feat: privacy manifest files #677

levibostian · 2024-03-28T17:21:30Z

Closes: https://linear.app/customerio/issue/MBL-187/update-values-based-on-linear-doc
Part of: https://linear.app/customerio/issue/MBL-189/release-ios

Create privacy manifest files for all target modules that customers could decide to install in an app. Update package manager config files to include these new resource files.

Testing criteria CocoaPods:

pod update, opened app in xcode
Verified that in 'Pods' project settings, there are new targets added for each module (example: CustomerIODataPipelines-CustomerIODataPipelines_Privacy). I then verified in each of the _Privacy targets > Build phases > compile sources list, the privacy manifest files were listed and they resource to a valid path.
App compiled without any new warnings.

Testing criteria SPM:

Opened sample app in xcode.
Fixed all warnings xcode gave me while resolving the CIO package.
Compiled app without any new warnings.

github-actions · 2024-03-28T17:21:45Z

Sample app builds 📱

Below you will find the list of the latest versions of the sample apps. It's recommended to always download the latest builds of the sample apps to accurately test the pull request.

CocoaPods-FCM: spr/main/371fc1ed (1712686243)
APN-UIKit: spr/main/371fc1ed (1712686218)

Closes: https://linear.app/customerio/issue/MBL-187/update-values-based-on-linear-doc Part of: https://linear.app/customerio/issue/MBL-189/release-ios Create privacy manifest files for all target modules that customers could decide to install in an app. Update package manager config files to include these new resource files. Testing criteria CocoaPods: * `pod update`, opened app in xcode * Verified that in 'Pods' project settings, there are new targets added for each module (example: `CustomerIODataPipelines-CustomerIODataPipelines_Privacy`). I then verified in each of the `_Privacy targets > Build phases > compile sources` list, the privacy manifest files were listed and they resource to a valid path. * App compiled without any new warnings. Testing criteria SPM: * Opened sample app in xcode. * Fixed all warnings xcode gave me while resolving the CIO package. * Compiled app without any new warnings. commit-id:371fc1ed

levibostian · 2024-03-28T20:04:35Z

Do not merge until the Linear ticket is unblocked.

It's still ready for a technical review.

levibostian · 2024-03-28T20:04:45Z

Notes for reviewers:

The values in the manifest files came from internal docs we created. See ticket for link to the docs.
See description for testing criteria on how I validated this.

Shahroz16 · 2024-03-29T15:06:44Z

Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

+			<key>NSPrivacyCollectedDataType</key>
+			<string>NSPrivacyCollectedDataTypeUserID</string>
+			<key>NSPrivacyCollectedDataTypeLinked</key>
+			<false/> <!-- because of anonymous profiles, linking to a person is optional -->


added a comment in notion about it

I am keeping this value as-is until we give others on team time to read documentation and give suggestions for this value.

Since to utilize basically any functionality of Customer.io, we need to link usage data to a user typically email or a device. This is the rational for marking this as true. If we mark this as false, it means that Customer.io does not have any data linked to a user anywhere in our systems.

Added comment on notion too. We only need a profile to function, so even if they use aliases to create profiles, sending push notifications and in-app messages should still be possible based on the data linked to the user, which I believe aligns with Apple's privacy details. For sending email, it's true that linking an actual email is necessary, but we don’t force it and it likely falls under the customer app's privacy? 🤔

From https://developer.apple.com/app-store/app-privacy-details/#linked-data

Additionally, in order for data not to be linked to a particular user’s identity, you must avoid certain activities after collection:
You must not attempt to link the data back to the user’s identity.
You must not tie the data to other datasets that enable it to be linked to a particular user’s identity.

I believe we do both of these activities, which I why I tend to go for true

This PR thread has been discussed in a Notion comment.
I suggest reviewing this updated section in Notion and comment there if you have more feedback.

Shahroz16 · 2024-03-29T15:08:15Z

Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

+	<array>
+
+	  <!-- 
+	  Section for SDKs that capture "Such as screen name, handle, account ID, assigned user ID, customer number, or other user- or account-level ID that can be used to identify a particular user or account."


do we have to specify the things we capture, like app name etc?

No, you do not need to specify what you capture. Instead specify what categories that you capture.

I may have misunderstood your question.

Looking at the docs for NSPrivacyCollectedDataTypes, I do not see anything in there regarding app name, app version.

If you see a category in this apple doc that is missing in this file, please mention the missing category in our notion doc.

It was based on this where it mentions adding custom data types but maybe we can skip these as I am unsure.

I'm open to skipping adding any custom data types for now. Apples documents aren't always the most clear, so it will be tough to determine what qualifies as a custom data type that we might need to declare.

scotttwittrockcio · 2024-04-01T15:37:13Z

Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

+	This section is describing what information our SDK collects about the app user. 
+
+	It's my understanding that this section is for what our SDK requires, not what a customer can do with our SDK. Therefore, if something is optional, use `false`.
+	Customers must create their own privacy file for what their app does and provide that to Apple. That's where customers report what they might be using our SDK for. 


Customers do not need to declare their dependancies privacy requirements based on the second line in this call out at the top of this page.

Re-reviewing the comments in this file and the documentation you linked to, I think the comments in this file are up-to-date and accurate.

Do you have a suggestion of a change to make to these comments?

I think the issue is around the interpretation of "required". Since their app is collecting an email address and passing it to us, they would have to declare that. If we ever created a UI to collect the email and link to a user then we'd have to declare the email address. Therefore in the first case email isn't a "required" part of our SDK.

So this does work, but the wording made that tough to interpret. I provided a suggestion to the line that might make that more clear.

Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

scotttwittrockcio · 2024-04-01T17:22:21Z

Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

+	This section is describing what information our SDK collects about the app user. 
+
+	It's my understanding that this section is for what our SDK requires, not what a customer can do with our SDK. Therefore, if something is optional, use `false`.
+	Customers must create their own privacy file for what their app does and provide that to Apple. That's where customers report what they might be using our SDK for. 


I think the issue is around the interpretation of "required". Since their app is collecting an email address and passing it to us, they would have to declare that. If we ever created a UI to collect the email and link to a user then we'd have to declare the email address. Therefore in the first case email isn't a "required" part of our SDK.

So this does work, but the wording made that tough to interpret. I provided a suggestion to the line that might make that more clear.

Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

Co-authored-by: Scott Wittrock (Customer.io) <153670820+scotttwittrockcio@users.noreply.github.com>

codecov · 2024-04-03T16:43:53Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 56.93%. Comparing base (40ea74b) to head (b4ecc69).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #677      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   56.98%   56.93%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         139      139              
  Lines        3871     3871              
==========================================
- Hits         2206     2204       -2     
- Misses       1665     1667       +2

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

kvdesa · 2024-04-09T14:50:18Z

Any updates on when this will be released?

levibostian · 2024-04-09T18:11:20Z

@kvdesa Unfortunately, we do not have a target date when to expect this feature. Know that it's a high priority of our team and we're working to release it as soon as we are able.

## [3.1.0](3.0.2...3.1.0) (2024-04-10) ### Features * privacy manifest files ([#677](#677)) ([e5c6dc7](e5c6dc7))

levibostian force-pushed the spr/main/371fc1ed branch from b2d1aa3 to a7b12d9 Compare March 28, 2024 18:03

levibostian requested a review from a team March 28, 2024 18:13

levibostian added the Do not merge label Mar 28, 2024

Shahroz16 reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

scotttwittrockcio reviewed Apr 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

levibostian and others added 2 commits April 3, 2024 11:33

Update Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

eb49008

Co-authored-by: Scott Wittrock (Customer.io) <153670820+scotttwittrockcio@users.noreply.github.com>

Update Sources/DataPipeline/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy

7b099a1

Co-authored-by: Scott Wittrock (Customer.io) <153670820+scotttwittrockcio@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge branch 'main' into spr/main/371fc1ed

b4ecc69

levibostian mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2024

feat: privacy manifest files #679

Merged

levibostian merged commit e5c6dc7 into main Apr 10, 2024
10 checks passed

levibostian deleted the spr/main/371fc1ed branch April 10, 2024 15:37

github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2024

chore: prepare for 3.1.0

448aa45

## [3.1.0](3.0.2...3.1.0) (2024-04-10) ### Features * privacy manifest files ([#677](#677)) ([e5c6dc7](e5c6dc7))

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: privacy manifest files #677

feat: privacy manifest files #677

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024 •

edited

github-actions bot commented Mar 28, 2024 •

edited

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024

Shahroz16 Mar 29, 2024

levibostian Apr 1, 2024

scotttwittrockcio Apr 1, 2024

mrehan27 Apr 2, 2024

Shahroz16 Apr 2, 2024

levibostian Apr 3, 2024 •

edited

Shahroz16 Mar 29, 2024

levibostian Apr 1, 2024

levibostian Apr 1, 2024 •

edited

Shahroz16 Apr 2, 2024

scotttwittrockcio Apr 2, 2024

scotttwittrockcio Apr 1, 2024

levibostian Apr 1, 2024

scotttwittrockcio Apr 1, 2024

scotttwittrockcio Apr 1, 2024

codecov bot commented Apr 3, 2024 •

edited

kvdesa commented Apr 9, 2024

levibostian commented Apr 9, 2024

feat: privacy manifest files #677

feat: privacy manifest files #677

Conversation

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024 • edited

github-actions bot commented Mar 28, 2024 • edited

Sample app builds 📱

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

levibostian Apr 3, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

levibostian Apr 1, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov bot commented Apr 3, 2024 • edited

Codecov Report

kvdesa commented Apr 9, 2024

levibostian commented Apr 9, 2024

levibostian commented Mar 28, 2024 •

edited

github-actions bot commented Mar 28, 2024 •

edited

levibostian Apr 3, 2024 •

edited

levibostian Apr 1, 2024 •

edited

codecov bot commented Apr 3, 2024 •

edited