19 ms·
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is a Fundamental Human Right'
- pbreit 11y agoAmen. Who the heck wants their own government spying on them? I'd rather be "less safe" whatever that even means. The government works for us, not the other way around.
- mozumder 11y agoYou mean the "spying" program that was revealed to have filters to filter out their own citizens communications? Seriously, why do people conveniently ignore this little fact? Why would these filters exist, as revealed in CLASSIFIED documents, if the government were interested in spying on its own citizens? If the government were interested in spying on you, they would just do it. They wouldn't need to build machines to protect your privacy rights.
- randyrand 11y agoSo they record/log every single phone communication in the US, only to filter out every single phone recording made in the US? That doesn't make sense. How can you tell who is talking on the phone anyway? And what if a US citizen was talking to a non-citizen? Regardless, the point is that backdoors - even if used 99% of the time correctly - opens up your phone and all its nitty gritty details of your life to adversaries. IDK how the NSA phone logging worked so I can't really comment on how safe it is. None us can. That's sort of the problem.
- mozumder 11y agoAnything can happen anytime in the future, but this is the discussion about what is actually happening. Maybe a giant seamonster comes up and swallows the earth whole? Who knows. But, right now, there exists filters to filter out US citizens comms from NSA spying, as revealed in CLASSIFIED documents. This is something Snowden's friends love to conveniently ignore, because it doesn't fit into their artificially constructed world-vision of the US government as giant evil monsters.
- randyrand 11y agoWell it conflicts with what we've heard from multiple sources. I thought I recalled Obama saying that all meta data was stored. Regardless... How did they detect when a US citizen was using a phone abroad, or a terrorist using a landline phone in the USA? Identities are not tied to phones. Furthermore, how secure is the system they used? Can adversaries tap in to the NSA database? Is the filtering "hard wired" or is it something that is programmable and how susceptible is it to bugs, viruses, or hacking? How trustworthy are the people that control this data? Is it possible that anyone that works at the NSA is not trustworthy and might defect? Such as Edward Snowden? These are important questions. Even with 'filtering' there is a lot of questions to be asked. And I doubt all them have great answers. The point is, there is a system in place to problematically spy on any phone conversation at any time among other things. Even if they use it "for good," that should be very concerning for anyone that knows that programming secure systems is mostly an effort in futility. Especially for the government who can't even code up a CRUD healthcare website without issue - and that the system is completely closed source not allowing others to review it. Which brings us to another issue - why was this secret? Isn't this the kind of thing that should be approved by USA citizens? And publically verified for safety and security? This alone is so concerning. I'm happy you think "filtering" makes all of these questions a non-issue though.
- pbreit 11y agoIs that true? My understanding is only one party needed to be a non-citizen.
- aianus 11y agoWhat difference does that make? Foreigners deserve privacy too.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> Who the heck wants their own government spying on them? A depressingly large proportion of the population.
- Syrup-tan 11y agoI believe it's more of an education problem, than of people actually welcoming the intrusions.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Retra 11y agoMost people don't know of any intrusions. I couldn't even tell you if my government has ever intruded on me, and to assume they do is a bit too much paranoia for my day-to-day life.
- Mikeb85 11y agoApple has admitted to giving the US government information. So they don't run algorithms over your meta-data, instead they just give your personal info the the government. I'm aware Google does comply with government requests too, but also attempts to push back and keep the government honest.
- Splendor 11y agoApple also attempts to push back. "Apple only disclosed content in response to 27% of the total U.S. account requests we received during the period from July 1st, 2014 to June 30th, 2015" Source: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...
- chipperyman573 11y agoWhat's with apple and their super-privacy stance lately? First his letter, and now his interview. Not that I mind it, but I feel like they're expecting something bad to come out soon.
- tdkl 11y agoA business strategy perhaps ? Considering everyone else is in the surveillance-as-a-service monetization model.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoApple is essentially the only major US tech company that doesn't rely heavily on advertising income (and thus on online profiling to target ads effectively), and they've realized that this gives them a moral high horse from which to attack their competitors without actually having to change any of their own habits.
- iosys 11y agoI wouldn't necessarily say, they have suddenly realized this; they have been leading by example for user experience for awhile and are now just being more public about it. Nobody that really understands the problem of no privacy between government or another collecting agency knows enough to weight it on purchasing their device or going with their OS for their phone, tablet, or laptop. If more people knew, how it could be for collecting every single thing from a user, i'm sure apple products would sell more, so I do agree with your point, that it is better to now advertise this.
- Cookingboy 11y agoNeither Amazon nor Microsoft rely heavily on advertising income. Neither does IBM, HP, Oracle, Cisco, Salesforce, etc. In fact when it comes to "major US tech companies", either by revenue or by market cap, I can only think of Facebook and Google that make money mainly from advertising income.
- derefr 11y ago
- staunch 11y ago> If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that. Users should also be able to install apps on their iPhones without Apple knowing what they're doing. Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. But I agree with him on everything else and think he's a hero for what he's doing.
- api 11y agoUnfortunately if you remove the walls from the garden you get a malware, crapware, and (ironically given the topic) spyware explosion -- a tragedy of the commons more or less. Mobile devices are used by over a billion people, most of whom don't know much about computers. From the perspective of sleazy marketers and black hat hackers that's a lot of fresh meat. They're better than PCs since they're studded with sensors, allowing the user to be tracked and spied upon to an unprecedented degree. Look at the Google Play store and the Android ecosystem, which is comparatively more open. If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely, you'll get random ads, trackers uploading your geo-location constantly to god-knows-where, etc.
- codeka 11y ago> If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely That's completely orthogonal though, because Play Store is Google's walled garden. What Google allow you to do, in addition to downloading things from their walled garden, is also side-load apps completely separately from the walled garden. There's no evidence that the ability to side-load causes an increase in malware/crapware.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kbenson 11y agoWhat would we do if we didn't have apple to protect us from our own ignorance? Apple is fallible. If developers can break out of app review constraints by using carefully included bugs[1] then the only solution is actively monitoring what the apps are doing. If that's the case, what value-add is Apple's walled garden? Just keeping out crappy programs? I think there are plenty of solutions for discovering what programs are good or not, as we've been working on that problem for decades now for computers specifically, and centuries in the general case. 1: http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exploiting-their-own-app http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exp...
- danharaj 11y agoIf you are talking about rights, then you're already in trouble. You do not need to talk about rights until someone has the power to violate them. Governments murder people without heeding the power of their rights, human or otherwise, fundamental or otherwise. The only thing that power answers to is power. The language of rights does not challenge the fundamental structure of the system.
- sigmar 11y agoApple's comments on privacy over the past year have seemed very opportunistic. >But what they don't want to do, they don't want your email to be read, and then to pick up on keywords in your email and then to use that information to then market you things on a different application that you're using. ... They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs. So they will say 'we think it's a feature that none of our services interoperate.'
- nathancahill 11y ago> interoperate That's what we're calling online profiling now?
- sangnoir 11y ago>> interoperate >That's what we're calling online profiling now? My Google Now cards on Android say "yes it is". They are driven by email, calendar entries and phone sensors all tied to my profile and it's bloody magical. YMMV.
- drew-y 11y agoApple actually has a solid argument when they say "Our users are not our products". Very little of Apple's revenue comes from ads so they really have no need for the infrastructure. However, considering they are one of the largest companies in the world with hundreds of billions in the bank, I seriously doubt it would be very hard for them to setup that sort of infrastructure.
- sigmar 11y agoI'm not saying it isn't a solid argument. Their PR people clearly thing it is the way to go, judging by how often it has come up. You're right, it wouldn't be hard, but they aren't doing it. Why? Maybe because they wouldn't be able to use this talking point or maybe they plan to be a hardware/OS company forever and never expand their services? IDK
- djhn 11y ago"Here is what we do on our platform. Here is what an unnamed search engine company does, or might in theory do, on their platform. You will probably agree: what we do is better in multiple, obvious ways. To be even less subtle, I am indeed trying to cast our competitor in very bad light." If they're willing to walk the walk, I don't even mind how transparent this "privacy as a competitive advantage" strategy is.
- IBM 11y agoThey have been for years and people wondered why they didn't talk about it because of how it differentiates them from the competition. Now they're talking about it and a common comment here is "they're only doing it because Google makes their money from advertising", well yes that's the point. Kind of funny but predictable. Having a business incentive that's aligned with privacy is the absolute best thing you could ask for if you want privacy. First because it will ensure they remain committed to it, and also because it shows up the competition and forces them to move in that direction as well. http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ This shows pretty clearly that they "walk the walk".
- muddi900 11y ago>They have been for years and people wondered why they didn't talk about it because of how it differentiates them from the competition. Probably because privacy concerns weren't mainstream until recently, and it would have looked like an excuse because their services weren't up to par. Which, to be frank, is still the case.
- lern_too_spel 11y agoAs long as they have your data and don't give it to anybody else, there is no meaningful difference in privacy based on how they process the data. Why is processing words in emails for search indexing and spam filtering less of a problem for privacy than matching ads to words that appear in emails or figuring out helpful suggestions from them? It isn't, but Apple is happy to pretend it is to the rubes who will pay to use an inferior product.
- 11y ago
- jamieyy 11y agoIn that case, why are they supporting CISA? http://fortune.com/2015/09/24/tech-vendor-cybersecurity-bill/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/24/tech-vendor-cybersecurity-bill...
- sigmar 11y agoIt is a shame this comment will be downvoted only because it does not support the confirmation bias of many HN users.
- johncolanduoni 11y agoDoes HN now show downvoted comments at the top of the page? Interesting design choice...
- Thimothy 11y agoI have seen this phenomena before, it seems that they take into account more things that just how upvoted/downvoted it was, like the posting user karma, how much the answers were upvoted or the answering users karma. It makes sense, sometimes a really stupid comment (not implying this was the case) can sprawl a really interesting discussion. I often look at the bottom of the comments for hidden goodies.
- hoorayimhelping 11y agoThis [1] is the letter linked to in the article that is evidence they support CISA, correct? Maybe it's because I can't read legalese very well, but this looks like tech companies asking congress to codify our rights for the digital age, and to provide a well defined legal framework for those rights to exist within. I'm not really seeing support for sweeping powers of spying; it seems like they're asking for the opposite in fact. Again, I may be misreading that. 1: http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLeadershipDataAgendaLetter.pdf http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLea...
- rubbingalcohol 11y ago
- baliansa 11y agoThis is just a plain attack on Google. sigh
- madgoat 11y agoThen google should come back with stronger privacy rules and ensure that their users information won't be sold to any third party. Oh wait, they can't because that is the majority of their income.
- nindalf 11y agoFor so long we've heard "consumers don't care about privacy" and a lot of companies have seen success based on that idea. Now Apple is challenging that status quo, differentiating themselves from their competitors and offering consumers a choice on privacy. I can't see that as anything but good.
- pdkl95 11y ago> "consumers don't care about privacy" It's worth pointing out that while this was obviously propaganda (or wishful thinking), we now have some proof that this isn't true: https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-fallacy-how-marketers-are-misrepresenting-american-consumers-and https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-...
- ocean3 11y agoWhat choice? iOS a walled garden. Majority of users would not able to change anything.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 11y agoDidn't Apple support CISA recently? Actions are more important than words.
- verusfossa 11y agoApple supports CISA though which is pretty much poison to privacy...
- patrickaljord 11y agoThe only way to have real privacy when it comes to software is by it being: 1) open source and 2) executable on your own servers. Open source in itself is not enough, but it is a required pre-condition, same thing with the fact that you can run it on your own server. In these aspects, Android is way ahead as there exist projects to replace all the proprietary parts. http://www.replicant.us/ http://www.replicant.us/
- pratikjhaveri 11y agoA tad "holier than thou" attitude pointing a finger at your competitor and to a large extent the entire internet economy. It would be nice to dial down the spin/FUD machine esp when you're the CEO. Ad targeting will and has evolved. Good things happen when you understand the user and their needs - I for one am willing to trade my privacy for USEFUL features and products (to paint this as only ads is injustice). Just like I'm willing to trade my $s for good devices.
- porsupah 11y agoAd tracking has certainly evolved - Google, Facebook, et al have built successful enterprises out of tracking every detail of people's web browsing. But targeting? AdWords still only coughs up ads that coincidentally include a random keyword I was searching for, devoid of context, or attempts to sell me something I've just bought.
- yarou 11y agoThe irony of your comment is that most ad companies play the victim and moralize how blocking ads is akin to murder. Ad targeting has evolved alright, but not in a way that has helped consumers one bit. It's become an arms race to the bottom, essentially. To coddle ad companies as if they are mom and pop shops that are struggling is not only naive, but dangerous.
- Amorymeltzer 11y ago>If you're in our News app, and you're reading something, we don't think that in the News app that we should know what you did with us on the Music app — not to trade information from app to app to app to app. I thought this was the most interesting quote in the article. I would've assumed the all Apple products would be colluding together, but Cook seems to be saying that isn't the case. That's actually a pretty big gift to consumers, but I wonder what it means up top. Does "Apple" get my news and mail info separately, or do the news app and mail app get their content and deal with it independently of mama Apple? It's a great sentiment - and I can't imagine he'd say it in this sort of interview without truth to it - but it's hard to imagine it in play.
- qyv 11y agoThe quote specifically says they don't share data between apps, but not that they don't collect data from all of the apps and correlate it behind the scenes. Perhaps it is an overly cynical point of view, but true to the spoken words.
- reagency 11y agoThat sounds like classic Jobsian tactic of saying everything Apple doesn't do is bad. Similar to how Jobs said smartphones were a bad idea until he got into the market.
- sawthat 11y agoI'm at
- Animats 11y ago"I don't support a back door for any government, ever." Note that he did not say that no Apple product has a back door.
- gambiter 11y agoAnd? He also didn't say the camera on iPhones stays off when you're not using them. That must mean they're taking pictures of us and uploading them to Tim Cook's personal sex grotto for him to ogle us, right? I mean, he didn't say they DIDN'T do it, so... That is to say... perhaps we could keep the paranoia and speculation to things that have a basis in reality?
- Mikeb85 11y agoIt's certainly an interesting angle with which to attack Google. A few pertinent details: > The government comes to us from time to time, and if they ask in a way that is correct, and has been through the courts as is required, then to the degree that we have information, we give that information. Pretty standard stuff. They'll basically give up your info if any court orders them to. > There have been different conversations with the FBI, I think, over time. > I don't support a back door for any government, ever. He doesn't support back-doors. Notice he didn't say there isn't a back-door. As far as I can tell, Apple will 'give up' your information more or less to the same degree Google will. Google also runs some algorithms over your data to match an ad to you. Not sure why this is so bad, no data has been given to a 3rd source. This just strikes me as fluff to attack Google. BTW, both companies' transparency reports (or at least part): http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/countries/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/co... http://www.apple.com/ca/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/ca/privacy/government-information-reque... BTW - if you compare requests to number of total users of each platform, Apple gives up more data. Not that it matters too much, both seem to comply with applicable laws, although Google's transparency report does seem more extensive. Either way, not sure I can see the practical difference here.
- mirimir 11y agoTrue. But data on devices is encrypted locally. And Apple supposedly doesn't know the keys/passwords. However, there was the issue that cloud backups weren't encrypted with users' local keys/passwords. Has that been fixed? If not, he's blowing smoke.
- wrongc0ntinent 11y agoThe practical difference is that heavily marketing in this area can be a good thing for privacy. The more it becomes a "core value", the bigger the backlash from having failed at it publicly. It's a start. Edit: To clarify, I agree with you that at present there are no practical differences.
- IBM 11y agoActually he's repeatedly said in public that there's no backdoors. http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/24/apples-tim-cook-there-is-no-backdoor-the-government-doesnt/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/24/apples-tim-cook-there-is-...
- natch 11y agoIt's undeniable that part of this stance is simply asserting that Apple products are designed with user interests in mind. Implying that some other companies have different interests in mind, and sure, you can draw your own conclusions about the products of those companies. Yes, drawing this contrast is a marketing opportunity, and it makes no sense for Apple to pass it up, so Tim doesn't. But I think just as importantly this stance is about girding for a fight against government-mandated back doors. After some noise about this from parts of the US government, some important people in government have started to come to their senses, but that doesn't mean it's over, whether in the US or with other governments around the world.
- eccstartup 11y agoDo you have full control over your iPhone?
- aetherson 11y agoThe claim that the NSA and the FBI are coming to an agreement that everyone should own their own data and backdoor-less encryption is cool sounds more naïve than I think Tim Cook can possibly be in real life.
- sethrubenstein 11y ago"We believe in privacy" except when it affects our bottom line. We will totally sell you out if you're in China and 100% allow the government to censor your requests. We say we believe in privacy in the West because dumb people believe us but really were just all about that cashhhhhhh.