiculous. If people aren't gonna enable it, then maybe, just maybe, that might be a sign that they *do* care after all and that what I said above is not just an intellectual exercise, but that "opt-out" really *is* not obtaining consent. If the two systems were equivalent, there'd be no need to go for "opt-out" at all, as those who consent to having their data collected and used would opt in, anyway.

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:In retrospect ... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · 2006-01-12 06:25 · Score: 2, Informative

>Automated data collection...

there is no automated data collection. there is just click-based searching. get a freaking clue.

bandwidth!? cpu!? you'd have 100 dialogue boxes on every website - "do you want to load our banner image? do you want to load our frame containing menu items? do you want to launch...".

the ministore is a minibrowser where your songs you click on are links to searches for relevant info.
Re:In retrospect ... by Paradox · 2006-01-12 06:26 · Score: 1

Good solution, but I don't think Apple anticipated the "ZOMG THEY ARE SPYING" response that people seemed to gleefully leap on. The entire issue was so rapidly distorted and blown out of proportion that the complaints towards the later half of the slashdot thread seem to assume every iSight is now taking pictures of you showering.

Who cares if people know what you are listening to? Most people put that kind of information in their AIM messages anyways.

--
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Re:In retrospect ... by Bemopolis · 2006-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1

There's a mania these days about privacy issues, that's going to look as silly as the McCarthy witch hunts or Political Correctness in years to come.

The McCarthy witch hunts were a lot of things, but "silly" is not one of them. Careers were ruined and lives were lost -- and not just among a few Hollywood liberals. Fortunately for us, Tailgunner Joe's reach exceed his grasp and it ended. It did, however, help make the career of Richard Nixon, but I think he learned his lesson about relying on fearmongering, spying, and political chicanery before he reached the White House.

Mind you, a few more years of neo-con warrantless spying, anti-dissent tactics, and vague warmongering and the McCarthy era will not only look silly but nostalgia-inducing.

Bemopolis

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Re:In retrospect ... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · 2006-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1

>all they're doing is just searching the store for related purchases while you listen to music

they aren't even doing that, it's only songs you click on with the ministore open, not later songs in a playlist.

this is the most overblown FUD ever.
Re:In retrospect ... by mottie · 2006-01-12 06:32 · Score: 1

There are easy ways around this.. such as make part of the setup say "do you want Apple to suggest songs you may like?" Even if the default is yes, it's at least a dialog box you have to press next on.
Re:In retrospect ... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-12 06:40 · Score: 1

I'm actually a little surprised that there wasn't such a dialog. I'm used to getting dialogs from programs on first-run asking what I want them to do -- in fact iTunes itself has several, if you don't have an existing music Library (I believe something to the effect of "Do you want me to scan your hard drive looking for music?" and then "Do you want this music moved into your library and kept organized by iTunes?" At least this is the very dim recollection I have of it, the last time I did a fresh install of it anywhere.)

I think the recommendation feature is actually a cool thing. I would be slightly weirded out if it was sending my entire music library up to some central server, but probably less weirded out than I am about CVS tracking people's purchases under the guise of a discount program. As it's been now clarified that it doesn't do any such thing, and only sends information about the currently playing song, I'm not very concerned.

However you're right, they could have saved themselves a world of shit if they had just put an option in there from the beginning. I wonder if maybe they were hurrying to make a release date by Macworld and didn't have a chance for Legal to review it, or it slipped through the cracks. It seems like a no-brainer sort of recommendation.

How much do you want to bet there's somebody in Apple right now polishing their resume for the "other opportunity" that they're about to "leave the company" for, after their exit interview with Mr. Jobs?

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:In retrospect ... by Secret+Agent+X23 · 2006-01-12 06:41 · Score: 1

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
But then again, I for one have always assumed that any music files that iTunes touched got reported back to Apple in some way, regardless of whether I was seeing any evidence of it. Well, maybe that sounds a bit more "tinfoil-hat wearing" than I want to be. Let's just say I made my peace with the idea that it could be happenening and decided not to worry about it.
Re:In retrospect ... by pilkul · 2006-01-12 06:44 · Score: 1

I don't know; I care a great deal about my privacy as well, but provided the information is only used in the aggregate I don't see it as a privacy violation. Just like I wouldn't necessarily like my school grades to be known, but I have no problem with the class average (of which my grade is one component) being known.
Re:In retrospect ... by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 07:06 · Score: 1

Yes, they were silly. Bad, appalling, take your pick. Whatever word you want to use, but they were wrong. Just as this silly witch hunt that is seeking to label perfectly sensible web application technology as "spyware". Sure this is a less serious example. But the idea of labelling to imply badness is the same.
Re:In retrospect ... by IHateSlashDot · 2006-01-12 07:17 · Score: 1

No, YOU miss the point.

I despise hypocrisy more than anything and if it's one thing that pro apple/linux people are it's hypocritical. Just assume for a moment that this was Microsoft we were talking about. Can you imagine the uproar on this boad? Can you imagine yourself defending the fact that Microsoft was sending personal information mearly for 'statistical' purposes? You have got to be kidding me. Apple is no different from any other company. They will use this information for profit in any way that they can (including selling the information to other companies).

All of the privacy advocates are correct on this one. If Apple is really not using this info for anything, they should provide a UI to disable it. If they don't, that's a clear indication that they plan to use your personal information for profit.
Re:In retrospect ... by pjp6259 · 2006-01-12 07:26 · Score: 1

If it was really that important, they could offer an incentive. How about turn on this option, and let us see what music you have, and we'll give you one free song. Or 25% off 10 songs, or anything like that. Or if it is really that valuable to the customer, they could just pop up an informational window the first time you go to iTunes. If people did actually find it of value, they would readily turn it on.

I like Apple (own a powerbook myself, and I'm generally happy with it), but I think they dropped the ball on this. It is never ok to collect information about the files on a users computer without letting them know in clear terms what you are doing.

--
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
Re:In retrospect ... by javaxman · 2006-01-12 07:33 · Score: 1

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable.
Yea, except, you know what? They probably thought about it a lot, asked a lot of people and found out- surprise! Normal people don't care. You could just ask us what music we like, we'd tell you.
Apple and Amazon want to track our listening and purchasing to suggest things we might like? Cool!
I'm much more concerned about people tracking my web searches, to be honest, and... I'm tempted to not be too concerned about that, either.
Re:In retrospect ... by JabrTheHut · 2006-01-12 07:52 · Score: 1

To get around this, Apple should have popped up a dialog box the first time which says something along the lines of "iTunes can recommend new music based on what you are currently playing. This feature requires that the songs you play are sent to the server. Would you like to turn this feature on?" to which the customer clicks on "yes" or "no".

I'm not sure a dialog box would have stopped the accusations of spying. Some people seem to see "Big Brother" everywhere.

--
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Re:In retrospect ... by MoneyT · 2006-01-12 08:15 · Score: 1

Just assume for a moment that this was Microsoft we were talking about. Can you imagine the uproar on this boad? Can you imagine yourself defending the fact that Microsoft was sending personal information mearly for 'statistical' purposes? You have got to be kidding me. Apple is no different from any other company. They will use this information for profit in any way that they can (including selling the information to other companies).

Yes, I could personaly see myself defending microsoft in this instance were the situations exactly the same. Never mind that we will ignore microsoft's track record vs apple, if:

Microsoft had a music store
Microsoft provided software to use that music store and play music
Microsoft implemented a feature in their software to recomend new music to you from the store based on the music you were currently listening to
The feature was prominent and obvious on launch of the software
Microsoft provided an option to disable the feature

then I would have absolutely expected their software to be sending some data to their servers to make the recomendations and I would have absolutely no problem with the existance of the feature OR it being on by defaut. It's a feature that many users would find useful or benneficial, it's a rather obvious feature to implement and quite frankly it's not harmful at all.

People have blown this shit way out of proportion because they don't read (it's listed in the features list of itunes), don't think (how else would they make recomendations without information from your music) and don't pay attention (there are 3 ways to turn this off).

If Apple is really not using this info for anything, they should provide a UI to disable it. If they don't, that's a clear indication that they plan to use your personal information for profit.

They do. They provide a key command, a menu item AND a button on the main window.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:In retrospect ... by Golias · 2006-01-12 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, because what would really make iTunes a terrific application is even more annoying dialog boxes after each update.

While they are at it, they should put up a notice that using the GET TRACK NAMES feature (on by default) is sending CDDB information about which new CD you just put in your drive.

Oh, and every last web page you visit should ask for permission to see your IP address, so it knows where to send the response to your http request. Of course, it might be kind of tough for them to get the request to reach you...

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:In retrospect ... by geoffspear · 2006-01-12 08:59 · Score: 1

People would complain that they didn't know it was happening, as they clicked through the dialog box the same way they clicked through the EULA the first time they ran iTunes after updating to the new version without reading it.
Does anyone here actually carefully read EULAs who's updated, who can confirm that the EULA didn't mention that this data was being sent? I can't seem to find the EULA for the iTunes software on Apple's website, just the one for the Music Store itself (which one could definitely argue only applies if you've bought nusic from Apple).

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:In retrospect ... by Knara · 2006-01-12 09:03 · Score: 1

I'm not kidding - many people really think that the track names and CD picture is encoded on the CD!
Actually, in an increasing number of cases this is actually true. For example, the Offspring CDs I've bought can be read by proper (standalone) CD players to display the title track.
Furthermore, some are hybrid CDs that have video files on them with a flash and/or html front-end, so the title graphic could very well be on the CD.
Re:In retrospect ... by HiThere · 2006-01-12 09:23 · Score: 1

Actually, I make it a point to always read the EULAs, unless I recognize it as a standard license. Of course, I ended up using Linux.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 10:39 · Score: 0

a /. subscriber AND a wanker... who would have guessed?
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 10:47 · Score: 0

step back and listen to your self for a minute, its fucking amusing. you're claiming that the song you selected to start playing a playlist (since its only the ones your select, not everything you play) is your personal information? what sort of boring shut-in are you? heck, id love it if this data was tabulated and given to the RIAA, then maybe they're realise that a decent number of people arent buying thier shit because they listen to quality tunes, although in that respect your "personal information" probably wont help the cause (YES!!1 IM SAYING YUO LISTEN TO SHT1 MUSIC!!!ONE1ELEVEN)
Re:In retrospect ... by tfoss · 2006-01-12 11:13 · Score: 2, Informative

it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
What collection and analysis? From everything I've seen, they collect nothing, but query a server that uses the ITMS data set to retrieve recommendations.
-Ted

--
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 15:34 · Score: 0

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable. ...
Better to ask during installation...

Uhhh, isn't that what the original post said? Or rather, you're "insightful" because you think it belongs in the installer instead of (inferring that it belongs) in some hard-to-find configuration window?

Whoops, sorry, forgot I was reading /. again.
Re:In retrospect ... by Pete · 2006-01-12 16:10 · Score: 1

You don't mind Apple taking this information (and passing it on to a Utah-based company called Omniture, Inc.) without asking your permission. Others, however, do. Hey, a lot of guys probably wouldn't mind an attractive woman appearing out of nowhere to give them a blowjob (without asking permission) - but that's not good enough to presume it's okay for all guys.

Apple should require the user to explicitly opt-in, that's all. "Do you mind having information about your music passed on to some unknown Utah market research company, when there's absolutely no benefit for you in you doing so?"
Re:In retrospect ... by obeythefist · 2006-01-12 17:04 · Score: 1

No, according to the claim it *IS* gathering data about you. It's gathering all sorts of personally identifying information about you, and the music you listen to, by default, without asking you.

Then it sends it all to the Apple HQ or wherever.

Jobs admits it.

Here comes the spin. He *claims* that they throw it out.

At this point in time, given they've essentially snuck spyware onto, heck, every Mac and PC running iTunes in the world, I'm as willing to trust Apple as much as I am Sony.

Because remember, Sony, much like Jobs, claimed their software wasn't harmful, wasn't doing anything bad, and they delete all the data that's personal... yeah right. And GWB doesn't have the NSA spy secretly on US citizens.

--
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Re:In retrospect ... by DaggertipX · 2006-01-12 18:20 · Score: 1

Not only are you dead on with everything you are saying here, but try this on for size : Microsoft does this. Put a cd in your drive, load up Windows Media Player - check out what happens. I gathers information about the music currently playing automatically. Where is this data going? Did it ask you if it could? I could keep going about this.

One last minor point - tell me the key combination to stop Windows Media Player from doing these things... One company provides one - the other doesn't.

Mountains out of molehills, indeed.

(Slight addendum : I don't think Windows Media Player is doing anything wrong either, just an example of people trying to use sweeping statements about hypocrisy against an entire community. I know it's trendy to hate the slashdot crowd, but realize you're one of us too.)
Re:In retrospect ... by BasilBrush · 2006-01-13 04:46 · Score: 1

If you don't like it switch it off. It's easy enough. You silly opt-in would be pointless, since they don't collect the information, let alone pass it on.

There's absolutely a need for opt-ins for personal information being passed on to third parties. But this is neither personal information, nor is is passed on.
Re:In retrospect ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-15 10:22 · Score: 0

Story summary: Apple iTunes is spyware that collects personal information for Apple.

Apple: Yes, but we don't do anything with it... honestly.

Apple fags: Thank you, Lord Jobs. I humbly apologise for using up your valuable time... and may I say what a marvellous suit you a wearing today.
Re:In retrospect ... by Pete · 2006-01-15 21:58 · Score: 1

You silly opt-in would be pointless, since they don't collect the information, let alone pass it on.

Did you even bother to read the link I supplied? The information is being passed on, and to a marketing company. And what else would such a company do with the information other than collect it?
Re:In retrospect ... by BasilBrush · 2006-01-16 04:38 · Score: 1

No I didn't read the article. But equally I'm not relying on what I read on some random blog. I looked at the traffic from iTunes using Charles myself. It connects to 4 servers whilst the Mini-Store is open.

phobos.apple.com
ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net
a1.phobos.apple.com
metrics.apple.com

The edgesuite.net domain is just an Akami mirror of phobos.

I've just tried Little Snitch out, as used by that blog, and it reports these servers as IP addresses. But all the IP addresses when looked up refer to Apple or Akami servers. For whatever reason, the blog is wrong.

Non-issue by millennial · 2006-01-12 04:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've noticed that iTunes suggested music to me before. However, it was only related to what I currently had in my shopping cart. It never much bothered me.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.

Re:Non-issue by millennial · 2006-01-12 04:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Also, even if this is related to the song you're currently listening to, I still think it's a non-issue. If you look at something on Amazon, you'll see recommendations for similar or related items. The same basic rule applies.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Re:Non-issue by aussie_a · 2006-01-12 04:36 · Score: 1

No matter how nifty a feature is, I'd rather not send information I don't have to from my computer by default. It's just good practice.
Re:Non-issue by gowen · 2006-01-12 04:49 · Score: 1

Amazon only use information that I choose to submit to them. Apple just read it off my hard drive. It's the difference between my local DVD shop recommending things based on my past rentals, and them sending a guy round to peer in through my curtains to see what I'm watching on the television.

I don't consider it a big deal, but it is rude.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Non-issue by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 05:00 · Score: 1

In other words, there is no reason not to send it in this case. But you like to force things into pigeon holes of "spyware" and "not-spyware" even if the particular thing has no negative side to it. Such an approach is doomed to failure in the coming world of web-services.
Re:Non-issue by hattig · 2006-01-12 05:57 · Score: 1

Doesn't spyware typically also collect personal identifiable information alongside the other crap? Often Spyware includes minor malware - where it alters the operation of software it really shouldn't have the right to affect, or tracks your keypresses for searches, and so on.

I.e., if Apple were storing in a database a list of AppleID->Songs then it would be spyware. If Apple were overwriting links to competing music stores in your browser (which they aren't), again that'd be spyware and malware.

However this is unlikely. Most likely it is anonymous, although the webserver / iTunesMiniStoreServer may be logging the requests, as any web server will log them. Then the issue is: "Hey, I didn't explicitly request that, so don't log that request, only my explicit requests can be logged, I understand that as part of using the internet". However iTunes is getting more and more web-enabled, and thus this gets more and more expected. Anyway, any music ripping application will make requests to FreeDB, Gracenote, etc, with your personal music CD identifier ... no-one complains about that!

Even then Apple would have to statistically analyse the logfile specifically regarding IP address. And that wouldn't identify you unless they ran it against logfiles of AppleID->IP Address from other sources.

However, we are taking their word for it. We give them the benefit of the doubt because, unlike Sony or real Spyware systems, Apple have a good reputation. However too many things like this could damage it.

As other people have said, every website will log your accesses, I'm sure most sites you can buy from will also monitor your purchases, your IDs, your accesses, your IP address, and run statistics against them.

The question is, are we happy for this type of profiling.

Given the uptake of store cards and so on, I think that the vast majority are. And the rest of us play around with their systems to break their statistics, such as browsing euro-pop all day when all your purchases are heavy metal. Or not.

Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by digitaldc · 2006-01-12 04:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

If the Itunes Music Store is defaulted to ON, this is kind of sneaky since most people do not realize how to turn it off or if Apple saves their personal data or not.

If it is defaulted to OFF that is better, but if it is turned on it should have a pop-up telling you that your music selections are being tracked by Apple and how to turn it off.

The other issue is that people just don't trust large corporations to store/save/erase the data from their customers.
Just because Steve Jobs says its so, doesn't necessarily mean it IS so.

FYI to quickly disable it, hit Shift-Command-M

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by Brewskibrew · 2006-01-12 04:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why do folks assume that iTunes and every other software isn't reporting your shoe size, whether you 2% milk back, and which M&M's you eat first to the green men on Mars (10 1/2, No and Yellow Peanuts, btw)? How many idiots have been outed because Microsoft Word document headers recorded the name they entered when they installed Office? Assume nothing.

--
For sale: Signature. One owner. Low miles. Always garaged. New punctuation, just installed!
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by Alchemar · 2006-01-12 04:45 · Score: 1

It makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective to not want an Opt-in system, that is just too much trouble for most people to bother with. I think the solution would have been an opt-out system, but provide a clear warning about what it is doing and not hide it in the fine print. a pop-up window the first time it starts giving a web address of where to get instructions to disable. Still get the marketing advantage from people too lazy to go through the steps, but not pissing off the people about not knowing about it.
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by Paradise+Pete · 2006-01-12 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the Itunes Music Store is defaulted to ON, this is kind of sneaky since most people do not realize how to turn it off or if Apple saves their personal data or not.
If I walk into a clothing store, it doesn't surprise me if the clerk offers to show me something based on what I'm wearing.
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by peragrin · 2006-01-12 04:57 · Score: 1

Um like all this apple it's really easy to make it go away.

goto the Menu -View

Third option(?) from the bottom Hide itunes Mini store.

When i updated last night I couldn't remember the keyboard combo. Apple has a fairly consistent layout. its not hard for an idiot to turn it off if it annoys them.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by kitzilla · 2006-01-12 04:59 · Score: 1

If the Itunes Music Store is defaulted to ON, this is kind of sneaky since most people do not realize how to turn it off or if Apple saves their personal data or not.

Not only can the ministore be turned off from the menu and with the keysroke you suggest, there's an obvious button which closes the ministore pane. It's identical in appearance to the long-established close button for the album art pane. I didn't like the ministore's clutter and closed it immedaitely upon launching iTunes. It stays closed upon relaunch.

Really, I don't think this is much of an issue, and the Knowledge Base article sets things to rest for me.

--
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by TubeSteak · 2006-01-12 05:02 · Score: 0, Troll

If the Itunes Music Store is defaulted to ON, this is kind of sneaky since most people do not realize how to turn it off or if Apple saves their personal data or not.
So you're trying to say Apple makes products that are so stupid simple to use... that stupid and simple people are using them?

Whatever happened to the "Mac/iPod/iTunes users are the smartest/coolest/hippest" meme?

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 05:07 · Score: 1

If the Itunes Music Store is defaulted to ON, this is kind of sneaky since most people do not realize how to turn it off or if Apple saves their personal data or not.

What, you mean they'll miss both the icon underneath that turns it off, AND the Edit/Hide Mini-Store menu option. I don't think so. But even if that's true, then they are even less likely to find the option to switch it on as they don't know it's there at all. Which is a good reason for enabling it by default to demonstrate the new feature.

If it is defaulted to OFF that is better, but if it is turned on it should have a pop-up telling you that your music selections are being tracked by Apple and how to turn it off.

They are not being tracked. A query is made to the store with the artist name. Info is returned, then it is discarded. By no definition of the word "tracked" can that be applied. You are doing a real disservice to the cause against real spyware by complaining about red-herrings like this one.
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by pboulang · 2006-01-12 05:12 · Score: 1

wait... so the RFID in my new sneakers that are used for inventory is tied to my credit card and now whenever I walk past a sensor anywhere, it is picked up and can be logged? This place is getting double plus ungood.

--
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by Brewskibrew · 2006-01-12 05:19 · Score: 1

> RFID in my new sneakers
iTunes knows how bad a dancer you are, which is why you're not getting as many recommendations for Tom Jones...

--
For sale: Signature. One owner. Low miles. Always garaged. New punctuation, just installed!
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:31 · Score: 0

Actually it's easier than that, just hit the first button on the left of the group of buttons at the bottom right side of iTunes, the one with the tooltip that says "Show or hide the MiniStore."
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 05:39 · Score: 1

So you're trying to say Apple makes products that are so stupid simple to use... that stupid and simple people are using them?

No, he's not trying to say that.

Whatever happened to the "Mac/iPod/iTunes users are the smartest/coolest/hippest" meme?

Having put words in his mouth and formed a conclusion he did not make, you're now trying to leverage this false conclusion to attack his point with something unrelated.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Itunes Music Store Default On or Off? by SoulRider · 2006-01-12 07:15 · Score: 1

Or why not hit the big button along the bottom of the window that pops up a message saying "Turn off mini store"? It took me all of 5 seconds to figure out how to turn it off. So even if it takes joe computer-illiterate sixpack 5 times longer to figure it out that is still less than a minute they will have to worry about someone finding the the 100Gig music library they downloaded off of eMule.

If the word was reliable... by StupidHelpDeskGuy · 2006-01-12 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

"reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself" then why not cite the source?

Re:If the word was reliable... by Guysmiley777 · 2006-01-12 04:33 · Score: 3, Funny

What?? Are you saying reporters should cite sources and report facts? What are you, some kind of Commie pinko terrorist?

--
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Re:If the word was reliable... by tezbobobo · 2006-01-12 04:50 · Score: 1

Because in Australia that is the difference between a law suit and a non-lawsuit. It is one thing to say "Bill Gates is a peadophile" and another to say "I think Bill Gates is a peadophile." (Sorry Bill. To state something happened which didn't opens one up to charges and slander and worse. To say there are rumours is completely different.
Re:If the word was reliable... by doc+modulo · 2006-01-12 04:53 · Score: 1

The reason is called CYA (Cover Your Ass).

If Steve Jobs is not on record saying that Apple doesn't save private information, if it was only a rumor, then he can't be sued if it turns out that Apple did indeed save private information.

If the people decide to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, it's because they have a reasonable reputation. These kinds of actions (it's spyware wether or not the info is saved) are eroding that reputation however. In the past, corporations could both do bad things and use spin to keep their reputations on a high level. Nowadays that doesn't work nearly as well.

It's simple, just do the right thing and your precious reputation (Apple rep = $) will stay intact.

Don't say that "we don't save the info", just don't send it to Apple's servers in the first place.

Then your clients will have proof that nothing bad's happening, now we'll have to trust some rumor.

Same principle applies to the TPM / DRM / Root chip in the new Intel Macs, I won't be buying one.

--
- -- Truth addict for life.
Re:If the word was reliable... by yardbird · 2006-01-12 05:04 · Score: 1

And more to the point, why didn't they capitalize "Himself"?

--
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
Re:If the word was reliable... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:23 · Score: 0

Is a peadophile someone who gets turned on by small green vegetables?
Re:If the word was reliable... by tbone1 · 2006-01-12 05:32 · Score: 1

What?? Are you saying reporters should cite sources and report facts? What are you, some kind of Commie pinko terrorist?
He's certainly no Gannet newspaper editor ...

--

The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Re:If the word was reliable... by node+3 · 2006-01-12 14:35 · Score: 2, Funny

"reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself" then why not cite the source?

Because the Macworld reporter did not store the information, only used it to make recommendations about the MiniStore.
Re:If the word was reliable... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 16:26 · Score: 0

yeah, nice modding yourself up there

If it were Microsoft... by zenderbender · 2006-01-12 04:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Everyone would still be angry no matter what Bill says. Because it's not, then everything is ok. BTW: I am a Linux guy... Making an observation...

Steve always tells the truth.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:29 · Score: 3, Funny

You can always trust what Steve Jobs says,
"We will NOT be releasing a video iPod"........

Re:Steve always tells the truth.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:02 · Score: 0

And Apple still hasn't ... What's funny about this?
Re:Steve always tells the truth.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 07:08 · Score: 0

They released an iPod with video, but it's not a "video iPod".

You see, this all depends on how you define the word "is".
Re:Steve always tells the truth.... by zonker · 2006-01-12 15:45 · Score: 0

nice misquote. jobs never said they were never going to release a video ipod. he just questioned why apple should create one because at the time it didn't seem to make sense. but people kept demanding it and apple finally decided to deliver on it.

--
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

not actually being collected by glesga_kiss · 2006-01-12 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes. [...] Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected.

Release the source of the server app and then we might believe you. We've all heard the "not actually collected" bit many times. Sony first tried to deny this particular privacy invasion in their rootkit, yet later they were caught out. Unique URLs combined with IPs, what more do you need?

Frankly, if I were writing such a service, logging some of the most financially valuable market research you get your hands on is a given. There wouldn't be any debate on the issue, you log it and sell it! And if you are morally sound, you offer it as an opt-on program and be honest about it.

Re:not actually being collected by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:46 · Score: 0

that doesn't prove anything. unless you think they're going to let you log in and verify that the source they provided is the source they're running.

further, what's the big deal with someone knowing what music you're listening to? if you don't want the ministore to send data, turn it off, and if you want to have music suggested to you, turn it on.

it's not that hard. stop whining.
Re:not actually being collected by cmdr_beeftaco · 2006-01-12 04:50 · Score: 5, Funny

If this music tracking information allows us to nab a single terrorist on US soil to is worth the relatively small price. An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) said several terrorist cells were identify after a nefarious pattern of Dixie Chicks downloads was mined from their database.
Folks post-9/11 America cannot expect due process or privacy. Danger lurks in the shadows and casting a blinding light down the alleys of American pop culture is the only way to find this enemy.
Re:not actually being collected by cmdr_beeftaco · 2006-01-12 04:55 · Score: 1

I'd not only should they allow me to log onto their servers and see what server they are running but they should let me recompile their server with source code modifcations that I deem needed to veil my identity. Furthmore, I am morally opposed to HTTP/GET and believe Apple should suspend all HTTP/GET responses if they want my 99 cents.
Re:not actually being collected by neoform · 2006-01-12 05:07 · Score: 1

If you were running a music service I'm quite sure you wouldn't be releasing the server's code..

When you log on to your favorite IM or Webmail do you take their word that they're not keeping copies of everything your write? Or do you demand to have a copy of their server's code.. you know, just to make sure they're not lying to you with their privacy policy.. :|

--
MABASPLOOM!
Re:not actually being collected by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:30 · Score: 0

Opt-in would be cool. like the member cards at grocery stores... Just wish they would give a discount or free downloads to those who do opt-in.
Re:not actually being collected by Pendersempai · 2006-01-12 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me get this straight: if you don't trust Apple to tell the truth about whether they collect information in the first place, why would you trust that the source code they release is the code that's actually running their server? Releasing it doesn't seem to gain them any credibility, and it does open up lots of very valuable proprietary code in a market filled with willing competitors.
Re:not actually being collected by glesga_kiss · 2006-01-12 05:36 · Score: 1

If you were running a music service I'm quite sure you wouldn't be releasing the server's code..
Ask me that in six months. Seriously. I'm sure as hell going to be gathering these stats, but the output will be Creative Commons licensed and fully anonymous. It will also be an opt-in system.
When you log on to your favorite IM or Webmail do you take their word that they're not keeping copies of everything your write?
At first, yes. Then if they are caught lying about it, I never trust them again. Anyone who trusts a liar is a fool.
Re:not actually being collected by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-12 07:05 · Score: 1

If you don't trust Apple ... why are you running their closed-source software? Who knows what it could be doing to your machine. Maybe it's keylogging you. Maybe it's sending the contents of your hard drive back to them, byte by byte.

Are you running a Mac? Maybe the kernel has been intentionally backdoored. You'd never know -- unless you've audited their source, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you probably haven't.

The point here is that there are two roads you can take. You can decide that a company is basically trustworthy, and take what Jobs (or whomever) said at face value. Or you can not trust them, and assume everything they do is tainted.

If you're in that second camp, I'd hope you're using only open-source software that you've either reviewed yourself or has been reviewed and signed by other people you trust, because that's the only way you're ever going to guarantee the security of your data, without at some point just implicitly trusting the word of some corporation.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:not actually being collected by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-13 01:20 · Score: 0

your post is a perfect example of how moderators have started using the "Funny" mod to mean "Funny (Effort)" instead of "Funny (Genuinely Funny)."

Damage Control by Billosaur · 2006-01-12 04:30 · Score: 1

Apple could have avoided the hullaballoo over this by making it clear from the start that this was going on. The only reason anyone got up-in-arms over it was the apparent lack of straightforward documentation on how the system worked and what a user's rights are. Now everyone knows and Apple should make sure everyone knows in the future.End of story.

--
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network

Re:Damage Control by daveschroeder · 2006-01-12 04:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Disclaimer: I am the article submitter.

This is not "Damage Control". They did make it clear. The knowledge base article, available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:

iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store.

In addition, the day iTunes 6.0.2 was released, http://www.apple.com/itunes/ said:

Discover Music

Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.

and http://www.apple.com/itunes/playlists/ said:

Discover New Music

Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.

and

MiniStore

Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs with MiniStore -- right from your iTunes library.

Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening.

Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. But Apple wasn't hiding this, and this isn't damage control, other than the fact that if enough blogs keep (incorrectly) asserting that Apple is "spying" on you, then it isn't long before some mainstream media picks the (incorrect) story up.
Re:Damage Control by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 04:50 · Score: 0

Wow! A daveschroeder post I actually agree with. The end is nigh!

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:Damage Control by Daedala · 2006-01-12 05:00 · Score: 0, Redundant

This is all very nice, but it doesn't apply to those few people who already have an earlier version of iTunes installed and just ran the updater. There was no warning, no indication, and two DIFFERENT EULAs, neither of which mention Omniture (the third-party company doing this). You can't NOT send information unless you know beforehand to disable the ministore -- as soon as you play your first song (something one often wishes to do in iTunes, for some funny reason), you are sending in information.

They absolutely should have had a dialog box warning users of this. Or including it in the update description. This is a minor update, not something current users should have to go to the website to read up on. Is it pretty obvious what's going on? Sure. But opt-out doesn't work for spam, either.

--
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
Re:Damage Control by Moby+Cock · 2006-01-12 05:01 · Score: 1

We know that the data is sent to servers at iTMS. This much is assured. What we don't know is what happens to it there. Apple has announced that the data is used to create a recommendation and then it is discarded. This can not be verified. If it is discarded, are metrics being collected about which recommendations are the more common? In other words are the results of the discarded data being collected? I expect so, but it is speculation. The data collected is such a fashoion would likely be anonymous but some privacy issues are justifiably raised.

Disclaimer: I submitted the story yesterday that began the discussion on /.
Re:Damage Control by bloodmusic · 2006-01-12 05:05 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, we must warn them that in the future they should delete the words 'crunchy frog', and replace them with the legend 'crunchy raw unboned real dead frog', if they want to avoid prosecution.
Re:Damage Control by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-01-12 05:08 · Score: 1

This is not "Damage Control". They did make it clear. The knowledge base article, available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:
Yeah, I always go to the KB when I'm installing new software. Doesn't everybody?
Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.
No doubt BabelFish translates that to: This app sends back all the information to Apple on everything you play so that they can guess about what they might be able to sell you next. But they promise somewhere not to actually keep it afterwards, give it to anybody else -- or most of all, try to sell you iTunes legal DRM versions of your ripped/downloaded MP3 files. I'll be able to verify this as soon as I can find the translation option of from Jobs RDF to English.
Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.
Oh yeah, anyone can figure out from that how they're sending personally identifying information (your IP address at minimum, and probably some iTunes identifier wouldn't you think, along with your music choice and whether or not you've bought it from them I suspect) about your music choices to Apple, with no comment at on what Apple might do with such valuable information -- besides trying to sell you more DRM-laden music, that is. Does Apple not share at least some of this information with the record companies supplying their content?
As the Original Poster, you haven't made your case very well here I must say.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Damage Control by Moby+Cock · 2006-01-12 05:14 · Score: 1

As the Original Poster, you haven't made your case very well here I must say.

Submitting a story to slashdot hardly requires someone to pick a side. It is merely a solicitation for discussion.
Re:Damage Control by Billosaur · 2006-01-12 05:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. But Apple wasn't hiding this, and this isn't damage control, other than the fact that if enough blogs keep (incorrectly) asserting that Apple is "spying" on you, then it isn't long before some mainstream media picks the (incorrect) story up.
Perhaps "spying" is too strong a word, but they weren't exactly putting it out front for people to see easily, were they? Look, after Sony's DRM flap, even a hint of impropriety is enough to release the hounds. Why should Apple be immune? Any company that can't come right out and tell you exactly what they are doing up front is simply asking to be ridiculed.

Don't worry, this isn't going to put a dent in the growing ranks of the iZombies, but it should make people read the fine print more carefully, and it should make any company (not just Sony, Apple, or Symantec) be more wary about trying to do things in the background rather than being up front about it. The only way people are going technology they can trust is if they demand accountability from the companies that produce it. This isn't on par with the Sony DRM flap, but who knows where it might have gone had it been left unchecked.

--
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Re:Damage Control by MOGua · 2006-01-12 06:22 · Score: 0

"iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store."
last time I checked, "the iTunes Music Store" isn't at omniture.com.

iTMS != omniture.
Re:Damage Control by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · 2006-01-12 06:34 · Score: 1

>Apple could have avoided the hullaballoo over this by making it clear from the start that this was going on.

if only they had listed it as a feature on their website or written an article about it in the knowledgebase or if Steve Jobs had talked about it during the keynote...

oh wait, they did all three!

ffs.
Re:Damage Control by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-12 06:49 · Score: 1

As the Original Poster, you haven't made your case very well here I must say.

Considering that your case consists of 'probably,' 'wouldn't you think,' wild guesses and assumptions with no basis in reality and which in fact stand in opposition to the established facts, surely your case is the ill-made one?
Re:Damage Control by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 06:52 · Score: 1

...but they weren't exactly putting it out front for people to see easily, were they?

I guess if you're blind and can't see the ministore that now takes up nearly half of your iTunes window with bright colorful icons and album covers that were never there before, then yes, they aren't putting it out front for people to see easily. Do you even know of what you speak?

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:Damage Control by deesine · 2006-01-12 08:26 · Score: 1

This isn't on par with the Sony DRM flap, but who knows where it might have gone had it been left unchecked...
I dunno...maybe with you getting songs listed in the MusicStore that are related to what you're currently listening to?! Ahhh, the horror of it!

--
damaged by dogma

Still seems a little fishy by Moby+Cock · 2006-01-12 04:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the article: The good news is, Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected. The data sent is used to update the MiniStore and then discarded. If you think about it, this makes sense--imagine the size of the data files they would accumulate with millions of users and what must be hundreds of millions of songs played each day. But Apple should tell us as much, so that we can all relax a bit about sharing our listening habits with Apple.

That sounds like the amount of data the Google collects daily and has done for months. That sort of information would be a treasure trove to record companies and marketing execs. Apple has said that they are not keeping the data, and I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt here. However, when a weak (or fallacious) argument like the one above is used it gives me pause.

Re:Still seems a little fishy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:49 · Score: 0

f the amount of data collected can be used as an argument for "discarding", keep in mind what amounts of data other companies are collecting on their customers:

http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2004/ 11/knowledge_is_po.html
Re:Still seems a little fishy by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 05:11 · Score: 1

I'm quite happy that if they say they are not keeping it, then they are not. But IF THEY WERE collecting this information in terms of totals which are useful to record companies marketing, can anyone explain what damage this would cause to individuals?
Re:Still seems a little fishy by Moby+Cock · 2006-01-12 05:23 · Score: 1

Where is the harm? Probably no specific and direct harm will come of this. Nobody is going to suffer, however many fear that these sorts of programs have positioned consumers on the top of a slippery slope. We all have a right to privacy, that is, our business is ours and we choose whom we share it with. As of late, many companies have chosen to monitor and track and statistically analyse our behaviour often without consent. Where this will lead, is very worrisome to many people. Optimists hail it as the renaissance of marketing. Pessimists decry it as the end of personal privacy. (I personnaly am somewhere in the middle). In this case, with iTunes, the harm is negligible but it is important to remind companies that we are watching and wary about what they are doing.
Re:Still seems a little fishy by EZLeeAmused · 2006-01-12 05:50 · Score: 1

The only people who would potentially risk actual harm would be someone who played a track a week before the CD was released, or someone who burned 20 copies of a CD over a weekend. However, I agree that you have to draw a line somewhere on what is legitimate market research and what is invasion of privacy. It's kinda like email - I personally don't care if the CIA wants to read every piece of email I receive or write, but I can understand people who are doing nothing wrong but still don't want that to happen.

--
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
Re:Still seems a little fishy by Seanasy · 2006-01-12 06:45 · Score: 1

I'm quite happy that if they say they are not keeping it, then they are not. But IF THEY WERE collecting this information in terms of totals which are useful to record companies marketing, can anyone explain what damage this would cause to individuals?
About as much as is caused by record stores reporting sales of CDs.

The only way you could get me angry about this is if they were collecting personally identifiable information. In other words, information they could use to say, "Joe Smith likes these bands, his credit rating is high, he lives at 123 Maple St. and his phone number is 555-1234." Then, they bombard Joe with telemarketing and junk mail.

As long as it's anonymous and doesn't suck up too much of my bandwidth, I don't have problem. But then, I use Audioscrobbler/Last.fm so I'm not afraid of people knowing what songs I'm listening to.
Re:Still seems a little fishy by BasilBrush · 2006-01-12 06:54 · Score: 1

Well, yes. I too can understand people not wanting their emails being read by the CIA. But this isn't that. People complaining about this mundane web service technology, and using silly labels to imply it's bad are doing a disservice to the true fight against infringements of privacy that are really harmful.
Re:Still seems a little fishy by kettch · 2006-01-12 08:38 · Score: 1

Actually, would it really be such a bad idea if apple turned over (sold) the final aggregated data to the record companies? I'm sure that the data would go a long way towards proving why nobody buys their shit music. Maybe they would wonder why 10,000 people only ever listen to 1 song out of a whole cd, or why whole swaths of artists/albums never get listened to more than a couple of times.

I doubt the record companies would believe the data (they are way too fond of blaming everything from bad sales to crop circles on piracy) but it would be one more nail in the coffin.

--
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu

nothing new here by PureCreditor · 2006-01-12 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google scans your emails for ads, Amazon tracks your order history for recommendations, credit card company analyze your transactional pattern to offer balance transfer promotions....

it's all about tayloring for each customer.

provided Apple is not *sharing* this data with 3rd-parties, I don't find anything wrong with internal data mining.

Re:nothing new here by BodhiCat · 2006-01-12 04:52 · Score: 1

Face it, there is no longer any such thing as privacy. The internet is just the telescreen of 1984, where the powers that be watch you while you watch their programs. [Obigatory quote left out here.] With datamining, cell phone call available from web sites, personal records, etc. for sale, Big Brother Dubya scaning calls, usw. we are all living in houses with open curtains. I guess the only way out of this is to become a Zen monk and live in a cave without internet, phone, or credit cards, but even then the government would probably hire some badger to spy on you.
Re:nothing new here by Daedala · 2006-01-12 04:53 · Score: 5, Informative

The packets are being sent to a third party. This has been reported from the beginning. Omniture is not noted in the iTunes EULA the way, say, Gracenote CDDB is. Even if Apple isn't saving the information, what do we know about Omniture? We have no policy from them on this issue. Their business is collecting statistical information. They're a marketing firm.

For that matter, why does the data need to go to a third party at all? How are they related to the iTMS?

--
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
Re:nothing new here by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

Google scans your emails for ads...

Well, that's silly of them. I don't put ads in my emails...

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:nothing new here by Biomechanical · 2006-01-12 05:23 · Score: 1

Face it, there is no longer any such thing as privacy. The internet is just the telescreen of 1984, where the powers that be watch you while you watch their programs. [Obigatory quote left out here.] With datamining, cell phone call available from web sites, personal records, etc. for sale, Big Brother Dubya scaning calls, usw. we are all living in houses with open curtains. I guess the only way out of this is to become a Zen monk and live in a cave without internet, phone, or credit cards, but even then the government would probably hire some badger to spy on you.

And that Badger's name was... Lunch. :)

Seriously, I thought I a cynic, but maybe that was just cynical here in Aus. Seems rather relaxed compared to your doom and gloom post.

--
His name is Robert Paulsen...
Re:nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:38 · Score: 0

This isn't anything new. Check out the source code for pages on Apple's website (I specifically noticed this on the iLife and iWork pages): Apple is sending information on page views to Omniture there as well. I'd say the chance is good the webpages iTunes loaded are doing the same things.
Re:nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:31 · Score: 0

Google, Amazon and all are doing that when you click a link
or button to send information to them. When using iTunes as
a jukebox, I don't expect it to communicate to the network
at all. Even more if I should listen to music which I have
no license to listen to. What will be next, the "Music Industry"
using my playlist to sue me for millions of dollars for
infringing their "Rights"?
Re:nothing new here by TubeSteak · 2006-01-12 07:48 · Score: 1

Omniture isn't anything to worry about.

The NYTimes uses them, and from their privacy policy
The New York Times on the Web is currently using and has contracted with Omniture, a third party, to track and analyze non-personally identifiable usage and volume statistical information from our visitors and customers to administer our Web site in order to constantly improve the Web site quality. All data collected by Omniture on behalf of The New York Times on the Web is owned and used by The New York Times on the Web. The New York Times on the Web reserves the right to publish non-personally identifiable, summary information regarding its Web site visitors for promotional purposes and as a representative audience for advertisers. Please note that this is not personal information, only general summaries of the activities of our visitors and customers.

Omniture uses cookies to help track visitor behavior and sets cookies on behalf of The New York Times on the Web which will be listed under the domain 2O7.net. For more information about Omniture's privacy policy, including how to opt out, go to www.omniture.com/policy.html
Just to make sure everyone understands what I'm quoting: All data collected by Omniture on behalf of The NYT is owned and used by The NYT.

They said "owned" as in "it is ours and not Omniture's"

I imagine Apple has a similar relationship and that it would be included under whatever Apple's policy is on cookies and web bugs.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Saven+Marek · 2006-01-12 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did you know every major web browser by default sends out info about your operating system name and version, your CPU type, usually your ISP, your browser and version and sometimes extras added onto your browser, and allows it to be logged on almost every single website you have ever visited. Most web browsers DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO CHANGE THIS.

So browsers are spyware too by the attitude some people are taking here.

In other words defining as spyware is not a black and white picture. It's shades of grey and in this situation I see iTunes as pretty white.

Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by the+chao+goes+mu · 2006-01-12 04:47 · Score: 1

I don't ever recall seeing the CPU type listed in the http headers.

--
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:04 · Score: 0

Not all do it, but it's in the browser identity string. A few from my webserver:

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/417.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.8
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc3 Firefox/1.0.7
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 Firefox/1.0.7 SUSE/1.0.7-0.1
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050913 SeaMonkey/1.0a

The only major browser that doesn't seem to be spyware is MSIE on Windows.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by TubeSteak · 2006-01-12 05:09 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure it's something they can grab using html/javascript

but if that fails, it is definitely something you can get using a shockwave flash file.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by dot.solipsist · 2006-01-12 05:09 · Score: 1

This is an example I just pulled from the first page of my referrer logs:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/417.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.8

As a side note, I am genuinely interested to see what string is given from the Safari universal binary running on a recently-announced, Intel-powered Mac.

--
Sig Sig Sputnik
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by rebeka+thomas · 2006-01-12 05:10 · Score: 0

know every major web browser by default sends out info about your operating system name and version, your CPU type, usually your ISP, your browser and version and sometimes extras added onto your browser, and allows it to be logged on almost every single website you have ever visited. Most web browsers DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO CHANGE THIS.

Bullshit. In 11 years of website admin I have never heard of ANY web browser doing all of this. Ever. Irregardless, I'm sure if Firefox or other open source browsers had done anything of the sort even in their early periods people would have known about it within days and removed the code for it, or at least made it an option turned OFF by default.

--
RST
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by the+chao+goes+mu · 2006-01-12 05:22 · Score: 1

Seems much more prevalent on Mac and Linux. Mozilla for windows does not appear to do it. And FreeBSD only says i386 (which I know the machine is not). Konquerer for *BSD also doesn't appear to give the CPU type.

--
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Ken_g6 · 2006-01-12 05:24 · Score: 1

- operating system name and version
Huh. I never noticed this in my Firefox headers before.
- your CPU type
I don't see this in the headers either.
- usually your ISP
Well, they get that from your IP, which it's hard to avoid sending (you need an anonymizer proxy).
- your browser and version and sometimes extras added onto your browser
This really helps send a version of the page that will display correctly. And it's mostly harmless.

If you want to get rid of anything but your IP, there's the Proxomitron. http://www.proxomitron.info/
I think I'll delete my OS info.

--
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by morgan_greywolf · 2006-01-12 05:33 · Score: 1
CPU type, yes.

ISP, no.

Browser and browser version, yes

Operating System and version? Not always.

A couple from one of my websites:
- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051010 Firefox/1.0.7 (Ubuntu package 1.0.7)
- Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)
From what I can read in the first one, the person is using Firefox 1.0.7 on Ubuntu Linux. I can guess that the person is probably running Breezy (5.10), but I can't be sure. I can see that person has the browser configured for U.S. English, and that they are running on at least a Pentium II. That's it.

From the other string, I can see that the person is running Internet Exploder 6 on Windows 2000. I can guess by Windows 2000's requirements that they have a Pentium II or better, but I can't really tell that. I do know that they would have to be running Intel, and that's all I can see for sure. I don't know what Service Pack is installed, either.

But ISP names? None. CPU type? I can't tell for sure which CPU type other either of those have other than they are made by Intel or AMD or maybe Cyrix or Transmeta...some x86-compatible chip. I know for the Linux client, it must be either an Intel Pentium II, III or 4, or a comparable Celeron, or an AMD Athlon or Duron or better. That hardly narrows it down.

And what personally-identifiable information is in here? None. There are millions of people running Windows 2000. Thousands run Ubuntu Linux. Millions run Firefox and millions more run IE.

Plus, I think if we were talking about Microsoft's music store, you wouldn't be defending them so vehemently.
--
My blog
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Tony+Hoyle · 2006-01-12 05:47 · Score: 1

I'd guess i386 OS-X or Intel OS-X

There's nothing 'universal' about universal binaries - they're just two copies of the code compiled for different architectures and bundled.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 05:49 · Score: 1

Bullshit. In 11 years of website admin I have never heard of ANY web browser doing all of this. Ever.

11 years of website admin, and you didn't know a website just has to browse some simple HTTP variables to determine your browser and OS? You never heard of the User-Agent string? Hell, I can even determine your screen resolution, language, and more.

I dispute that you've been a website admin for more than one year.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by tm2b · 2006-01-12 06:05 · Score: 2, Informative

ISP, yes.

Your originating IP address (which the server must get in order to return information to you) is enough to reveal who your ISP is. Every internet connection that isn't proxied through another host will give that information.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:10 · Score: 0

No.

For example one of the sites browsing me recently has the IP 68.82.150.118

The only thing you can guess from that is it's probably in Europe, as many 68.x.x.x IPs are, but that's no guarantee it is. All you're able to do is make a guess, and nothing else.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by aristotle-dude · 2006-01-12 06:23 · Score: 1

Sorry but you are wrong. Send yourself an email and then look at the headers or look at the headers of a usenet post you make. It will contain a unique hostname assigned by your ISP for the IP they assigned you at the last IP renewal. It usually has a random host name followed by the domain name for your ISP.
This usually shows up in the section of the header that shows which host connected to your SMTP server to send the message onward.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:28 · Score: 0

How is that the same thing?
Browsers doesn't report what you do to anyone. (unless you count referers, and even then it's very limited) It only report information about itself to whatever server it tries to connect to.
Spyware report what you do to its creators, browsers doesn't report anything to its creators.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by radish · 2006-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1

The difference is purpose. A web browser's purpose is to go to a webserver and get a page to display to me. In the process there are a few things it has to do, including sending details about it's own identity and capabilities to the server. This is something it's doing on my request. Fair enough.

In the case of iTunes, what I asked it to do was play an audio file from my hard disk. That does NOT require it to send any data anywhere, and yet it chooses to do so. That's the problem.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:28 · Score: 0

For example one of the sites browsing me recently has the IP 68.82.150.118

The only thing you can guess from that is it's probably in Europe, as many 68.x.x.x IPs are, but that's no guarantee it is. All you're able to do is make a guess, and nothing else.

$ host 68.82.150.118
118.150.82.68.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer pcp02301507pcs.univde01.de.comcast.net.

Comcast in Delaware.

Next?
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by tm2b · 2006-01-12 06:30 · Score: 1

Leviathan::[cactus] > traceroute 68.82.150.118 traceroute to 68.82.150.118 (68.82.150.118), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.0.1.1 (10.0.1.1) 5.465 ms 3.401 ms 2.448 ms [...] 5 so-6-0-0-0.peer-rtr1.atl81.verizon-gni.net (130.81.17.141) 1535.034 ms 339.902 ms 530.950 ms 6 so-7-0-0-0.gar2.atlanta1.level3.net (4.78.214.1) 294.210 ms 263.122 ms 634.710 ms 7 ae-1-55.bbr1.atlanta1.level3.net (4.68.103.129) 313.020 ms 242.438 ms ae-1-53.bbr1.atlanta1.level3.net (4.68.103.65) 335.332 ms 8 ae-2-0.bbr1.washington1.level3.net (4.68.128.201) 253.289 ms pop2-atm-p0-0.atdn.net (66.185.147.209) 27.804 ms ae-0-0.bbr2.washington1.level3.net (4.68.128.210) 132.514 ms 9 ae-23-56.car3.washington1.level3.net (4.68.121.176) 70.344 ms 4.68.121.144 (4.68.121.144) 57.124 ms 55.881 ms 10 tbr1011301.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.82.210) 47.801 ms att-level3-oc48.washington1.level3.net (209.244.219.142) 57.353 ms level3-gw.wswdc.ip.att.net (192.205.32.41) 67.101 ms 11 tbr2-p011901.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.9.118) 69.157 ms 65.199 ms tbr2-p013901.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.9.86) 65.427 ms 12 12.122.10.53 (12.122.10.53) 70.027 ms 67.635 ms 64.713 ms 13 gar7-p390.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.3.85) 101.331 ms 1761.990 ms 1846.070 ms 14 12.118.102.14 (12.118.102.14) 1711.764 ms 1610.461 ms 66.628 ms 15 te-8-1-ar01.plainfield.nj.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.211.1) 67.195 ms 67.998 ms 69.016 ms 16 po80-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.208.2) 71.179 ms 95.676 ms 66.200 ms 17 po10-ar01.wallingford.pa.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.208.26) 63.165 ms 596.573 ms 1535.388 ms 18 po10-ar01.coatesville.pa.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.208.38) 1840.032 ms 2068.014 ms 52.897 ms 19 po10-ur01.coatesville.pa.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.209.70) 1480.761 ms 452.259 ms 638.470 ms 20 te-1-1-ur02.coatesville.pa.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.209.74) 531.959 ms 583.772 ms 614.550 ms 21 te-1-1-ur01.limstonedr.de.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.209.78) 2150.631 ms 1861.180 ms 52.647 ms 22 ge-5-1-ur01.uofdelaware.de.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.209.110) 1990.641 ms 1772.941 ms 497.692 ms 23 * * *
[...]

Europe? Looks like University of Delaware through Comcast to me, but I'm not particularly motivated to dig deeper.

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Saven+Marek · 2006-01-12 06:37 · Score: 1

> Spyware report what you do to its creators, browsers doesn't report anything to its creators.

So are you denying firefox sends any of this information when you browse http://www.mozilla.com/ ?
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Saven+Marek · 2006-01-12 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

> That does NOT require it to send any data anywhere, and yet it chooses to do so. That's the problem.

The server does not require Firefox to send information about CPU, Operating system or specific linux distro to a web server to get a page. In fact you could manually set the browser identity to null, and the webserver would happily provide you with a page that will work more than 99% of the time.

So that information is NOT required. It is wanted by the website owners perhaps, but it is NOT required to be sent.

Yet firefox (as one example because other browsers do it too) does send that information by default. Why is it telling web sites about my distro and which CPU it is running on? I didn't ask it to.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by jmd! · 2006-01-12 06:44 · Score: 1

You're right about the parent poster needing to be fired.

You're wrong about irregardless. Quoth Merriam-Webster:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 07:44 · Score: 0

No, you'r correct, it does send that information when you browse their site. But it still doesn't spy on you. It doesn't tell mozilla what you are doing when you'r not browsing their site, It doesn't even tell mozilla what you are doing when you'r browsing their site except for the pages you activly request from them.

Yes, you could claim that it requests a homepage from them by default and thereby giving them the information when you open the browser for the first time (and every time after that until you change that page). But I claim that it is not a privacy concern to reveal you system. Privacy is about what you do, not what you own.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by m50d · 2006-01-12 08:48 · Score: 1

Did you know every major web browser by default sends out info about your operating system name and version, your CPU type, usually your ISP, your browser and version and sometimes extras added onto your browser, and allows it to be logged on almost every single website you have ever visited.
I have no problem with a site knowing about the browser I'm visiting it with. If it wanted information on what other programs I was running, then I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, I don't mind iTMS knowing about the songs I buy from there, but my songs I have from other things are my business.
Most web browsers DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO CHANGE THIS.
Then, if you don't like it, use a decent browser, like my personal favourite, Konqueror. One menu and you're IE, lynx, googlebot or whatever you want to be.

--
I am trolling
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 09:46 · Score: 0

So that's how all the pr0n sites are able to give me a list of hot women in my area looking to hook up!
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by black+mariah · 2006-01-12 11:43 · Score: 0

Don't make me spingdwipt your dfdfdf.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by zonker · 2006-01-12 15:49 · Score: 0

i was under the impression though that universal binaries could share the data files between architectures (ie, the other files bundled inside the program package) and that the program file was all that really needed two copies.

--
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Re:Remember every web browser is spyware too. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-13 14:33 · Score: 0

I dispute that you've been a website admin for more than one year.

Agreed. It's painfully obvious, too: "rebeka" is clearly a chick, and chicks are just plain stupid. Especially when it comes to tech.

Re:Yeah OK by massivefoot · 2006-01-12 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

You wouldn't get a car from Apple anyway. Get over it.

Unreasonable Paranoia by dsanfte · 2006-01-12 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The onus is on you to protect yourself if you're so paranoid about your privacy. A harmless ad server using your collection to serve relevant ads is a reasonable thing to expect a company to do if you have a business relationship with them.

If you're this desperately paranoid about the evil corporations knowing what music you listen to, guess what? Apple already does, every time you buy a song through their store, and furthermore they have your real name, credit card number, and address also. You shouldn't be using this service.

This is reality. Time to deal with it.

--
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb

Re:Unreasonable Paranoia by SchrodingersRoot · 2006-01-12 05:31 · Score: 1

I don't use iTunes, personally, and while my reaction to the news was wary, it was also level-headed and reasonable, in my opinion. I don't like companies gathering my data without my knowledge and/or consent. I do proactively protect my privacy, and am willilng to give it up in certain cases, for certain reasons, just as an aside. I do consider it to be my responsibility, for the most part.

As I said, I don't use iTunes. It appears that it wouldn't affect me, as I would close the ministore reflexively, without this news. I choose to believe, for the moment, Apple, when they say they're not futzing with the information.

However, I would like to point out that you don't have to be using the music store to use iTunes. If/when I get an iPod, I'll probably use iTunes. I still doubt I'll use the store. Ergo, the iTMS will not have my real name, credit card number, address, or a list of songs I've bought.

Now, one could argue that that means my listening habits are less useful to them, marketwise, then, and I'd agree. I still wouldn't like that information being sent, without my informed consent, were that to be the case.
Re:Unreasonable Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:35 · Score: 0

AHHH!!! THE FOOSA! They are ATTACKING! Run for your lives you silly creatures!
Re:Unreasonable Paranoia by fermion · 2006-01-12 07:32 · Score: 1

Reality is that consumer product live and die on market perception. Apple has some succes because the market percieves that there is an added value to Apple products, which translates into higher margins. On of the big marketing advantages is that the default behavior of Apple products is less invasive that the competitors. This is woth a lot to some people, and in some way drives sales.
If the default behavior was that the mini store would not recomend music, but there were a button you press to turn the recomendation on, either temporarily or permanantly, the issue would no exist so much. The defualt behavior would be private and secure. Instead, like the links to music stores, Apple is caving into pressure to monetize the user rather than make money on a superior experience.
It is not surprising, but still disappointing. I said it before and I said it agian. Now that Apple is on Intel, it is a prime opportunity to have a third party come in do the job that Apple used to do.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Unreasonable Paranoia by m50d · 2006-01-12 08:50 · Score: 1

The onus is on you to protect yourself if you're so paranoid about your privacy. A harmless ad server using your collection to serve relevant ads is a reasonable thing to expect a company to do if you have a business relationship with them.
Not when the collection's on my personal hard drive. They sell me songs, they can do what they like with the info they have from that - but once they've given me a program, that should be my program, not snooping around on their behalf.

--
I am trolling
Re:Unreasonable Paranoia by geekee · 2006-01-12 12:10 · Score: 1

"The onus is on you to protect yourself if you're so paranoid about your privacy. A harmless ad server using your collection to serve relevant ads is a reasonable thing to expect a company to do if you have a business relationship with them.

If you're this desperately paranoid about the evil corporations knowing what music you listen to, guess what? Apple already does, every time you buy a song through their store, and furthermore they have your real name, credit card number, and address also. You shouldn't be using this service.

This is reality. Time to deal with it."

I don't buy any music from Apple. I need to use iTunes to upload songs to my iPod, however. Apple is the one that needs to deal with reality and respect my privacy by asking me first before attempting to download information from my computer. Otherwise I'll go buy something from iRiver or Creative next time.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Unreasonable Paranoia by Chanc_Gorkon · 2006-01-12 15:51 · Score: 1

It may have been said but you DON'T HAVE to use iTunes to load music on your iPod. There's EphPod and gtkpod. Granted, iTunes is likely to always work with your iPod and those others are likely to break for a moment when Apple makes updates(or when you buy a new iPod). Don't go bitching about only having to use iTunes to sync your iPod. Try googling before you bitch. That said, I could care less if the title and artist name and album name are the only things transmitted I could care less. If they start sending that it's a unencrypted MP3, we might have more of an issue, but since iTunes still supports unencrypted MP3 as well as letting you create the, well, I don't see it being an issue. It's a NON ISSUE.

--
Gorkman

last_modified by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:35 · Score: 0

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 066 = META NAME="last_modified" CONTENT="2006-01-09"
"which apparently was available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was introduced"

uhuh,

Let's try the story this way... by sheldon · 2006-01-12 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

"According to Windows Magazine and BoingBoing: 'A Microsoft spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Bill Gates himself) told Windows Magazine that Microsoft discards the personal information that the Windows Media Player Ministore transmits to Microsoft while you use Windows Media Player. [...] Microsoft tells us that the information is not actually being collected. The data sent is used to update the MiniStore and then discarded.' Microsoft also has a knowledge base article, which apparently was available the day Windows Media Player v10 was introduced, explaining the MiniStore behavior and how to disable it: 'Windows Media Player sends data about the song selected in your library to the Windows Media Player Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the Windows Media Player Music Store.'"

I think it would be fun to see the reactions to the story now.

Re:Let's try the story this way... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · 2006-01-12 04:54 · Score: 1

Sadly, I believe that Apple knows who they're dealing with at this time, and that's why they spewed up this sort of vague corporate drivel.
It pains me to admit it somewhat as a Windows user, but in general, Mac users know more about their computers than the average Windows junkie. Therefore, the former can generally be expected to know what spyware is and what sort of damage it can do, while the latter cannot. This leads one to conclude that the former will care more about spyware in general.
But, the former group (Mac users) also share another factor in common that Windows users do not: brand loyalty. They trust apple to do no evil. Because of that trust, they're inclined to not only take press releases from Apple such as this one at face value, but also to let cognitive dissonance set in when their beloved company's policies contradict their own personal beliefs (as exemplified by the various "well, THIS spyware isn't so bad..." posts on this topic and the first one.)
In other words, Apple knows what they're doing, because all of the company's brand-loyal lackeys will believe them no matter what they say, and most Windows users simply won't care.

--
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by tarnin · 2006-01-12 05:18 · Score: 1

"It pains me to admit it somewhat as a Windows user, but in general, Mac users know more about their computers than the average Windows junkie."

This isnt true. I work Helldesk. With their new push on ipods the mac is selling well to the general populace. I get a ton of windows like calls from mac users now. The questions are just as dumb/simple/inane and almost at the same rate and frequency as the windows users now.

Sorry but your statement may have been true years ago but not today.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:57 · Score: 0

That's because Gates has proven himself to be a liar and a cheat, and Jobs has not.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by MoneyT · 2006-01-12 08:47 · Score: 1

As I've said before, if:

Microsoft had a music store
Microsoft provided software to access said store and play MP3s
Microsoft added a feature to recomend new music based on what I was listening to at the time.
The feature was obvious and on the main window
Microsoft provided an easy way to turn this feature off.

then there would be no problem.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Let's try the story this way... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 09:02 · Score: 0

"It pains me to admit it somewhat as a Windows user, but in general, Mac users know more about their computers than the average Windows junkie. Therefore, the former can generally be expected to know what spyware is and what sort of damage it can do, while the latter cannot. This leads one to conclude that the former will care more about spyware in general."

Someone mod this up as funny. Mac users in general don't take any security precautions, and just assume their computers are secure.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 14:30 · Score: 0

Ummm... They do all of that.

The difference is, when you first use WMP it asks you if you want to enable this.

Apple, being the Statist Government types they are enables it for you because if they didn't you might not use it and that'd be bad for their bottom line.

This is like arguing with Republicans. Whatever you say, they'll find some goofball excuse.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by GaryPatterson · 2006-01-12 14:51 · Score: 1

That sounds fine to me.

No data is being kept, what is collected is not attached to some profile about me and I can disable the feature easily.

I'm not partial to Microsoft, but I see nothing to worry about in that statement.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by obeythefist · 2006-01-12 18:00 · Score: 1

It is good that you implicitly trust even second hand comments from Steve Jobs.

You are an excellent customer.

Please send me your contact details, I have many business proposals for you, and I have also acquired the sum of NINE MILLION US DOLLARS in currency that is currently held in a secure offshore bank account...

But seriously, did it even cross your mind that much like Microsoft, Apple is quite capable of spinning raw lies at consumers to keep them buying?

--
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Re:Let's try the story this way... by GaryPatterson · 2006-01-13 22:07 · Score: 1

Statements made like that, especially about privacy, are critical to get right. If the CEO makes a comment about privacy and what happens with collected data, I'm pretty sure it has to be accurate or there will be ramifications in either legal or stock senses.

Either way, I don't care. I disabled the mini store within about two seconds of launching iTunes, and before I'd heard all this kerfuffle. I don't want automated systems suggesting crap to me - I actually have an idea what I want to buy.

Am I a perfect customer? Well, I'm not some tinfoil hat wearing bozo, but I also know enough about the way companies treat data to not want my usage patterns to be tracked and I do what I can to ensure that doesn't occur. I see that you fall solidly into the former category, which is great for you.

Watch out! They're coming for you!

ispy by blake3737 · 2006-01-12 04:37 · Score: 0

iSpy with my little i....... a topic that got blown WAY out of proportion.

Market trumps regulations, go figure by dada21 · 2006-01-12 04:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Internet has changed everything regarding bartering and trade. Up until 1995, I believe one could argue (and win) the debate on using regulations to keep businesses honest.

Now that we have near perfect instantaneous group communication, we've opened the doorway to not needing anything but consumer power to control companies, even the biggest companies such as Apple.

If a company performs some act -- faithfully or greedily -- that consumers don't like, you can expect the fact to be released where in the past it might have been kept secret (the media isn't very pro-consumer). We wonder why newspapers and magazines are dying -- they have advertisers to keep happy. The web lets everyone get information out that is important to them, and if enough people have a problem with a company, that negative information will gain steam quickly.

Apple did try to hedge against this outcry, as the article says, by providing the facts for those interested in them. Should Apple have performed an opt-in program rather than an opt-out? Yes. Do we need laws and regulations to force them? No -- they'll learn from this situation.

If Apple doesn't learn a lesson from consumer fallout, someone else will. There are already iTunes replacement programs out there -- provided out of voluntary methods (capitalism) rather than coercive methods (mercantilism and socialism).

Be glad that we have the Internet, it will soon allow us to back out of all the pro-corporation regulations that we're paying good tax dollars to enforce.

Re:Market trumps regulations, go figure by lisaparratt · 2006-01-12 04:48 · Score: 1

You do realise that the people who even know, let alone care, probably only make up 0.1% of the ITMS customer base, if that?
Re:Market trumps regulations, go figure by dada21 · 2006-01-12 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

You do realise that the people who even know, let alone care, probably only make up 0.1% of the ITMS customer base, if that?

Which is why Apple didn't have any reason to make it opt-out. They figured they could better provide for their customers (99.9%) by putting everyone in the program, especially since they disclosed it at the time of release.

Nothing was sold, nothing was kept. What's the problem, right?
Re:Market trumps regulations, go figure by doc+modulo · 2006-01-12 05:36 · Score: 1

Mod parent up please.

And let's make his post a self-fulfilling prophesy just to be on the safe side.

--
- -- Truth addict for life.
Re:Market trumps regulations, go figure by dada21 · 2006-01-12 05:37 · Score: 1

Haha, I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but in the long run, it is self-fulfilling. Isn't it funny how the only companies who can make crappy products and still stay in business are those who receive protectionist treatment (tariffs, subsidies, labor laws) -- look at GM as an example.
Re:Market trumps regulations, go figure by WilliamSChips · 2006-01-12 14:25 · Score: 1

Microsoft? Oh right, the only "protectionist" treatment they got was...the Sherman Anti-Trust Law not being carried out. But that doesn't count because it doesn't fit in with your utopian view of a free-market paradise.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.

disable the store completely by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 04:39 · Score: 1

Something else to mention (although it should be painfully obvious) is that the ministore doesn't appear at all if you've disabled the iTMS in the parental controls preference panel. If you have no use for the iTMS, just get rid of it altogether.

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.

Weasel words... by klubar · 2006-01-12 04:40 · Score: 1

The response is the usually corporate weasel words.

Either they use the information or they don't. How about a clear statement: "we don't collect information from users without their explicit permission".

If a company is going to collect information they should be up front about it--and preferable make in an opt-in rather than a hidden opt-out choice or buried deeply in a license.

It's a little concerning that Apple may or may not know what I'm listening to. If the information is saved (or available to be saved) they could correlate the information with the CD's I've purchased to make sure that I haven't inappropriately "borrowed" on of the music.

Re:Weasel words... by Chuckstar · 2006-01-12 07:50 · Score: 1

I think you're getting a little paranoid here. They'd still have to correlate you with your IP address, since they only send the AppleID when you actually buy a song in the Music Store. Possible to do if they keep track of your address at the times when you do buy a song, but its not trivial to do. I think you really have to take off the tin-foil hat.

ethereal confirmed it yesterday by Loconut1389 · 2006-01-12 04:42 · Score: 1

This confirms my ethereal monitoring while listening after yesterday's post. (I posted in reply to someone else)

iTunes is evil - but this was the wrong reason by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

iTunes is evil because it drives acceptance among the masses for the abomination that is DRM. It is, of course nothing other than a way to spoonfeed this bitter poison to the unknowing. Once the public has been made used to accept iTunes, it's all the more easier to introduce and enforce even harder and more evil restrictions.

Shame on Apple. You are no better than those others. Bleh!

There is no excuse for supporting this. Fan boys may defend in in all ways that they want, that it is "needed" or "mild" or "the lesser of evils". You know what? It doesn't matter, all evils are evil. The obvious choice is to not choose any evil, it is false logic that dictates that any of them needs to be chosen.

Oh, and "shiny" does not good make, either.

Re:iTunes is evil - but this was the wrong reason by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:54 · Score: 0

The real evil here is industrialisation. Just think, without it there would be no Apple DRM, Sony rootkits, SPAM, Intel's misleading benchmarks, Microsoft's legal shenanigans, SCO and soo many others. Join me, we'll make textiles and shit. Please, help cleanse the world of this sinful revolution so that we may be free from our cooperate overlords.

stupid overeactions by illtron · 2006-01-12 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

I always thought malware was MALicious.

Spies work in secret. So does SPYware.

iTunes is neither malware nor spyware, and the people who claim it is are paranoid jackasses.

iTunes is doing this right in front of your face. I adamantly believe Apple should have included at least a dialog box at first launch of iTunes 6.02 informing users about the ministore, but I hardly consider it a breach of any sort of ethical barrier. The comparison to Gmail seem to be on the money... it's pretty much the same thing.

As sort of an aside, it's not a terrible feature, and it's not intrusive or nagging when you don't want it hanging around. I would have definitely preferred that there was at least a notification though.

--
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!

Re:stupid overeactions by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:34 · Score: 0

1. It's turned on by default, with no warning to the users.
2. it takes up screen space.
3. Google have said from day 1 they will present adverts based on what they scan in the email.

Apple fscked up in their arrogance, and fanboys like you are wetting yourself defending them.
Re:stupid overeactions by illtron · 2006-01-12 09:58 · Score: 1

And this is presenting information based on what song is currently playing. It's not like it's searching my library. Fucking anonymous coward.

--
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
Re:stupid overeactions by tgibbs · 2006-01-12 11:10 · Score: 1

1. It's turned on by default, with no warning to the users.
2. it takes up screen space.

Isn't it it's own warning? It's right there in front of your face. So even if you didn't bother to read Apple's announcement of the feature, or the Tech Note that explained just what it did, it's pretty obvious.

3. Google have said from day 1 they will present adverts based on what they scan in the email.

I didn't see any notice that Google presents ads based on what I search when I went to Google's web page. Of course, it's pretty obvious. And I imagine that it's in Google's documentation somewhere, just as the function of the ministore is explained in Apple's documentation.
Re:stupid overeactions by geekoid · 2006-01-12 13:00 · Score: 1

"Spies work in secret. So does SPYware."
yes, spies work in secret, but they aren't invisible. They usually have a cover. Like claiming to be someone they are not, or saying they are doing one thing when they are doing another.

So you could have a software product that you use, that is also spying on what you are doing.

Of course, Apple did let everyone know about this in there FAQ.

" I always thought malware was MALicious."
some peple would say collecting data in secret is malicious. Or at least a result of a malicious intent.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:stupid overeactions by obeythefist · 2006-01-12 17:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, iTunes doesn't ask you if it can spy on you, although the evidence that it is is quite easy to spot. It also doesn't tell you exactly how much information it's sending, all you have to go on is that it knows who you are and what music you listen to.

In order for this to be not classified as spyware, it should be opt-in.

Instead, Apple chose profit and spying over customer protection and good faith.

--
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.

I'm outraged!!! by klubar · 2006-01-12 04:45 · Score: 1

It serves all those M$ users right. I'm so smug that I use an Apple/Linux/Fisher Price computer.

Awfully vague reassurances. by mcc · 2006-01-12 04:45 · Score: 1

Whatever reason they're doing this for, they don't seem to have clearly thought either their policies or their media responses on this matter out. Perhaps someone should point out to Apple that a more helpful response would be to update their privacy policy to explicitly cover what is done with that information.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

iTunes EULA by jcaldwel · 2006-01-12 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's a bit funny that the iTunes software agreement explicitly states that Gracenote CDDB uses a session id for tracking, while they omit the same information for the iTunes Music Store.

Taken from Software License Agreement for iTunes
The Gracenote CDDB Service uses a unique identifier to track queries for statistical purposes. The purpose of a randomly assigned numeric identifier is to allow the Gracenote CDDB service to count queries without knowing anything about who you are. For more information, see the web page for the Gracenote Privacy Policy for the Gracenote CDDB Service.

Re:Yeah OK by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:47 · Score: 0

If Apple released a car would you want it anyway? White, curvy, less features than competitors, overpriced, same as all the mindless sheep have, reality distortion field.

Privacy Policy by Kefaa · 2006-01-12 04:49 · Score: 1, Troll

Even if they mean what they are saying today, the very existence of the data allows someone to start collecting, retaining, analyzing and suing. The Itunes privacy policy ends with:
Apple may update its privacy policy from time to time. When we change the policy in a material way a notice will be posted on our website along with the updated privacy policy.

So today they say they will not collect it. Tomorrow, as part of a RIAA lawsuit, they must collect and reveal the information. Further, the RIAA will make the case that if Apple tells anyone, it will show up on slashdot, and all of you criminals will know.

Apple should just remove the code or stop making excuses. They monitor - if you do not like it, do not buy the product. But that would sound unsympathetic to their customers, so they flounder in this legalese.

Re:Privacy Policy by Gamerland · 2006-01-12 07:15 · Score: 1

I don't know why this was moderated a troll the OP has an good point that privacy policy subject to change with little notice is not a promise to never use the data.

Sneaky bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:49 · Score: 0

Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected...

Is not actually being collected... NOW. But was it collected in the past? Or will it be collected in the future?

Re:New iPod s/w have Bug fixes for almost all iPod by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:50 · Score: 0

Thanks. I stopped installing updates for my mini when they broke the smart playlist feature for older ipods in an update last year, but apparently, this one finally fixes it.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301 910

This WAS a big deal. by jmscott42 · 2006-01-12 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't help but think if this were ANY OTHER COMPANY than Apple, that the reaction would be universal condemnation.

Imagine if Sony's Connect player was upgraded and did this kind of thing, by default, and didn't mention a word about it? There would've been plans made to burn the CEOs at the stake and public bulldozings of Sony equipment. Of course, no one cares about Sony Connect so maybe that wasn't the best example.

The fact is, Apple is a corporation. They don't care about you. They don't come over and feed your pets when you're on vacation. They're in business to make money. By having these 'related artists', it might feed iTunes sales. And they slipped a feature in that phones home (actually, phones a third party) without being explicit about what is going on. Sure, it could be innocuous (and appears-- TODAY-- to be semi-innocuous) but no one knew yesterday except a mysterious connection was being made with no explanation.

As for everyone saying "When you buy something they can track your habits" -- of course they can. That's expected. What's not expected is a third party IP address obtaining information just as you're playing music with no explanation of what they're getting. Apple COULD HAVE been sending ANYTHING to them. That company could have been doing ANYTHING with that. It wasn't explicit.

Either way, they blew it and they got called on it. This is a privacy issue. Don't let your fanboy-ism get in the way of seeing that. The public reaction was a GOOD thing.

Re:This WAS a big deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:02 · Score: 0

Apple COULD HAVE been sending ANYTHING to them. That company could have been doing ANYTHING with that. It wasn't explicit.

So, how does one solve that? They could've had a dialgue that claimed they don't store any data or whatnot, and still stored it. When should we stop being paranoid and FREAKING the fuck out without knowing facts?
Re:This WAS a big deal. by jmscott42 · 2006-01-12 05:09 · Score: 1

This is Slashdot. Do you think that'll EVER happen???
Re:This WAS a big deal. by TubeSteak · 2006-01-12 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
You're either being purposefully ignorant or you're trolling

When Apple updated iTunes software, they included an explanation of this new behavior in their FAQ.

There are only two pieces of news
1. they didn't announce it
2. the blogosphere is full of idiots blindly repeating uninformed statements that Apple was SECRETLY SPYING.
  
  If you are using a service, RTFM and then go read the FAQ. Bonus advice: turn off auto-updating on non-critical applications.
--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:This WAS a big deal. by jmscott42 · 2006-01-12 05:31 · Score: 1

They said they were sending information to "the music store". To me, that means apple.com. Not a third party. How does 2o7.net (or whoever was collecting the info) come into play? I guess you could argue they allow for 3rd party info in the EULA but that is not the same as saying "Hey, this cool new feature works by sending your info out to this other company". I haven't seen Apple acknowledge that explicitly in a location where a normal user (i.e., someone not digging through the Apple knowledgebase for some archaic article) would see it.

I'm not trolling. And this is not the worst privacy issue in the history of man. But I think Apple should've been much more up front. How do you answer the criticism that Apple specifically includes Gracenote info in the EULA but not the ministore? They could've avoided a LOT of criticism by being up front. Maybe someone just screwed up and forgot to update something, but in an era where a lot of companies are doing a lot of questionable things, I think it's good when there is public pressure when something questionable pops up.
Re:This WAS a big deal. by n8_f · 2006-01-12 05:36 · Score: 1

What is this crap about sending it to a third-party IP address? There was nothing about that in yesterday's article.
Apple COULD HAVE been sending ANYTHING to them.
Umm, yeah, and we COULD nuke China. But we don't. And apparently Apple doesn't send any identifying information and discards what it gets after returning the results. BFD.
The fact is, more and more applications are becoming integrated with the Internet. ITunes has had some integration since they included iTMS. Yes, there are some privacy concerns when it starts sending data back to the server automatically, but it turns out that it only sends data as a result on user input (selecting or playing a song), it doesn't send back identifying info and none of the information is stored, and it is very easy and natural to turn off (i.e., not hidden away in some preferences). I think that figuring out what it is doing (Apple was happy to clarify the point when asked) is a reasonable thing to do before flying off the handle and throwing terms like "spyware" and "adware" about.
Re:This WAS a big deal. by jmscott42 · 2006-01-12 05:47 · Score: 1

One of the original articles (not my blog) about this shows it making a link to 2o7.net. That's what I was referring to. I agree that a lot of what happened yesterday was overreaction, but at the same time, I think companies need to make sure they're being open about what they're collecting. Yesterday, we didn't know anything, and some people raised the alarm that this was happening. It got a lot of attention and some people flipped out instead of just getting Apple to comment. Unfortunately, unless there's a big overreaction, most companies will ignore you (see Sony). How does the average end user contact someone at Apple in the know (not just a support-droid with a flowchart of scripted answers) to get a straight answer?
Re:This WAS a big deal. by TubeSteak · 2006-01-12 07:40 · Score: 1

2o7.net = www.omniture.com

Omniture collects (according to them) anonymous information. If you check various webpages' source code, you'll see stuff like "!-- SiteCatalyst code version: something.something" or links to a "ss.js" script.

Omniture is one of the big boys and they're harmless AFAIK

Big sites like the Ny Times use their service
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/priva cy.html
he New York Times on the Web is currently using and has contracted with Omniture, a third party, to track and analyze non-personally identifiable usage and volume statistical information from our visitors and customers to administer our Web site in order to constantly improve the Web site quality.
As for the GraceNote business, I never addressed that, TFAs never addressed that, and I'm pretty sure you didn't address that. While I don't care, my understanding is that GraceNote is anonymous, even though you get a UID, since the UID isn't attached to any personal information (unless you consider your IP personal)

Even though you have a lower UID, with 11 comments, you're obviously new here. And FYI, lurking doesn't teach you as much about what not to say as posting does.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:This WAS a big deal. by n8_f · 2006-01-12 11:59 · Score: 1

Hey, I agree with you. And I think Apple should have communicated it better. But I really don't think they thought this was going to be controversial in any way. I think they thought that it was pretty straight-forward and that customers wouldn't care; either they would like and use the feature, in which case they don't need to be bothered with the implementation details, or they would turn it off, it which case there is nothing to worry about. I really think they were right.

And the spyware accusation just really galled me. It was such a huge overstatement, like calling Bush Hitler (he's just Hitler-like). This only sent data in response to user input, which is completely opposite of spyware.

Also, I think the cries of "Oh, but the average computer user has no idea!" were also extremely overblown. It only took my dad a minute. "Whoa, that's weird. The ministore showed Simon & Garkunkel songs just as I was listening to Simon & Garfunkel. Wait, now it is showing Pink Martini. Either they are reading my mind, or iTunes is getting songs for the artist I'm listening to." It really isn't hard to figure out.

Apple definitely needed to communicate better how to turn it off. I'm sure there were people wondering, rightly so, whether it was still transmitting data if the ministore was turned off. And I absolutely support privacy advocates, just like I support the ACLU. Somebody has to be thinking about these issues and providing push-back, because most people just don't care (until it's too late). But this wasn't TPM and I really didn't appreciate the cries of "Oh, sure, people hate it when Kazaa and virus writers do it, but it's okay if it is Apple."
Re:This WAS a big deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 14:43 · Score: 0

Winamp does it, Media player does it. Real does it.
They ALL do it.

It really is NO BIG DEAL. get over it.

Incidentally, no matter how little a corporation cares for you, it can't make any money off you if it doesn't have you as a customer, so most corporations have a vested interest in keeping their customers happy on average.
They include features not just because they make them money, but because they think people will USE them, which then makes them money.

A Corporation won't come round and feed your pets, but it's also not out to come round and rape them either.
Re:This WAS a big deal. by mlingojones · 2006-01-12 15:00 · Score: 1

What about when Google "invaded our privacy" to place ads in our emails?

Not universal condemnation. The moronic people thought Google was some evil corporation hell-bent on compromising our privacy, and the people with at least an ounce of common sense realized that it was harmless, that no human is accessing the information, and that the info is being used solely for advertising purposes.
Re:This WAS a big deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-15 11:29 · Score: 0

What percentage of people knew the data was being sent? Fits any description of secret I know of. Just because it is available in some document that nobody looks at doesn't make it ok. The application UI is the primary communication interface from apple to user. If they don't ask for permission there then that permission doesn't exist.

Gotta'ta Believe by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-01-12 04:52 · Score: 1

An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) told MacWorld that Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes.

Got to believe it now, since Steve himself might have said it.

Wouldn't want to think there could ever be logs of illegal MP3's being played that the RIAA could subpoena.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:Gotta'ta Believe by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:02 · Score: 0

Mp3s don't have info in the ID3 tag that says, "Hi, I'm illegally downloaded." Have you ever used mp3s? Do you know what an mp3 is?

When you rip a CD, it doesn't know if it's the real CD or not. You're paranoid. I bet you were the first poster on this same topic yesterday, the guy yelling from the rooftops, "Hi, I'm dumb and uninformed!"
Re:Gotta'ta Believe by DoubleDangerClub · 2006-01-12 05:11 · Score: 1

While a bit harsh, I'd have to agree...mp3s don't carry such information. Read a book is my advice.

--
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --

And the same people ... by s0l3d4d · 2006-01-12 04:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

who complained about this, are those who use their frequent purchasers cards when they go to Walgreens, and have then no issues when Walgreens knows exactly how much gatorade they drink, what brand asthma medicines they use, and when they bought the last pregnancy test for their wife or lover, and who wipe the frequent flyers cards when they fly. And most of the same people use credit cards ... AmEx, Visa, and Mastercard know basically everything that you buy, and when, and where. So, if Apple could have known you would have been listening to Britney Spears or other hideous music, for a whole one track, AmEx knows you bought 5 CDs of her. And they still could not have known if you ripped the track yourself or used some hideous p2p to get it.

Re:And the same people ... by jayeffaar · 2006-01-12 05:44 · Score: 1

I don't especially mind if MasterCard and GE know that I just bought a brand new toaster. That was a transaction with a third party and I'm used to the fact that it leaves a trace.

On the other hand, I would consider it an invasion of privacy if the toaster reported back to GE every time I make toast, no matter what they want the information for. That is just not something they need to know, and once I bring the toaster home, I expect to be able to use it in private.
Re:And the same people ... by zoloto · 2006-01-12 07:55 · Score: 1

Some of us use cash for all transactions, even purchasing airline tickets.
Some of us never/rarely use credit cards.
Some of us have bank accounts after lawfully terminating your social security number as US born citizens aren't required by law to have them. See 20 CFR 3 A7 404.1905
Some of us have "acquaintances" buy us our slashdot membership for fixing their computers.
Some of us aren't paranoid; only prefer to live this way because most of the time, it's simpler.
Some of us, even after all of the above, still can get mortgages, loans, etc. without a hassle (albeit it may take a little while for approval)
Some of us don't even use mail in rebates of any kind and look for better deals elsewhere. (When did lazy become synonymous with normal shopping behaviors or life in general?)

With "localhost" style proxies and other external proxies (ssh -D 8080 user@host works well from freeshells) to filter out headers containing browser type, screen resolution, operating system, originating ISP etc, there are ways you can remain anonymous.

I have even recently been approved for a mortgage on a home under the current conditions.

Yes, this is what I personally have done. There are stores that normally do not have a card and the prices are even lower than the "big guys" and the quality is still higher! But here's one final statement I would urge you to realize. It is all *who* you know, not *what* you know, necessarily.

Just my two bits
Re:And the same people ... by geekee · 2006-01-12 09:51 · Score: 1

"who complained about this, are those who use their frequent purchasers cards when they go to Walgreens, and have then no issues when Walgreens knows exactly how much gatorade they drink, what brand asthma medicines they use, and when they bought the last pregnancy test for their wife or lover, and who wipe the frequent flyers cards when they fly. And most of the same people use credit cards ... "

Walgreens doesn't have a camera in my house that sends data back to them to determine and remind me that I'm out of aspirin.

--
Vote for Pedro

hoping for a sequel by revery · 2006-01-12 04:54 · Score: 2, Funny

The discussion about this topic was fast and furious yesterday.

And today you were hoping they would be 2 Fast 2 Furious?

A sort of commentary sequel, if you will? Hmmmm?

Re:In retrospect ...Hey, Wait a Minute Here by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-01-12 04:55 · Score: 1

Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.

Hey, they already know what you bought from iTunes. Is it even their business what you play otherwise? And without giant warnings of what they're doing? I don't think so.

Since when did you ever think Apple was your friend in the first place?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

For those in the Apple vs. Microsoft camp by Ucklak · 2006-01-12 04:55 · Score: 1

It looks like Apple comes clean and has already beat the naysayers where they're weren't harvesting personal info whereas when MS did it, they were harvesting info.

OK, so Apple had a hand up where they can know personal info but MS could know the same if there was a passport account with personal info (formerly know as MS Wallet) tied with Media Player.

I think Apple came clean about this as they posted the update because of the MS fiasco nonetheless.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

Now not and in the future? by Elixon · 2006-01-12 04:56 · Score: 1

Will they inform us in the clear and visible form if they change their minds? Can they promise?

--
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.

Re:New iPod s/w have Bug fixes for almost all iPod by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 04:58 · Score: 0

Dang it, I just updated my iPod!

-1, Fanboy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:00 · Score: 0

We really, really need a mod like that....

Re:-1, Fanboy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-13 14:49 · Score: 0

We already have that one. It's called TROLL.

That's because it IS fishy. by smose · 2006-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

To quote an oft-quoted post from the DMCA Abuse Widespread article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

I thought the quote was from a Patriot Act thread, but clearly the idea is common enough. It matters not whether the spy is human or machine, or works for the government or a corporation -- a spy is a spy.

Perhaps in such matters the installer should use no default at all: pose the question with a yes/no answer dialog. The NO choice has to work; too many installers provide option boxes that have no effect, and you still end up with the crapware you deselected.

Not precisely true... by sterno · 2006-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1

This is true if all of your purchases are through ITunes. But if you use ITunes for just music you ripped off of CD's, then purchase information would be insufficient. I don't know about most people but probaly > 95% of my music I use on my IPod came off my own CD's, not from ITunes.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:Not precisely true... by Gilmoure · 2006-01-12 05:11 · Score: 1

3.8% of my iTunes library is purchased from Apple.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

Re:In retrospect ...Hey, Wait a Minute Here by non0score · 2006-01-12 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I understand your angle, but for me not every song I buy has the exact same rankings in my preferences. But how much I play them tends to indicate how much I like the songs, and this is data.

I'm not saying that Apple is my friend or I'm promoting these practices. But if done right, privacy can be ensured and introduce a level of service that can't be had without these information. For example, if a product never gets feedback, then how would the developers know how well it's doing? Similarily, Apple needs to know your "feedback" in order to know what you like or don't like. Similar to this, Amazon's recommendation system has more than once recommended to me something that I ended up liking (granted this is only based on what you're browsing), and I appreciate that (don't flame me, this is just my personal preference).

As for the giant warning, I agree that they should have warned the user, even if they turned on the data collection by default.

right.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:05 · Score: 0

and I love you too and I'll call you in the morning.

Only becuase you like apple. by freidog · 2006-01-12 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

The fact that Apple is more often viewed as being product and customer centerned than a tyrannical monopoly is the only reason people will defend this kind of activity.

Apple was taking your personal information about your personal music being played on your personal computer and sending it back to themselves. Basic common courtesy dictates you ask people for personal information, you don't take it. The fact Jobs says he's not being malevolent is nice, but doesn't change the fact Apple somehow felt entitled to know what music you're playing on iTunes at any given time.

One dialog box, "Is it ok to send information about the music you're playing so we can better recommend purchases for you?" is all it takes. That one little question makes this a nice features instead of an invasion of privacy.

Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 05:25 · Score: 1

Apple was taking your personal information about your personal music being played on your personal computer and sending it back to themselves.

So disable the Mini-Store.

Guess what, Slashdot is tracking every page you visit here, including your browser, OS, and IP address! Using geolocation, they could find out where in the country you are! The horror! In fact, every web server on the Internet has your IP!

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 05:40 · Score: 1

Thank god I bought that software that stops me from transmitting my IP address!

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by aristotle-dude · 2006-01-12 05:41 · Score: 1

This send the song you "click" on with the feature enabled. Nothing more. It does not track what you are playing.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by daveschroeder · 2006-01-12 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow. I submit that it is not.

Everything we can see from a technical standpoint and a logical standpoint indicates that there is nothing more happening than a custom WebObjects query to update the recommendations section of the MiniStore.

Now, a bunch of people will keep saying "yeah, but how do we *know* they're not keeping it" or "you would be a fool if you thought they *weren't* keeping it, no matter what they say", but the fact is that iTunes is a highly customized, dynamic web browser - nothing more.

Now, you might think ANY time any information is outbound from your computer, that it constitutes "sending" it to someone. I take issue with this, because, again, it implies it's being taken and kept. I think there is a difference, and that intent matters. Apple did not try to hide this, and while I agree it would have been a good idea to at least ask politely (and give a clear option to decline), I don't think there is any malicious intent here whatsoever.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by freidog · 2006-01-12 05:49 · Score: 1

So disable the Mini-Store.

Not the point. I don't mind the recomended purchases. In fact for my less well known artists I'd like to know what's out there that's similar. My problem is solely in the manner they went about it. Ask permission is all I ask.
Guess what, Slashdot is tracking every page you visit here, including your browser, OS, and IP address! Using geolocation, they could find out where in the country you are! The horror! In fact, every web server on the Internet has your IP!
yes, yes, yes. Privacy on the interweb doesn't exist, so no one should respect it or care when it's violated. Just becaue a webserver logs my IP, doesn't give software that I use on my home computer the right to send out personal information without my permission.
When connecting to websites I agree there is little or no privacy (for better, worse or indiferent), but that's not what we're talking about. With iTunes when I'm plyaing my music, everything is happening on my personal computer. In this case, I am entitled tp privacy. And if iTunes isn't going to respect that, I won't use it.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by (A)*(B)!0_- · 2006-01-12 06:01 · Score: 1

"Now, you might think ANY time any information is outbound from your computer, that it constitutes "sending" it to someone."
Uh, if data is outbound, it is being sent. See, with data flow you can either send, receive or do nothing. Since the data is leaving your computer, it is being sent. Your statement makes no sense.
"I take issue with this, because, again, it implies it's being taken and kept."
The act of sending something doesn't imply anything about what the receiver does with the data. Why do you believe that implication exists?
Furthermore, let's break things down a little more simply for you since you seem to be having trouble understanding what the word "send" means. I can send a letter by mail to someone. I write my letter, drop it into a mailbox, and off it goes. I am assuming that the postoffice is going to deliver it to the correct address to keep this nice and simple for you. What I've done is sent a letter. I have no idea what the recipient will do with the letter once he or she receives it because it is out of my hands. There's no implication that the person keeps it or that the person throws it away from the limited details I've given you. Now, if the recipient has a privacy and data retention policy, then I can find out what's going to be done with my letter.
"Apple did not try to hide this, and while I agree it would have been a good idea to at least ask politely (and give a clear option to decline), I don't think there is any malicious intent here whatsoever."
The fact is that if you write software that is going to send data on a user's behavior that only the local machine has, it should be completely opt-in and not on by default. Apple knows what music you've purchased from them without your machine telling them so that data is fine to use however they want.
You need to think a little harder about this, if you are capable.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by daveschroeder · 2006-01-12 06:13 · Score: 1

Uh, if data is outbound, it is being sent. See, with data flow you can either send, receive or do nothing. Since the data is leaving your computer, it is being sent. Your statement makes no sense.

Thanks for missing the point.

The implication, to a normal person, when you tell someone "iTunes is sending your listening habits to Apple" is that Apple is keeping and aggregating this information. They are not.

I'm not talking about this in the context of network traffic.

The act of sending something doesn't imply anything about what the receiver does with the data. Why do you believe that implication exists?

Again, missing the point. The implication exists, because it, well, exists: if you tell someone, "iTunes is sending information about what songs you're listening to to Apple," they're naturally going to think and assume that Apple is keeping, logging, tracking, or otherwise archiving or aggregating this information, probably for marketing purposes. The super paranoid will even make assertions that Apple might be proving said information to the RIAA.

That is what people will think when you say "iTunes sends such and such to Apple". Sends, gives, transmits, I don't care what word you use; the implication is that Apple is keeping, viewing, analyzing, or otherwise using the content of the information for some form of permanent data aggregation or statistical analysis without your permission.

However, they are NOT doing this.

The fact is that if you write software that is going to send data on a user's behavior that only the local machine has, it should be completely opt-in and not on by default.

Sure. I agree with this. However, Apple wasn't hiding anything, wasn't doing anything in secret, and wasn't doing it surreptitiously. Then, they directly said that the information is discarded and not used for any other purpose than to update the MiniStore pane. Or is that not good enough because it doesn't have "Privacy Policy" stamped on it?

You need to think a little harder about this, if you are capable.

Touché.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Midnight+Thunder · 2006-01-12 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

Very true. At least here Apple comes out and explains what it is doing and manages to reasure people. What I often hear from Microsoft when something like this happens is either silence or some sort of arrogant remark. Microsoft could deal with their PR battles with a little more grace than they have up to now.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by pknoll · 2006-01-12 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

The fact that Apple is more often viewed as being product and customer centerned than a tyrannical monopoly is the only reason people will defend this kind of activity.
Well, isn't that a good enough reason to treat them differently or give more doubt benefit than a company who DOES behave like a tyrannical monopoly?
Humans judge most entities they are familiar with based on expectations formed by past experience. If Apple shows a history of not mistreating them or falling short of their expectations, and other companies have, I would fully expect Apple to be cut more slack than a company that HAD failed them.
Perception is reality, by and large. If all you've ever had with, say, Microsoft were good experiences and Apple burned you over and again, you'd be willing to cut MS more slack than Apple if you found they'd engaged in questionable activities.
Do you think people are more forgiving of Apple because they like Apple, or like them because they have few reasons to be skeptical of their motivations?
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 06:33 · Score: 1

Why should it have to ask for permission when all you have to do to revoke permission is disable the Mini-Store? I'm failing to see the big issue here.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by radish · 2006-01-12 06:35 · Score: 1

"Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow. I submit that it is not.

Come out from behind that Reality Distortion Field. Either that or take English 101 again. "Sending information to Apple" means exactly that, sending the data. Just like "Sending an email to my mother" doesn't imply anything about what she might do upon receipt of it, or even if it will ever reach her.

Would you have a problem if I installed on your machine an application which caused all your private data to be transmitted in my general direction? I promise I won't keep it, thus it's not really being "sent" to me. It's all OK because my intent is good.

Wow.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-12 06:36 · Score: 1

When connecting to websites I agree there is little or no privacy (for better, worse or indiferent), but that's not what we're talking about. With iTunes when I'm plyaing my music, everything is happening on my personal computer. In this case, I am entitled tp privacy. And if iTunes isn't going to respect that, I won't use it

IT does respect your privacy. No data is collected or viewed by human beings. If you want nothing to do with the MiniStore service, then you can turn it off and it will respect that setting.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:45 · Score: 0

If Microsoft were doing this then everybody would be bitching about it. But if Apple do it then it's okay. Everybody trusts them not to look in the logs. Blah.

Apple would be a corporate dictator like Microsoft if they had the opportunity.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Monstard · 2006-01-12 06:56 · Score: 1

daveschroeder said "Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow. I submit that it is not.

By definition "sending information" (via the internet) means that it's kept, tracked, and logged. How do you think your information finds Apple? In the 80 milliseconds it takes to arrive at Apple it's tracked and logged by at least 4 or 5 gateways, and that's before it makes it to Apple's servers, which then log, analyize, track, keep, and forward your information to other appropriate servers within Apple.

I'm as much of a rabid mac fan as the next guy, but to imply that data sent over the internet remains anonymous and unexamined is just plain wrong.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by fdiskne1 · 2006-01-12 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

I agree wholeheartedly. If you remember the Sony-BMG debacle (who doesn't?), one of the things people were up in arms about was that the software phoned home. People on /., among many others, rightly complained that it sent information back to Sony without the customer's permission. Sony said they didn't keep the information, but people rightly said that it didn't matter if they kept it or not. The problem was that it was sent without our permission. Yes, there were many other aspects to the Sony-BMG fiasco, but this was one of the issues. According to many comments on /., the fact that Apple is doing it seems to make it okay. It is NOT okay. This should have been clarified up front with the default to "don't transfer my information to Apple".

--
But why is the rum gone?
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by flosofl · 2006-01-12 07:22 · Score: 1

The implication, to a normal person, when you tell someone "iTunes is sending your listening habits to Apple" is that Apple is keeping and aggregating this information. They are not.

And you know this because Apple... said so?

Is your picture next to gullible in the dictionary?

This is the reason I stopped using Real and this will be the reason I stop using iTunes. I haven't purchased anything from the store in over 6 months, so no real loss. There are 3rd party apps in both Windows and Linux that can do everything iTunes does except purchase music (again, who cares) I can manage my collection, podcasts, playlists, listen to music (both AAC/MP3 and streaming audio), and manage my ipod all without iTunes.

--
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by flosofl · 2006-01-12 07:25 · Score: 1

No data is collected or viewed by human beings

And you know this... how?

Apple is just moving into the space Real Networks created.

--
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Secret+Agent+X23 · 2006-01-12 07:28 · Score: 1

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, but if Microsoft actually sold DVDs, I'd opt out of the angry mob. On the other hand, if they just collected the info for the sole purpose of selling it, well, that's just being a weasel.
Basic common courtesy dictates you ask people for personal information, you don't take it.
I agree here. On the other hand, I just assume that any time someone can collect information, they will. That's probably not the reality in every case, but it helps avoid nasty surprises when stories about information-gathering come out.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Macdude · 2006-01-12 07:37 · Score: 1

If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.

Hmmm, let's see if we can spot the difference. One program phoned home with details about what software you were viewing in secret and with no benifit to the user. The other is phoning home with the necessary details about what song you've selected in order to give the user recommendations for other songs they may like, and is doing so out in the open.

One is good, one is bad.

Did you know that when you use a browser to contact a web site it sends the web site your IP address!!!! Ooooh!

--
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Macdude · 2006-01-12 07:42 · Score: 1

Apple did not try to hide this, and while I agree it would have been a good idea to at least ask politely (and give a clear option to decline), I don't think there is any malicious intent here whatsoever.

Please no. When I install a new app I don't want to spend half an hour clicking through endless dialog boxes detailing the function of each and every feature it has. You don't like the suggestion feature? Turn it off.

Jesus people, save your outrage for things that are truly evil, like the Sony Root-Kit.

--
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by MoneyT · 2006-01-12 07:48 · Score: 1

Or you know, you could turn the mini store off and poof, no more data to apple.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Angostura · 2006-01-12 08:07 · Score: 1

"Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow.

No. "Sending information to Apple" implies that information is sent to Apple. Whether that information is kept, logged, tracked or aggregated is an open question, although I tend to believe Apple's assertion that it is not.

But that information clearly could be logged and, oh I don't know - supplied to the RIAA - in theory. That's why there is a cause for at least interest, if not concern.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by TubeSteak · 2006-01-12 08:23 · Score: 1

you stopped using real because the program phone's home?

I stopped using it because it was a POS and RealAlternative did the same thing with no fuss.

If it bothers you that much, block the (207.net/omniture) address and be done with it.

If you use Windows and read Slashdot, I'm sure you've heard of a hosts file. Or have your firewall block that outbound connection. Or just disable the offending thing in iTunes.

There are easier solutions that getting pissed and uninstalling iTunes.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by (A)*(B)!0_- · 2006-01-12 09:46 · Score: 1

"Again, missing the point. The implication exists, because it, well, exists: if you tell someone, "iTunes is sending information about what songs you're listening to to Apple," they're naturally going to think and assume that Apple is keeping, logging, tracking, or otherwise archiving or aggregating this information, probably for marketing purposes. The super paranoid will even make assertions that Apple might be proving said information to the RIAA."
The implication exists because it exists? Great logic there. Saying that iTunes sends information to Apple does not imply any type of storage of the data. It doesn't imply anything about what is done with the data. It merely means that the data has been sent. The sender has no idea what is done with the data once it is received. If people you talk to jump to the conclusion you describe, so be it but that's not an implication. That's a conclusion based on no evidence to support it. Those are different things.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by dhakbar · 2006-01-12 10:12 · Score: 1

"Now, a bunch of people will keep saying "yeah, but how do we *know* they're not keeping it" or "you would be a fool if you thought they *weren't* keeping it, no matter what they say", but the fact is that iTunes is a highly customized, dynamic web browser - nothing more."

Why do you act like that isn't a valid concern? It's true that you don't know they're not keeping it. In fact, what makes you think they aren't going to use the information they've collected to further their business interests?

You sound extremely naive.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by JulesLt · 2006-01-12 10:24 · Score: 1

Strangely, I seem to remember it was only yesterday, the Slashdot and wider techno-libertarian communities were indeed taking a pitchfork to Apple.

I think there is one small essential difference though - one is collecting data for unknown reasons, which always makes people paranoid.
In this case you can see what the purpose is (hell, Apple don't even keen a record of what you bought - at least that's what they say to customers who've lost their collection).

You're quite right about the dialog box - and after this debacle, they may think twice in future.

I think a wider improvement would be an ability to set an overall user security policy that apps could read.

--
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-12 10:28 · Score: 1

There is no evidence that it is and in fact Apple have denied that it is happening. IF anyone wants to claim that Apple are doing the opposite of what they're claiming, they'll need a lot of proof.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by tfoss · 2006-01-12 11:03 · Score: 1

it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles
Why was WMP sending that information? With itunes, it is for a pretty clear reason, i.e. to get recommendaions for the ministore. There is pretty clearly there to enhance the user's experience (and sell more songs). Furthermore, Apple has a huge dataset of music associations through the hundreds of millions of IMS sales, so it has no need to save the requests it is phoning home for (nor would the data be terribly useful for such analysis).
This is rather different from the case with WMP, where it appears to be telling microsoft that I like watching Backdoor Sluts IX just for the sake of posterity, or, more likely, to utilize that data is some way I will never know about. (If they developed a association-based DVD recommending system, then we would be in a different scenario.)
So while there is doubtless some amount of Apple:Good, Microsoft:Bad heuristic going on here, that does not mean that completely explains the different reactions. The details of a situaion are very important when forming an opinion.
-Ted

--
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by MentosPimp · 2006-01-12 11:04 · Score: 1

Probably becuase it isnt a valid concern.

They have an artist's name, and maybe an IP. So what?

They can keep that information as far as I'm concerned,
and they can use it to further their business concerns, or start a blood orgy. whatever.

You sound extremely paranoid.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by slumberer · 2006-01-12 12:05 · Score: 1

The thing is that unlike the Sony-BMG debacle you can see what is happening. It isn't silently sending data in the background without giving you any feedback, you can see the ministore updating based on what song you have selected.

The other and more important difference is that you can easily disable this feedback by simple hiding the ministore. This is something that wasn't possible with the Sony-BMG mess.

However I do agree that apple should have asked permission before sending this data to their servers. I imagine that it would have been pretty simple to display a dialogue asking for permission and only enabling the ministore if it was granted. The way that it was done was a little invasive but hardly the major intrusion of privacy that others seem to be making it to be.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Jaseoldboss · 2006-01-13 00:53 · Score: 1

Jesus people, save your outrage for things that are truly evil, like the Sony Root-Kit.

...which was detected as Spyware by virtually every Antispyware vendor for sending your CD playing history back to Sony!! But guess what, 'it isn't stored' according to Sony.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by dhakbar · 2006-01-13 09:26 · Score: 1

If you use ITMS, the information they have collected amounts to far more than artist names and IPs.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-13 13:45 · Score: 0

Is your picture next to gullible in the dictionary?

Is your picture next to paranoid in the dictionary?

See, 2 can play at this game.

This is the reason I stopped using Real and this will be the reason I stop using iTunes.

You must have a really sad life if you're willing to stop using an excellent product because you get so paranoid about a complete non-issue. What's next? "Oh my god! My TV could have a secret hidden camera in it, sending images back via cable, I'd better not watch any more TV!! Ahhh!! My phone could be tapped, better pull the plug!! Might as well just go live in a little bunker with 50 years worth of canned food!!!"

Sheesh. Try not to be so reactionary, you might enjoy life a little more.
Re:Only becuase you like apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-13 14:45 · Score: 0

It's fun to watch the fanboys line up like zombies around here.. Buy a Creative Zen - cheaper, nicer looking and the interface is better than the fanboys will have you believe..

In other words, "Trust us" by notaprguy · 2006-01-12 05:17 · Score: 1

I actually believe them when they say they discard the data. Apple has never give me any reason to question their "corporate honesty" - if there is such a thing. However, that still doesn't address the problem. They should have an "opt in" policy (like Windows Media Player) rather than an "opt out" policy. It's the right thing to do.

More Apple Hy-jinx by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 05:17 · Score: 0

Another mark against the saintly Apple.. It's ok though, they wont take a PR hit as long as they have unpaid shills like Leo Laporte go to bat for them and dismiss any questionable movements as "competitor FUD" and every new product, no matter how silly is drooled upon as brilliant.

BTW - Ipod and Itunes, now the biggest monopoly.. Will we hear that on TWiT? Hmmm, probably not..

They should do it right if they are doing it by puppetluva · 2006-01-12 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't mind that they are using my purchase data. What I DO mind is that the service insists on recommending crappy, overpromoted songs that I would never, ever like (and I can't get it to stop).

I turned off the service because I was tired of being told that I would like Will Smith's "Switch". This is just blatant promotion as I haven't bought anything remotely like it. In a way -- this IS using my data for 3rd parties by making me believe that there is some correlation between my tastes and overhyped crap that has flooded the national earspace.

If they are going to collect my data, they should, as a courtesy, do something smart with it.

Re:They should do it right if they are doing it by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-12 07:04 · Score: 1

and I can't get it to stop ... I turned off the service

Sounds like you got it to stop ok.

In a way -- this IS using my data for 3rd parties by making me believe that there is some correlation between my tastes and overhyped crap that has flooded the national earspace.

Doesn't sound like it made you believe anything.

In fact, if you click on an artist whose music is sold by the iTMS, the MiniStore lists other music they have released and a selection of what other customers have bought. The only reason for it to suggest Will Smith is if you click on a Will Smith song in your own library, or you select a song which several Will Smith-buying customers also bought.

If you click on something by an artist the iTMS doesn't carry then it simply displays new releases and top albums/songs. Nowhere does it say you will like any of the music.

If they are going to collect my data

They're not collecting your data. That was in the article summary.

they should, as a courtesy, do something smart with it.

How would you have them do it, other than basing recommendations on what other customers also bought?

WOW by richsw · 2006-01-12 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

What a great idea. I've used it already to purchase music. Good Job Apple

Re:Make sure you complain by vertinox · 2006-01-12 05:30 · Score: 1

They could have avoided a lot of complaints if they had simply made a feature you could enable--not a feature you have to disable.

From file menu on iTunes on a Mac:

iTunes > Provide iTunes Feedback

Apple listens so let them know it was an unwelcomed default feature.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)

Google by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 05:32 · Score: 1

Especially since everyone here happily uses Google and Gmail, and they store EVERYTHING INDEFINITELY. Every search you do and every email you write and send, for all time. And every website you visit on the Internet tracks your IP/browser/OS in its logs.

All Apple is doing is sending a search query to the Music Store to give you related albums you might be interested in. It is FUD from competitors. Honestly, what a stupid thing to get paranoid about.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Re:Google by nolife · 2006-01-12 05:55 · Score: 1

You've just about the same thing several times so far and it seems you are actively deploying some type of defense mechanism and purposely avoiding the real point of people questioning the practice. iTunes suggestions are based on files that you have on your computer available to iTMS. Not just songs you've bought from iTMS. If song files are on your computer and iTMS can see them, it sends that information back to Apple. This is not the same as tracking purchases or tracking songs you've searched for yourself inside iTMS and has nothing to do with your IP getting logged in a web server that you visited.

You are replying to all of these different people and not including important pieces of the process. You are not comparing Apples to Apples.

Now if Google searches were also tracking your local Windows file searches and tracking url's you entered in Word documents or your browsing history, it would be a problem. Imagine if Googles servers had your browsing history and suggested searches based on that as a service? I know Apples collection from iTunes are not that intrusive and I know it can be shut off and I know you don't have to use iTunes. The point is, information unrelated to the normal course of using iTMS and purchasing and browsing from iTMS was being transferred back to Apple and people were obviously unaware of that and questioned it. Everyone knows their IP and user account information can be tracked when the visit a web site or use something like Gmail, this is common and expected and assumed. IMHO, the practice of the iTunes suggest function transmitting information on items that may or may not be from Apple is not just assumed.

I personally don't care about the whole thing really, I'd probably shut that function off though. I did the same in MS Media player.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Google by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-12 06:42 · Score: 1

You've just about the same thing several times so far and it seems you are actively deploying some type of defense mechanism and purposely avoiding the real point of people questioning the practice.

I'm "deploying" any kind of "defense mechanism," I'm simply offering common rational sense to an overblown FUD article on Slashdot. When you use terms like "malware" (last article) and "spying" (this article), you need to back it up. Yet all iTunes is doing is sending a WebObjects search query to bring related purchases into the Mini-Store.

iTunes suggestions are based on files that you have on your computer available to iTMS. Not just songs you've bought from iTMS.

I never said otherwise!

If song files are on your computer and iTMS can see them, it sends that information back to Apple.

Yes, if you play a song, it sends a search query.

This is not the same as tracking purchases or tracking songs you've searched for yourself inside iTMS and has nothing to do with your IP getting logged in a web server that you visited.

I never said it was the same as tracking purchases. You've invented this.

The point of mention IPs on webservers was to point out to all these people screaming "spyware" that by their definition, a web browser is spyware too, as are websites like Google. You apparently completely missed the point.

You are replying to all of these different people and not including important pieces of the process. You are not comparing Apples to Apples.

What important piece of the process have I left out? You don't give any examples.

Now if Google searches were also tracking your local Windows file searches and tracking url's you entered in Word documents or your browsing history, it would be a problem.

Google does track local file searches if you use Google Desktop.

Imagine if Googles servers had your browsing history and suggested searches based on that as a service?

Google already does this!

I know Apples collection from iTunes are not that intrusive and I know it can be shut off and I know you don't have to use iTunes. The point is, information unrelated to the normal course of using iTMS and purchasing and browsing from iTMS was being transferred back to Apple and people were obviously unaware of that and questioned it.

How could you possibly be unaware of it?! The Mini-Store is RIGHT THERE updating with related purchases. Did you think iTunes was magically grabbing related purchases using psychic sense? No, obviously it was just automatically searching the Music Store. Don't like it? Hide the Mini-Store. This is so overblown, and you're making a big, whiney deal out of absolutely nothing.

Everyone knows their IP and user account information can be tracked when the visit a web site or use something like Gmail, this is common and expected and assumed. IMHO, the practice of the iTunes suggest function transmitting information on items that may or may not be from Apple is not just assumed.

So when the Mini-Store is staring you in the face, searching the Music Store and giving you related albums to what you're listening to, you don't think it's reasonable to assume iTunes required the use of the Internet to get those related purchases? Is iTunes just magic now?

I personally don't care about the whole thing really, I'd probably shut that function off though. I did the same in MS Media player.

Yeah, shut off the function, "privacy issue" solved. Because this is a non-issue.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Why get it in the first place by houghi · 2006-01-12 05:32 · Score: 1

Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected. The data sent is used to update the MiniStore and then discarded.

It sounds to me as if they are collecting information. They get the data and then use it. Just because they don't put it to a user does not mean they did not collect the data.

Look as if information were money.
The money you give in church is not really collected. It is used for the comunity.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Why get it in the first place by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-12 07:13 · Score: 1

Can you see the difference between someone looking at your book collection, making some recommendations on other books you might enjoy, then forgetting what you own and someone looking at your book collection, making notes, then filing away. The first is what Apple is claiming to do, the second is collecting information.

Re:not actually being collected-then turn it off by aristotle-dude · 2006-01-12 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you don't trust them, turn off the feature. It has already been verified by people with software firewalls that nothing is transmitted when you hide the mini store bar. I'm sure someone could easily verify that the only things sent to the server are song name and artist which are used to query the database for similar song types to the song you just clicked on.

Do you really think they would want to store that much information? Even if they did, if the request does not have any information specific to you, you have nothing to worry about.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Re:not actually being collected-then turn it off by glesga_kiss · 2006-01-12 06:09 · Score: 1

Do you really think they would want to store that much information?

Do you realise how much effort the music industry puts into compiling charts? Market research? They are having orgasms on the thought of knowing what we are listening to. It's very valuable information and I have no problem with them accessing it with my permission.

Other tools do the same thing, however they all ask you if you want to enable the feature and they all describe the privacy implications. Even Microsoft's Media Player does it, this is schoolboy stuff.

Even if they did, if the request does not have any information specific to you, you have nothing to worry about.

Client ID? User Id on the music store? IP address? Hello? The Sony rootkit hit one, non-changing and non-unique URL yet that created a massive backlash. Apple != Sony it seems, lot's of love for Apple, none for Sony.

Remember: by Locke2005 · 2006-01-12 06:13 · Score: 1

Everything Steve Jobs says is true! Well, at least within his reality-distortion field, it is!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:not actually being collected-then turn it off by MadEE · 2006-01-12 06:25 · Score: 1

Client ID? User Id on the music store? IP address? Hello? The Sony rootkit hit one, non-changing and non-unique URL yet that created a massive backlash. Apple != Sony it seems, lot's of love for Apple, none for Sony.

You are reaching a bit far there.... Sony created a piece of software that was unstable, insecure and hid arbitrary files on the users computer not only could the behavior of their DRM not be disabled it could also not be uninstalled, the sending of information really wasn't what the fuss was about. The key part is that it could not be removed. Not only can iTunes be removed but it's documented how the behavior can be disabled.

Did I get this right...? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:36 · Score: 0

When it is collecting info by default, that's OK because everyone knows it is there and turn it off. However, when it is off by default, most people won't turn it on because they know it is there.

?

Song list click and ministore like ajax web app. by aristotle-dude · 2006-01-12 06:38 · Score: 1

When the ministore is enabled, clicking on songs will send the song name and artist to the store to provide recommendations.

This can be disabled and nothing will be sent but even with it enabled, it only sends the information that you choose to send by choosing to click on certain songs.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-01-12 06:46 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What's that sound? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 06:51 · Score: 0

Do you hear that? Is that the sound of dozens of overzealous bloggers and anti-Apple zealots backpeadaling furiously to take back the lies they stated yesterday?

Five minutes worth of research would have found :
1) The very easy button to turn off the mini store.
2) The fact that iTunes doesn't send any data when you're not using the mini store.
3) That Apple posted a KB article explicitly describing the above 2 points, before the 6.0.2 update was even released
4) That the behavior of the mini store fits no reasonable definition of "malware" or "spyware".

Re:What's that sound? by Ash-Fox · 2006-01-12 07:01 · Score: 1

Reminds me of the fact you can disable such features in real player, yet people cry about real player still (once it's been disabled in the preferences, it does not submit that information).

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

winamp by hey · 2006-01-12 06:53 · Score: 1

Does the same sort of thing when playing a song.

The Easy Solution by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 06:58 · Score: 1

The easiest solution to this whole thing is to simply change all of your filenames and ID3 tags to something like "STOP SPYING ON ME, APPLE!" It'll at least be interesting to see what they try to match you up with.

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.

"Phone home" is illegal in Germany by Nice2Cats · 2006-01-12 07:14 · Score: 1

To give this discussion a bit more bite: In Germany, one of those places where they actually think privacy is something worth protecting, it is illegal to have a program transmit this sort of information without asking the user's permission. Mentioning it in some text on some website somewhere isn't enough. Heise has the details (if you understand German), but no word if somebody has sued yet. I think it is safe to assume that somebody will.

This is amazingly stupid of Apple. Not only should they have people who check the local laws, they also burned a lot of trust here. It all comes from running around on stage with that creepy guy from Sony last year.

Only because owning a DVD can equal jail time. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 07:18 · Score: 0

it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles

AFAIK, you can be locked up in the US for watching/owning certain DVDs. Not true for music... yet. I can see how some Saudis or Iranians might be concerned however if their musical selection is sent out over the internet in clear text.

YOU DONT HAVE TO USE THE STORE by a_greer2005 · 2006-01-12 07:52 · Score: 1

You have three options,
one: kill the mini store
two: dis-alow all music store features
three: dis-allow itunes' acess to the network via firewall.

Apple just wants to sell you music, they just sell music,they dont want to sell the info becase that is bad press and they would loose all market share and credibility company-wide pretty much instantly.

Apple has WAY too much to loose here

Re:YOU DONT HAVE TO USE THE STORE by Bassman59 · 2006-01-12 08:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

"Apple just wants to sell you music, they just sell music,they dont want to sell the info becase that is bad press and they would loose (SIC!!!) all market share and credibility company-wide pretty much instantly.
Apple has WAY too much to loose (SIC!!!) here."
PLEASE learn how to fucking spell the word "lose," you loser.

Dude! by commodoresloat · 2006-01-12 08:05 · Score: 1

It should be painfully obvious but it isn't. I never bothered to click the "Parental" button because I don't have kids. I don't use the iTMS but I sometimes found it annoying because I would accidentally click it and have to wait for it to load before going back to my library. Now it's gone completely; no more stray clicks. Thanks!

Re:Dude! by BushCheney08 · 2006-01-12 08:19 · Score: 1

Okay, it may not be as painfully obvious as I made it out to be. I only noticed the ability to disable those things because I always look through all the prefs just to see what's available. I only found I actually had a use for the iTMS and radio disable features when IT firewalled those functions from working. Rather than get an error message everytime I accidentally click them, I'd rather just get rid of them entirely.

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.

It has to be said by commodoresloat · 2006-01-12 08:09 · Score: 1

Those who are willing to trade the freedom to purchase DRM-encumbered mp3s privately for a little bit of security deserve neither. The right to download Dixie Chicks in private is the fundamental bedrock of our liberties. They can take my right to download Dixie Chicks privately when they pry my cold dead fingers from the mouse!

The real story by Syberghost · 2006-01-12 08:26 · Score: 1

According to Jobs, iTunes notifies the FISA court within 72 hours about all information it gathers from your system, so it's perfectly legit.

Re:In retrospect ...Hey, Wait a Minute Here by Golias · 2006-01-12 08:43 · Score: 1

Is it even their business what you play otherwise? And without giant warnings of what they're doing? I don't think so.

Giant warnings of what, exactly?

It's not like you're sending them your medical history or sexual orientation. All the app does is send a query to iTMS for songs related to the one you currently have selected, and only when you are browsing for selected tracks.

Really, you give away far more info about yourself by doing a Google Image Search or posting on Slashdot.

--

Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Last.FM by gentleolas · 2006-01-12 08:48 · Score: 1

I voluntarily give all my information to Last.fm -- serves me and my friends, and others there by helping collect and manage what I listen to. Then they let the world listen to what I listen to, legally broadcasting those tracks they can find to broadcast as an internet radio station. To me this is the height of Internet communities technologies doing me a great service. I say take my data, please! Help me find more good music!! Now, if this were used for evil....? BAD scene, perhaps.

Re:last.fm by Yer+Mom · 2006-01-12 21:55 · Score: 1

Well, last.fm only does it if you explicitly download and install the appropriate plugin. It doesn't come enabled by default in any music player I know of (and even if it was, it would have to ask for your username/password before it could connect).
Not to mention that some plugins let you turn them off temporarily (certainly iScrobbler does) if you want to listen to something that you don't want to own up to :)
In any case, the thing that a lot of people seem to be missing is that iTunes isn't sending this straight to Apple - it's going via Omniture, a marketing company. Apple hasn't mentioned one thing about why the data's going this route, or what Omniture is doing with this data.

--
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?

Re:not actually being collected-then turn it off by glesga_kiss · 2006-01-12 09:09 · Score: 1

No, one of the many issues were that it updated the advert pane each time you put the CD in. Coincidentally this also told Sony whenever the CD was being played, and by which IP address.

apologist by geekee · 2006-01-12 09:11 · Score: 1

"If you are using a service, RTFM and then go read the FAQ. Bonus advice: turn off auto-updating on non-critical applications."

I shouldn't have to read every manual and EULA to install or update software. I should at least expect Apple to ask me before sending my private data home. When people found out that Microsoft was sending their computer system hardware and configuration details to MS for diagnostic purposes, people were rightfully outraged. Now MS asks you in a dialog box. I don't excuses about how it's harmless. Just fix the problem and stop pretending it isn't one.

--
Vote for Pedro

last.fm by diegocgteleline.es · 2006-01-12 09:44 · Score: 1

Bullshit. What last.fm does precisely is the same, and I don't see why this is bad. Take a look at my profile if you want to "spy" me. Of course, this is itunes and itunes is "good" and apple is "cool", so some people just feel the need to spread FUD in the hope they "free" people from itunes or "show people the reality behind itunes" or some crap like that - I call that "the superman syndrome"

Discards Info Ha HA HA Jobs+Bush=spying by cannuck · 2006-01-12 09:55 · Score: 1

Need I say More?

Re: THE STORE= Monopolistic Fanatical Control by cannuck · 2006-01-12 09:59 · Score: 1

If it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk - it's a skun.... no wait... it's Steve Jobs.

Now who's deluded? Apple's being selfish! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 10:16 · Score: 0

If that was true, they would indeed have no DRM. The way to change someone's mind is not to play ball with them. Apple sure as hell do want DRM, if they didn't they could take a stand on not use it. Sure, it would take a while longer until they have hegemony on internet sales, but on the other hand, they would do it the right way. And I'm pretty sure that if Apple made a call-to-arms and stood on the barricades for an issue like that, they would have backing...

As it is now, they actively support evil and take away freedom from their unknowing users - for their own petty winnings, I might add. Double bleh.

The RIAA? They are a historical paranthesis, an anomaly created in the short timespan that it was hard and expensive to copy sound and other content. And they know it - so does Apple, and they could have helped shorten their existance. But noooo, some short-term profits are much more important. Triple bleh.

Movie: How Apple has turned to the Dark Side by sallyh · 2006-01-12 10:16 · Score: 1

This evil iTunes spying doesn't surprise me one bit, after viewing this video. The video explains all! http://www.youtube.com/?v=Y3xKhLlhzfM

Re:Movie: How Apple has turned to the Dark Side by cannuck · 2006-01-12 16:47 · Score: 1

Cute!

Google spyware! by tgibbs · 2006-01-12 10:58 · Score: 1

This just in: Information typed into Google's searchbox is sent back to Google! News at 11:00!

If I don't want Google to get information about my interests, I don't do searches through Google.
If I don't want the iTunes miniStore to search iTMS for music similar to what I play, I turn it off.

In both cases, the search function is quite obvious, and easily avoided by the user. There is nothing surreptitious here.

Apple = Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 11:39 · Score: 0

Connect the dots, slashdot!

Apple is evil like Bush, except they have far far far more resources dedicating to tracking you... way more schmucks are using iTunes than are whispering the word "jihad" on the phone. Wake up people! Bush controls apple and the world! I read it on slashdot!

bad analysis by geekee · 2006-01-12 11:58 · Score: 1

"Considering that your case consists of 'probably,' 'wouldn't you think,' wild guesses and assumptions with no basis in reality and which in fact stand in opposition to the established facts, surely your case is the ill-made one?"

The only established fact is that when MiniStore is on Apple collects data on the music you're playing. Until today there was not even a statement by Apple as to what was done with the data, aside from the obvious. These are reasonable questions to ask. They are not at all in opposition to the established facts. Even today all we have is Apple's word they aren't storing the data. Where do they get the data to correlate songs you're listening to with songs you might like, BTW?

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:bad analysis by JonathanBoyd · 2006-01-13 05:50 · Score: 1

The only established fact is that when MiniStore is on Apple collects data on the music you're playing.

From the article (emphasis mine):

An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) told MacWorld that Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes. [...] Apple tells us that the information is not actually being collected.

Until today there was not even a statement by Apple as to what was done with the data, aside from the obvious. These are reasonable questions to ask.

You didn't ask a question; you made an accusation. And you didn't make it before the announcement; you made it after. So rather than question them before the facts were known (reasonable thing to do), you accused them after they had released the facts (unreasonable).

They are not at all in opposition to the established facts.

If you think that claiming they collect data does not stand in opposition to their statement that they don't, then I must question your logic.

Where do they get the data to correlate songs you're listening to with songs you might like, BTW?

They check the artists name and see if they have any other music by the same artists. They also look at their logs of what people have bought from the iTMS and see what people who bought from that artists also bought. I imagine that they use exactly the same code as the part of the iTMS that says 'Listens also bought' when you view an album. That feature has been there for quite a long tie now and I don' recall anyone ever complaining. In facts most shopping sites would do that e.g. Amazon, play.com.

big difference by geekee · 2006-01-12 12:06 · Score: 1

"Google scans your emails for ads, Amazon tracks your order history for recommendations, credit card company analyze your transactional pattern to offer balance transfer promotions....

it's all about tayloring for each customer.

provided Apple is not *sharing* this data with 3rd-parties, I don't find anything wrong with internal data mining."

There's a big difference between Amazon using information you voluntarily gave them, and Apple uploading information on your computer without asking you whether or not it was ok.

--
Vote for Pedro

Yes it is damga control by geekoid · 2006-01-12 13:09 · Score: 1

this is a response to the talk in what is called the blogsphere(I still hate that term).

It is there to control the damage to there reputation, and to try to prevent a negative market perception.

I don't think it is that big of an issue, but this is damage control.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I just downloaded the update by ace_brickman · 2006-01-12 16:03 · Score: 0

It may appear that Apple has updated its update. I just d/l the newer version, and the MiniStore did not appear. Had I wanted to access the store, I would select an option up in the "Edit" menu. Can this be confirmed by anyone else?

--
Users of the world: We're here to help you, but help us help you. (your IT dept)

Re:not actually being collected-then turn it off by aristotle-dude · 2006-01-12 17:19 · Score: 1

Do you realise how much effort the music industry puts into compiling charts? Market research? They are having orgasms on the thought of knowing what we are listening to. It's very valuable information and I have no problem with them accessing it with my permission.

You read the EULA when you installed the update and launched iTunes for the first time afterward didn't you? If you clicked agree, you gave your permission. You also gave permission when you clicked on the song with the mini store open. It was behaving like an AJAX web application like you would have on any music download site with previews.

Are you saying that you are not taking responsibility for the buttons you click? Collecting info on what you click on would not be anywhere as useful as what you buy from them. Websites do not generally track you to such granularity. They have no way of knowing how you got that music onto your computer. It could have been a CD you purchased, a CD someone gave you as a gift, a CD you received as a price or promotion or songs that you "acquired" by other means. Client ID? User Id on the music store? IP address? Hello? The Sony rootkit hit one, non-changing and non-unique URL yet that created a massive backlash. Apple != Sony it seems, lot's of love for Apple, none for Sony.

If you have a user ID on the music store and are signed in, you have already given them your address and credit card information. You have no evidence that they are sending the User ID on the store but people who do not have an account would not have one so what is your point exactly? Your IP address? I have news for you, every website you visit knows a lot more about the computer you are using than just the IP address.

I speak as someone who has written e-commerce web products. If they are sending any sort of ID key when you are logged in, I doubt it will be non-unique per launch of the application. You also are not necessarily logged into our account when you start iTunes so again, they have no idea who you are.

Did you catch the part that, as far as we know, only the song and artist information is sent when you "click" on a song with the ministore panel open. It does not follow or track what song is playing.

It is up to you to disable the feature if you don't like it. The reason why it is enabled is to alert users to this new feature because most users would not be aware of it otherwise. Some people actually like the feature and consider it useful in helping them discover music. What are you embarrassed about? Do you have N'Sync songs in your library?

Based on my experience as a developer of e-commerce, I do not believe it is worth collecting every click a user makes on a store site or every search they make. The site might have logs but they will not necessarily link it any particular account/person. The effort and storage/performance demands cannot be easily justified for a regular online store.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

But it soo shiny... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 18:14 · Score: 0

iTunes isn't that bad a thing. You don't have to use the DRM (all my tunes are cd rips), and they even give you the option to disable ITMS completely!

And of course, how else could I use my shiny new iPod :)

What makes you think... by farnsaw · 2006-01-12 19:44 · Score: 1

What makes you think Apple did not design the software in the iPod to record your playing history and then report this back? The iPod could record the songs played, if you skip or restart a song, and even if you turn the volume up or down for a particular song. This would be valuable marketing information that they could then either use to suggest songs to you and/or sell to the music industry for a profit. Imagine a music chart that was the top 100 songs listened to on iPods around the world. You could even categorize them by country.

Now if this was the paranoid list I would post this Anonymously.

--
"Computer Scientists can count to 1024 on their fingers" (non-mutant, non-mutilatated, human computer scientists)

The REAL reason it won't happen... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-12 20:02 · Score: 0

"Release the source of the server app and then we might believe you."

Trouble is, neurotic privacy freaks--like you--who twist their Fruit-of-the-Looms in knots over these kinds of trivial nothings--yes, you!--don't tend to be Apple customers to begin with. So you distrust anything you didn't compile yourself? Too bad for you. Move to a cabin in the backwoods of Montana and surrender iTunes to those among us actually capable of functioning in society.

Re:not actually being collected-then turn it off by glesga_kiss · 2006-01-12 23:45 · Score: 1

You read the EULA when you installed the update and launched iTunes for the first time afterward didn't you? If you clicked agree, you gave your permission.

Oh, come on. So what if it's in the EULA. Lot's of shit is said in EULA's, and a large part of using that system is to hide the legalese from the end-consumer. That's the point. Just because it's quasi-legal, it doesn't mean it's morally sound. So, if your iTunes EULA says (near the bottom in an obtuse way) Apple claim the right to your first-born, then that's fine then? Well, it's in the EULA, so you'd better shut the hell up when they come to take him away.

It was behaving like an AJAX web application

Ohh, buzzwords. AJAX is simply a DHTML implemented client/server model using async xml/html gets. Anyone who actually works in the field would say "it's behaving like a typical client/server app". The particular GUI implementation isn't relevant.

Are you saying that you are not taking responsibility for the buttons you click? Collecting info on what you click on would not be anywhere as useful as what you buy from them.

You are pretty far off the mark. You don't seem to understand the power of marketing. Knowing what music people were listening to (and how often) is pure marketing gold. They can tell which songs are liked; which artists are similar based on playlists. I could go on and on describing the info you can mine out of this data. They can tell that someone who is listening to artist X surfs for info about artist Y. This tells the marketing people that if they advertise Y in media that already mentions X, they'll get a good return.

They have no way of knowing how you got that music onto your computer.

And, your point is? It's not worth collecting the data because you don't the source?

You have no evidence that they are sending the User ID on the store but people who do not have an account would not have one so what is your point exactly? Your IP address? I have news for you, every website you visit knows a lot more about the computer you are using than just the IP address.

Don't you think I know that? I'm talking about globally unique IDs, I've already said in another post that I've worked on similar systems in the past.

They aren't tracking the IP address with the intention of hunting you down with silent black helecopters. It's used to differentiate users and track history over a longer period. Don't get me wrong, knowing that IP 192.168.0.1 listened to three albums in this session in itself is hugely valuable, but if you can correlate that data over a period of weeks, you can learn a lot about your target markets listening habits. That allows you to monitor trends and "create" new artists that meet the publics needs. There are two parts of these systems I am weary on: disclosure of it to the end user, and the crappy manufactured music it ultimately will result in! ;-)

Some people actually like the feature and consider it useful in helping them discover music. What are you embarrassed about? Do you have N'Sync songs in your library?

It is helpful, and I've written similar features. However, it's important that you are upfront with the user about privacy concerns. You are breaking the law in several countries if you don't. To the best of my knowledge, a EULA has never successfully stood up as a legal document in any country I am familiar with.

amarok suggests also new songs by Onewheel · 2006-01-17 03:02 · Score: 0

What I don't understand is the reactions:
- iTunes sends information on what I'm listening to, and suggests other artists: iTunes is evil!!!
- amarok does the same: nothing happens, it's even a great feature.

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Responds to iTunes Spying Allegations

385 comments