Apple sued over spying mobile apps

http://venturebeat.com/2010/12/28/apple-sued-over-spying-mobile-apps/

by zoowar • 16 years ago

27 15 16 years ago

roc• 16 years ago

I'm not sure why the UDID would eever have been exposed to app developers. It seems the API should offer an ID that was the result of the UDID run through some sort of hash seeded by project or at least developer cert.

ardit33• 16 years ago

It is not. It is the Device Id that is exposed. Assuming the same user is using the device, you can track that user across application, and advertisement companies can get a clear picture of the user's preferences by aggregating the data coming from all apps. Some apps have legitimate need for the device id though.

I agree with the seeded hash of an UDID. A developer can track one user across handsets, but two different developers can't tell form the hashed uid if it is the same customer.

This solves both the problems of 1. developers having to implement full blown account/login systems if their app is offering subscription services when a simple user id would suffice and 2. not allowing the user to be tracked across services.

I think this was just bad design from Apple.

gyardley• 16 years ago

Advertising companies also have legitimate needs for tracking exposure to advertising across applications. Frequency caps, for instance -- advertisers buy inventory across multiple applications with the explicit provision that a user won't be shown the same ad creative more than a specified number of times in a given period.

Not having cookies accessible across applications is the true design flaw. No one particularly wants to use the UDID for anything. Everyone would much rather use exactly the same infrastructure used for web advertising.

d_r• 16 years ago

Here comes the fearmongering by the media. Sigh.

jdp232• 16 years ago

How is reporting on a lawsuit "fearmongering"?

jimboyoungblood2• 16 years ago

Because the lawsuit was most likely inspired by this report by the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870469400457602...

niclupien• 16 years ago

It was about time!

tedunangst2• 16 years ago

"Some apps are also selling additional information to ad networks, including users’ location, age, gender, income, ethnicity, sexual orientation and political views."

It then goes on to list Pandora and Weather Channel as affected apps. Having used both of them, I don't recall entering anything about my income or political views into either. I would really like to learn of a concrete example of an app that sold each of the above pieces of information, instead of the current list of well known apps that once displayed an ad.

nolanbrown23• 16 years ago

It's all fear mongering as d_r says. Ironically, the WSJ app sends more data about a user (including the UDID) then the apps referenced in the article.

Should apple change the way UDIDs are given to developers? Probably. A simple hash of the UDID and the bundle id would get an app specific identifier but I guarantee that there would still be the same "privacy concerns".

devindra• 16 years ago

Author of the post here. Where exactly did you hear that the WSJ app shares more data than the others? The WSJ included their own app in the study, and according to them they only use the UDID internally to count users (http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk-mobile/2010/12/17/wall-street-journ...). Now I realize that data isn't exactly trustworthy since they're talking about their own app, but I've yet to see anything that disproves it yet.

Apple sued over spying mobile apps

Related Stories