Comments on: Apple's iTunes raises privacy concerns

Computer experts say software transmits information about playlist content, attached to ID number, back to Apple.

[rcrusoe]

Darn it!

First my tivo phones home with my viewing habits. Then I find that my cable company tracks my viewing habits through their decoder box. Next I read that Windows XP phones home with who knows what everytime I use the built in search function. Now Apple wants to know what music I'm playing?

What's that? At least I can stop iTunes from sending this info just by turning off the MiniStore?

Never mind.

[wilsonhines]

This is exactly what we needed in iTunes, leav'em alone

Hey folks,
This is the stuff that will make iTunes rock. I have been listening to stuff in iTunes before and wondered..."Now what goes with this for a playlist." This is like Amazon.com's "the page you made." They just take information off of your browsing and purchasing habits. Haven't you ever been wondering through the Music Store looking for something? This is here to help. Plain and simple.

[jbrunken]

Privacy concerns are getting a bit out of control.

In general, I think that being concerned about privacy is a very good thing. However, some of the "privacy advocates" out there are starting to remind me of <insert religion here> fundamentalists. They are set on convincing everyone that every company and/or website out there exists for the sole purpose of installing spyware on their computers and such.

Where I work, we get emails daily from people who are convinced that we are using "cookies" to install spyware and quite possibly to beam messages directly into thier head urging them to buy our product. In reality, we only use cookies to make their user experience better (like storing user preferences and allow them to stay "logged in" if they wish).

People need to listen to the privacy zealots less and get more facts on these issues before they freak out.

[Methuss]

Doesn't anybody realize...

That regardless of if they store the information transmitted or not, the RIAA can sue or file subpeona to obtain user playlist information to see if people are ripping music that they did not buy? The RIAA has already shown their propensity to do this by subpeonaing file sharing sites for scrape lists. And, it is the RIAAs stance that consumers must pay for every copy of the music they listen to (they don't seem to think the Home Recording Act or fair use exists) and that changing formats requires paying full-price again for a new license.

Time to add the itunes mini-store server URL to my routers ban list.

Or

just turn it off from iTunes.

And let's be real here. The RIAA cannot prove from a playlist what's been ripped from a CD you own and what's been pirated from teh net.

[Sboston]

Ok...

That is how they want you to be and how it starts.

No need to be snide

If it were Microsoft, I wouldn't be using it. I don't use Windows Media Player at all (cos it sucks) and I only use Windows XP because of my job.

I wouldn't care about this, and besides, APPLE GIVES YOU THE OPTION TO TURN IT OFF.

If it WERE MS, you can sure as hell bet they wouldn't give you the option to turn it off.

[capfan12]

point is

any feature that sends information should be opt-in, not opt-out. If I was their suggestions I should be presented with the option when I install it, and say yes if I do, no if I don't.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

What you don't know

MS's media player does have functions that "call home" and they are enabled by default but those messages don't have an ID in them like the Apple message. And they do give you the option of turning them off and you are run through those options the first time you use the player so you can turn those options off right away.

If Apple were being honest they wouldn't be sending an ID that can be traced to you and they'd have left this option turned off or notified you the first time you started the application and let you decide whether you wanted the feature or not.

I don't subscribe to the Apple is bad theory though, I see it as more of a "stupid move" type of thing where it wasn't as well thought out in advance as it should have been so uneccesary information (the ID) got included in something that could've been better planned.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Clearly the wrong approach

Apple has made the same mistake that MS, Real and others mentioned in the story have made. They added a "new feature" to their product and enabled it by default (I can see some marketing shmuck driving this "recommendation" feature) and as a consequence of rushing the feature into the product failed to recognize the signifigance of what they were doing.

While they say they aren't using that information the fact that they're sending it makes it possible and that makes it a privacy problem.

That said, they should've known better. They aren't the first company this has happened to, just the latest and the uproar created in the past occurences should've had them watching to make sure they didn't fall into the same trap.

[paulsecic]

Stores

I don't buy music online. I trust nobody

[lingsun]

So what?

So what if Apple keeps track of what music is played on iTunes? That information could be used to find out what types of music to have for sale. No matter what they do with it, it's not worth worrying about. I don't understand why anyone should care.

[derekaw]

I think it's a great faeture!

iTunes is my music player, I sometimes use iTunes to purchase music and this new feature gives me opportunities to explore and discover new music.

Apple say they dont store the data and I dont care if they do. I dont listen to the radio much any more so any opportunity that I can get to access new music without changing what I currently do is ok with me.

[wilsonhines]

Great Point

Derek said: "I dont listen to the radio much any more so any opportunity that I can get to access new music without changing what I currently do is ok with me."

My comment:
This is a great point. I listen to my iPod about 75% of the time and XM Radio for the other %25. I NEVER listen to terrestrial radio, where new music is usually debuted. iTunes is giving the ones who desire this feature a CHOICE. And that is what the Internet is about: CHOICE.
Thanks
http://www.wilsonhines.com

[heystoopid]

First Sony BMG, now Apple

First, it was sony bmg with invasive spyware drm technology from both sunncomm & f4i now apple has declined to that level, to illtreat all it's end users, where will it all end!

Steve's words, have the same reassuring tone that SONY , first claimed back early november '05! Alas these words rapidly turned out to be nothing but misleading propaganda ultimately! Once bitten twice shy!, for it's my computer, and does not belong to the corporations to abuse at will!

Oh well, another good reason to move to open source software, where the documented source is freely available for perusing and recompiling if required!

[larahs]

all corporations are evil because they are driven by money

all corporations are evil because they are driven by money

[rebiolca]

Hypocrisy: last.fm does the same thing

Interesting enough that it was Cory Doctorow from BoingBoing who wrote about this issue, he is member of the board of directors of MusicBrainz which supplies music data to last.fm, which with a plugin for most popular media players (included iTunes) does exactly the same thing that iTunes'ministore does...

[Willeisen]

No different than Google...

When you search on Google or other websites that use Google Ads what you search for is sent out so they can provide you with relevant advertisements. It is basically the same thing, a great feature and a convenient way to find new music.

I really don't see why people care that Apple knows what music they listen to anyway. Are you all afraid that someone will find out you listen to X-Zibit or Shania Twain? Give me a break.

[someguy389]

The distinctions are simple...

but significant. Google does not tie the information to an account that can be traced back to the user. More important however is that the information is provided with a certain amount of consent. I choose to enter text in the search box. It should be obvious to any user that in order for a search to be run, Google will look at the text. Apple's system retrieves information that the user is not necessarily choosing to supply or is aware is being taken. The information accessed in this case might be relatively benign, but red flags should probably go up anytime a piece of software starts retrieving information from client machines withough ensuring that users consent to the access.

[Mad Dog - Chi]

Difference

The difference is that Apple is getting sent information about ANY music you play, even if it was not purchased thru iTunes. This is quite unexpected that Apple secretly collects this information. It would be different if you consented, but in this case Apple did not even tell you what is happening. They actually have no right to collect this type of information.

And just maybe Apple logs all the music you've ever listened to in a database. I bet the RIAA would like to subpeona such a database to find out which music you've illegally copied...

[kentuttin]

I agree.

If they rip money off from people but selling an upgrade for 9.99 dollars, why would you have to suffer from not using the full features of what you paid for right? Then why do we have to link our music library to Apple? That's plain "Genius!"

So they can see if you download your songs illegaly or not from iTunes?

I'm an Apple fan don't get me wrong. It's just that this Genius is just way too intelligent for me....

;-)