Apple: Yeah, about those ground-breaking privacy features in iOS 14 – don't expect them until next year

'Fundamental right to privacy' can wait – Facebook and others are annoyed

Apple has delayed a rule change that requires apps on iOS 14, iPadOS 14, and tvOS 14 to request permission from the user before tracking them via a unique ID number.

Specifically, Apple will not, for now, require apps to explicitly ask for permission before utilizing its Identifier for Advertisers, or IDFA, to track people's activities.

The biz's decision to hold off implementing the promised privacy feature comes a week after Facebook warned that Apple's planned IDFA permission prompt may hinder the ability of advertisers to generate ad revenue using the antisocial network's Audience Network service.

Apple has also reportedly discussed the impact of its rule change on major app publishers like Activision Blizzard and Tencent's Supercell.

For developers, this means Apple's AppTrackingTransparency framework will be available for implementation but not immediately required. The company's requirement that App Store product pages present a summary of self-reported privacy practices later this year remains unchanged.

In a statement emailed to The Register, an Apple spokesperson explained the delay as a courtesy to affected app makers. "We want to give developers the time they need to make the necessary changes, and as a result, the requirement to use this tracking permission will go into effect early next year," a company spokesperson said.

Apple's spokesperson reiterated the company's commitment to privacy, noting that the technical changes, when enabled, will present app users with a system prompt through which they can choose to allow or reject ad tracking on an app-by-app basis.

“We believe technology should protect users’ fundamental right to privacy, and that means giving users tools to understand which apps and websites may be sharing their data with other companies for advertising or advertising measurement purposes, as well as the tools to revoke permission for this tracking," Apple's spokesperson said.


Facebook apologizes to users, businesses for Apple’s monstrous efforts to protect its customers' privacy


The IDFA is a unique identifier generated on Apple devices as an alternative to the device-linked Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) that was used by makers of ad-oriented apps for tracking until iOS 5. IDFAs were intended to allow advertisers to track users, ostensibly without revealing personal information, to make ad campaign measurement better.

The advantage of an IDFA over UUIDs from a privacy perspective is that the IDFA can be reset and constrained through the "Limit Ad Tracking" setting.

What has advertisers worried is that in the forthcoming iOS 14, iPadOS 14, and tvOS 14 releases, Apple's permission model transitions from opt-out to opt-in. It seems ad firms doubt that app users will choose to be tracked.

Apple's recalibration of its privacy zeal demonstrates that money talks, specifically the $100bn+ mobile ad market. The iPhone maker's climbdown echoes Google's recent hedging that maybe, just maybe, it may not get rid of third-party cookies by 2022 as planned. ®

Other stories you might like

  • Did hoodwink Americans with IRS facial-recognition tech, senators ask
    Biz tells us: Won't someone please think of the ... fraud we've stopped

    Democrat senators want the FTC to investigate "evidence of deceptive statements" made by regarding the facial-recognition technology it controversially built for Uncle Sam. made headlines this year when the IRS said US taxpayers would have to enroll in the startup's facial-recognition system to access their tax records in the future. After a public backlash, the IRS reconsidered its plans, and said taxpayers could choose non-biometric methods to verify their identity with the agency online.

    Just before the IRS controversy, said it uses one-to-one face comparisons. "Our one-to-one face match is comparable to taking a selfie to unlock a smartphone. does not use one-to-many facial recognition, which is more complex and problematic. Further, privacy is core to our mission and we do not sell the personal information of our users," it said in January.

    Continue reading
  • Meet Wizard Spider, the multimillion-dollar gang behind Conti, Ryuk malware
    Russia-linked crime-as-a-service crew is rich, professional – and investing in R&D

    Analysis Wizard Spider, the Russia-linked crew behind high-profile malware Conti, Ryuk and Trickbot, has grown over the past five years into a multimillion-dollar organization that has built a corporate-like operating model, a year-long study has found.

    In a technical report this week, the folks at Prodaft, which has been tracking the cybercrime gang since 2021, outlined its own findings on Wizard Spider, supplemented by info that leaked about the Conti operation in February after the crooks publicly sided with Russia during the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    What Prodaft found was a gang sitting on assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars funneled from multiple sophisticated malware variants. Wizard Spider, we're told, runs as a business with a complex network of subgroups and teams that target specific types of software, and has associations with other well-known miscreants, including those behind REvil and Qbot (also known as Qakbot or Pinkslipbot).

    Continue reading
  • Supreme Court urged to halt 'unconstitutional' Texas content-no-moderation law
    Everyone's entitled to a viewpoint but what's your viewpoint on what exactly is and isn't a viewpoint?

    A coalition of advocacy groups on Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to block Texas' social media law HB 20 after the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week lifted a preliminary injunction that had kept it from taking effect.

    The Lone Star State law, which forbids large social media platforms from moderating content that's "lawful-but-awful," as advocacy group the Center for Democracy and Technology puts it, was approved last September by Governor Greg Abbott (R). It was immediately challenged in court and the judge hearing the case imposed a preliminary injunction, preventing the legislation from being enforced, on the basis that the trade groups opposing it – NetChoice and CCIA – were likely to prevail.

    But that injunction was lifted on appeal. That case continues to be litigated, but thanks to the Fifth Circuit, HB 20 can be enforced even as its constitutionality remains in dispute, hence the coalition's application [PDF] this month to the Supreme Court.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022