[flxmglrb]

From the bottom of the article:

> EDITED TO ADD (10/15): Apple has provided a way to opt out of the targeted ads and also to disable the location information being sent.

Ok, why is that "edited to add"? Seriously. The page he links to on apple.com says it was last modified more than a month prior. Why did Schneier post his article, get some hits, and only then add this little tidbit which basically turns the whole thing into a non-story? Couldn't he have researched it all up front before posting the story? The page on apple.com is the very first hit for "iAd opt out" on Google. It's just beyond lazy to have posted this story without having done that search first.

I realize Schneier is a bit of a sacred cow in most tech circles, but this seriously just smacks of sensationalism:

"OMG Company X does something horrible!"

* wait for pageviews to roll in *

"EDIT: Eh, not really. Shoulda Googled first."

Come on. Really.

[delinka]

Schneier does this often enough that I kind of expect it. He's not a journalist- that's not an excuse for him to lack research before writing, but it does mean I take a different quantity/flavor of salt with his writings.

When it comes to general advice, he's spot on. When it comes to commenting on actual implementations, he does miss details. Hell, it's not like he's Chuck Norris.

[greggman]

The story is "you are being tracked". That there is a way to opt out is great but it's still important, as in best to have a sensational headline so people read it and are informed