Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs: 'We Don't Track Anyone'
fysdt writes "There has obviously been a lot of discussion about last week's disclosure that iOS devices are maintaining an easily-accessible database tracking the movements of users dating back to the introduction of iOS 4 a year ago. The issue has garnered the attention of US elected officials and has played fairly heavily in the mainstream press. One MacRumors reader emailed Apple CEO Steve Jobs asking for clarification on the issue while hinting about a switch to Android if adequate explanations are not forthcoming. Jobs reportedly responded, turning the tables by claiming both that Apple does not track users and that Android does, while referring to the information about iOS shared in the media as 'false.'"
Apple has now been hit with a class-action lawsuit over the location-tracking issue.
Is it even important whether Google does it or not? It's still wrong.
Then why did they come out with a statement last week saying they *had* to track users to give them the best experience? I'm not buying what Steve's selling.
They didn't. Last June they said something to the effect of, "If users opt-in to location services, they are opting in us collecting that information. This is the only way for this system to work." This came up last week in the hubbub about the tower data being stored in perpetuity on the phone. But these are completely separate issues.
AFAIK, there is no evidence that the tower data is being transmitted anywhere, so it is reasonable for Apple to say that they don't track anyone. They made a device that privately stores this data. I don't think anyone thinks that the way this data is being stored is the right way to do it, but just because the device stores that data, that doesn't mean that Apple is "tracking" you.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
It seemed that this was pretty obvious almost immediately, when people started looking at the map of "locations" and saying "but I've never been to a lot of these places and the ones I've been to are MILES off course". It seemed the obvious conclusion was that it was likely retaining tower positioning data. Now, perhaps in some people's lives this is enough information to provide unwanted tracking (it might not locate what block you're on, but it might be enough to note what city you've been in and when), so it seems that making it an encrypted file would be reasonable. But other than that . . . I still don't get why it's an issue.
I just wish people gave half the concern to privacy in general that they did to this iPhone drama.
Just as an example: Android sends along the Unique Device ID and the Carrier User ID when sending you location data to AdMob customers. iOS (iAd) sends a random ID that is generated twice daily on the iPhone. What's more wrong?
And I'm really curious how you want to have fast positioning without knowing the positions of cell towers. Either the phone saves the positions in an internal database (as the iPhone does) or it has to ask external databases every time. And if your phone asks Google's or SkyHook's servers where the cell towers are that it sees, Google/SkyHook then know where you are. You have basically the choice of your phone tracking you in an internal database or have others track your phone in their database. This is somewhat similar to local storage for documents or storing it in the cloud: In the first case someone stealing your phone can get at your documents. Put them into the cloud and someone else already has them.
I just can't believe that "nerds" are complaining that the iPhone tries to lessen the dependence on external services by building an internal database of cell tower locations. Yeah, if someone steals your iPhone he can see roughly where you have been at least once. But then he also has your address book and your call and SMS history and your browser history and all other data on it. So remote wipe it immediately and be done with it.
Hey guys, you know that profitable thing you think we've been doing? You know, the one that causes bad press. We're totally not doing it.
-Guy that's being accused
Help fight spam
Except Apple doesn't really have the same motivation as the other two you list. Facebook? Google? These are companies that make money off of eyeballs and information, and give away products to get them. Apple? They make money off of sales and loyalty. They've even managed to tick off the publishing and advertisement industry by making asking the user to opt-in a requirement for app store publication. What motivation to they have to turn around and track you?
We know the information is being sent to Apple
You're conflating two different issues.
Contrary to what you said, we do not know that this information is being sent to Apple. We do know that some data is sent, of course. If I say "Allow" for sharing my location info with random app X, then random advertiser Y that has an ad in app X will have access to my data as well, since X gets it and shares it with Y. All of those are opt-in at the time they occur, are limited to a single app, and occur for a specific purpose. They're also obvious and are what those passages you cite are talking about. They're not in question.
What is in question is whether or not this data, which is always on, is always updating, and is comprehensive for a number of months is being sent back and used. As best as I can figure, all signs seem to be pointing to it not being used. Running down the list of reasons backing up that idea:
1) Steve Jobs has actively denied that it is being used that way. See summary above.
2) It makes no sense to store it locally forever, since sending it immediately is easier, safer, and closes the window for publicity nightmares like this one.
3) Apple has always placed the greatest importance on the customer experience, and this harms it.
4) Apple has been proactive in protecting the privacy of their customers, including recently, since it improves the user experience (e.g. see the publisher-hated App Store policy change regarding subscription data).
Essentially, we have no basis for believing that this information is being sent to Apple, aside from the general distrust that we all place in large companies (which they've rightly earned). The only plausible explanation I've heard so far is that this is simply a cache that was poorly coded and grew larger than expected. That is, it's no different than what Android has, except broken.
True; Apple does not make money off those things.
Yet.