Grindr and OKCupid Sell Your Data, but Twitter’s MoPub Is the Real Problem
eff.org
eff.org
On Android, if you install Xposed, there's XPrivacy [0], which essentially had this premise. Unfortunately, it only supports versions 4.0.3-5.1.1 (and is no longer maintained).
I haven't been following the rooting community for a while, so someone can probably correct me if there's a better alternative now, but I believe the replacement is XPrivacyLua [1].
[0] https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/xprivacylua-xposed-module-pri...
Instagram should be running in a sandbox that gets truth only if the user actually wishes to give it the truth, and if they want to demand unnecessary info from the user (e.g. access to data about other installed apps), then the app should be either lied to by the OS or banned by the platform provider.
There's an inherent conflict between the needs of the app developers and users. The device manufacturers have to take a side in that conflict, presumably the side of the user who's paying them for the device.
The problem with it is that at least one of the big the platform providers is in a conflict of interest, given how they engage in the exact same practices as a business model. Google cannot hit at anyone for any practice they also use without shooting themselves in the foot. So the status quo is maintained with everyone being allowed to take a swing at vacuuming as much personal user data as humanly possible without ever informing the user or getting proper (informed) consent.
So I'm curious how privacy-focused mods figure out which features users most want without being able to track users. It seems like a huge risk to remove a feature that could be your killer feature but you just don't know.
There must be a middle ground though. It can't be necessary for me to share my location data with an app for analytics, nor should it be necessary for me to provide a timestamped personally identifiavle breadcrumb trail, just so a site can know how i navigated.
History is littered with beautiful products that only like five people actually wanted. I love the Chevy Volt, it fits my use case perfectly and is everything I would ask for in a hybrid right now, but it's sales numbers were objectively crap. It was basically a Chevy Cruze, but sold something like 1/20th the number of units over the same time period; I'm not surprised it was discontinued.
Analytics-driven design leads to unexciting products that are useful enough to most people, with only occasional forays outside the mean when a subteam manages to launch an "unnecessary" feature with neutral metrics (until another subteam discovered the feature can be turned down with neutral metrics). It's not surprising companies love that style of development.
The only question they're answering is "how do we maximize our profit?". If that happens to mean adding features users want that's just a nice side effect.
I work on a live service, and we use analytics to determine the impact of a crash. If someonr crsshes, often they go straight to reddit and conplain If you took everything at face value online, you would never correctly assess the impact of an issue, and you'd spend all your time fixing rounding errors of issues rather than improving the experience for a large number of people. If you ask people, they'll tell you it's the worst issue, even if it's never happened to them.
This takes place in every industry except for software development.
Manufacturers are incentivized to install bloatware and, in some cases, outright malware.
Fixing this requires legal action.
In case of google (android), it's the manufacturer (of the OS) earning money on this
But as soon as it’s implemented, snoopy apps will just raise the bar further (sms verification, face verification, ‘add this contact to your phone book’, etc)
It's trivial to detect virtualized environments , not only that, the samples can afford to be patient and meticulous,and test themselves against existing analysis methods before deployment. That's why real hardware is the best place to study malware.
Your disadvantage here is that fingerprinting is a game of accuracy, where the adversary gains accuracy at basically a logarithmic(or geometric?) scale for every additional data point they have about your device, sometimes they only need one data point,such as a shared file system,let me explain: most apps need storage access right? Like you want them to read existing files or write files to be accesses by other apps. App1 writes a file with a random name or random content, app2 through appN in their affiliate network check that location/file for the random value to track your device. The apps in this network all collect various data points about you, let's say one app gets your real name and address (payment and shipping),now all the apps know those two things about you. Now they all know your zipcode and can infer things about you based on that,your last name,etc...and even do background check like lookups to know your past addresses aquaintances, cars you've driven,court cases and so much more. Now let's say one of these apps needs to send you text before it can function(most popular apps these days) , now all of them know your phone,can get a ton of info about you,who else has you as contacts and they can infer even more about if at least one of the people they track has your number as contact and they basically opened up their lives to all apps.
You can add all the layers of abstraction you want. Apps need to talk to each other and external sites/services need to reach you at a predictabl address (including physical address and such). And even if what you said was effective, it's incredibly hard to achieve without the user being very cooperative towards their own privacy preservation, and evem then ,like I said above, if anyone you have as contact reaches you using a predictable address, a lot can be constructed about solely based on their choices.
My solution is legal. Make it a crime and start throwing people in prison. If someone violates your consent to stalk you or creates public opportunities of business or employment where consenting to stalking is a requirement, make it a felony. And make privacy a core right for peoples of any society that calls itself free.
Unlike with malware authors, we can easily find the execs behind stalkerware and we can make them take responsibility (assuming people want liberty and democracy more than political theatrics).
Facebook Messenger actually has a nasty dark pattern where they will display a fake pixel-perfect copy of a permission prompt where the only way to get through is to tap Allow, and when you do they call the real prompt (since it's pixel-perfect you can't tell the difference besides the short animation when it appears) and hope you also click Allow on the real one. If this is allowed then it's a lost cause.
Apple is doing fuck all about privacy on the App Store.
Edit: nope.
DSPs get access to around 84 data points from the various SSPs that they work with. This ranges from information around age, sex, city geolocation and what apps are currently installed on your phone. It's scary to see just how effective these 84 data points are in predicting user's likelihood to commit certain actions.
My friends that are still in the industry are quite confident that Apple will depreciate the IDFA in the coming year to fit more with their 'privacy that's iPhone' stance. This will greatly reduce the ability for DSPs to target users and all performance marketing on iPhones will be reduced to branding ads, that have very little targeting.
As a consumer, I'm very happy with these changes and hope Google will follow suit with the GAID. If you're using an iPhone I'd recommend to switch off your IDFA in your privacy settings ("Limit Ad Tracking" toggle on). By doing this DSPs will no longer be able to target you.
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/privacy-thats-ip...
LMT does not hide your IDFA. You can reset it fine, but it's always there.
Also, hell hath no fury like a brand-safety conscious advertiser whose ad appears next to dick pics on Grindr.
DSPs are integrated with a host of a data providers and exchanges that give advertisers the ability to target people based on location, demographics, what articles they're reading, etc.
That would mean that after getting approved as an ad-network on MoPub, you can get all 1.5B users' data for free, just by participating in the auction (without even having to win and spending money in auctions).
Does anyone on HN happen to have a sample bid request from MoPub that demonstrates the actual data that's made available to ad networks (DSPs)?
The call out to make are the fields device.d(p)idmd5, device.d(p)idsha1 (both now deprecated), and device.ifa, as well as the user/data/segment fields. That's where user ID's (and potentially other data) are passed around. Some exchanges pass a bunch of data, others pass less data but allow you to do a cookie or device-ID exchange/sync so that one side of the transaction can map the other's ID's to theirs, so that the bidder can look up their user profile information. (which they've either bought or accumulated somehow).
Looks like MoPub doesn't pass ID/buyerId any more (it's strikethrough'd), but they do still pass data/segment fields. Not sure what those contain though, perhaps others can chime in.
For what it's worth, getting approved as an ad network is potentially non-trivial. I don't know all the steps involved, but you do need to demonstrate that you can at least meet minimum network response latencies, among other things. Additionally, most exchanges do have some sort of bidrate/winrate monitoring that will eventually throttle you if you're not participating "in good faith" or with reasonable bids/expectations of winning (it's costing them processing power and bandwidth to send you a request even if you don't win). Most also have ToS (for whatever good that does; enforcement may or may not be strong) restricting your ability to collect and store data received from bids (you're typically only allowed to store data from the bid IF you've won the auction). I've heard anecdotes of companies trying to tap into bid flow as "passive observers" this way and ending up getting cut off.
Being able to see one's own traffic doesn't magically fix things, but giving average folks the ability to just inspect their traffic and write blog posts about it would at least improve the current situation, without requiring major technical changes.
Another possibility is that work differently in LineageOS and this it's always worked for me.
The whole economy of IT thriving off surveillance and cheap tricks is sickening. I went into this field to try and help the flow of information, to try and address the likes of Murdoch; turns out we're a shitty species that shouldn't propogate.
On the other hand, the ads I see there are poorly targeted. Either it's really obvious, reminding gay men that they still make KY Jelly and so on, or I'm surprised that anyone thought to make that stuff and that anyone buys it. This high-tech ad market doesn't seem to work very well.
I know it's not the best solution as it requires some loe from the user but I have this configured and its just worth it. Because waiting on the vendors to clean up their act is futile given how much money is being made..
The public is going to get fed up with their antics, and they are going to vote in politicians that will drop the policy hammer on these companies’ heads.
Like they say: This is why you can’t have nice things.
Actually being fooled by special interest propaganda into enacting legislation that benefits said interest at the public expense is the definition of a lawmaker.