8 ms·

What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it. This is why the oth

What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it. This is why the others have little to say on the subject - there is no issue of a "backdoor", because there is no wall to begin with when it comes to Google or FB, their business model depends on reading and analyzing your emails and posts.

zoul 11y ago
Don’t the modern Android phones with Trusted Execution Environment do about the same?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- keehun 11y ago
  I think what gtrubetskoy is talking about is Google (namely: search, Gmail, calendar, contacts, Plus--which are all tied to your Google account) and Facebook (namely: relationships, posting content, private messages, what you look at, etc) is information which is then mined or allowed to be targeted by advertisers for a handsome profit. Apple doesn't do that. Their iAds are nothing in comparison to Google/FB's data mining. The only thing you get to go off of is the Advertising Identifier and the user can change/reset that at any moment effectively not tying them to any specific targeting. I'm not sure what could be said of iCloud, but Apple itself isn't a big player in the ad-selling market unlike Google and Facebook. So unless Apple is straight selling off iCloud user data, it's a different ballgame. edit: you also have to take into account Google and FB's ability to track you across the (near)-ENTIRE internet. Every FB/G-Plus share button, every video, image, asset loaded from FB/Google can track you via cookies. You could be reading a blog about pregnancies and how to prepare for a newborn on a cute little blog and Facebook may then target you for pregnancy/newborn products and services, etc. Unlike Apple, Google and Facebook aren't limited to their own properties in terms of info harvesting and ad-targeting.
  - mcintyre1994 11y ago
    > The only thing you get to go off of is the Advertising Identifier and the user can change/reset that at any moment effectively not tying them to any specific targeting. People say this a lot, but Apple disagree: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 Highlights: name, address, age, iTunes/app etc. purchases, offers in Wallet, news read. There is an opt out of those ("Limit ad tracking") but by default Apple will target on those things. Probably semi-irrelevant because of Apple stepping away from iAd but Apple clearly use the Apple ID to target advertising.
  - AngrySkillzz 11y ago
    Google has a lot to lose in this debate though. If government encroachment on security/privacy online becomes enough to worry people, they'll be less willing to share data. Less data means less effective advertising and lower rates, killing Google's business model.
  - curt15 11y ago
    Regardless of whether Apple profits from iCloud user data, the key question how well they protect the data on iCloud. Do they encrypt the data at rest? Are the links between data centers encrypted?
- 05 11y ago
  Do you seriously expect Samsung to come up with something like that? Because here's what they are shipping so far: http://uk.businessinsider.com/android-phones-fingerprint-scanners-have-serious-security-vulnerabilities-2015-8 http://uk.businessinsider.com/android-phones-fingerprint-sca...
- dingaling 11y ago
  > Don’t the modern Android phones with Trusted Execution Environment do about the same? Not from what I've been able to determine doing some research today. Or at leaast they're very poor at advertising it if they do. Samsung KNOX uses the ARM TrustedZone to provide remte-attestation of running software, but I can't see anything similar to Apple's Secure Enclave for filesystem encryption keys. If anyone does know an Android phone that does this properly, please let me know and I'll buy two this week. I am very impressed at the engineering Apple have built in this regard.
  - jayd16 11y ago
    They probably mean this. https://source.android.com/security/encryption/ https://source.android.com/security/encryption/ Pretty sure anything made in the last few years has had a secure element because you needed it for Google Wallet. That might have changed for Android Pay though.
herge 11y ago
Apple also makes most of it's money by selling phones, not user information...
- SquareWheel 11y ago
  >Apple also makes most of it's money by selling phones, not user information... Google is the advertiser. I'm surprised how often people make this mistake. They don't sell user data to other advertisers. This not only goes against their terms of service, but also makes no business sense. Why would they give up their best signal for targeted ads?
  - return0 11y ago
    It's like keeping the cow and selling the milk. It's pedantic, but google is collecting rent from user information.
  - cvburgess 11y ago
    They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. They aren't directly selling the data itself but they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. I think the semantics are negligible. They make money selling [ads based on] user data.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. That's not selling user information in the same way that Ford doesn't sell automobile factories. > They aren't directly selling the data itself Nor are they indirectly selling the data. No one else gets the data. > they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. They are using the data to produce a service that they are selling, in the same way that Ford uses a factory to make a car. No one else gets the data, in the same way that no one else gets the factory from Ford. > I think the semantics are negligible. I think there is a substantive difference between transferring data to third parties and over whom neither the person the data describes nor Google exercises control and retaining the data internally and using it to provide a service to third parties. And I think that is a critical difference when it comes to privacy. I mean, you erase the distinction between a armed security guard (who sells a service which involves a firearm) and an arms dealer (who sells firearms).
sleeping_pills 11y ago
Probably because at Apple the consumer is not the product.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  The product is the consumer.
ignoramous 11y ago
This just made me realise that Apple is a true "do no evil" company and not Google, for all its technology powress and fancy marketing. A sad realisation as I have been using Google products for almost everything-- they pitch up everything under the F/OSS banner and it's so tempting. I think I should consider moving to iOS pretty seriously. I had been dismissing it for being over-priced and not being OSS. But the true fact of the matter is, the extra cost might be worth it, because frankly, Android without Google Apps and the Google Play Services is absolutely useless.
- PeCaN 11y ago
  I feel the same way. I don't actually like iOS that much, and historically I haven't liked Apple for their human rights issues, but seeing that they relatively consistently take a stand on privacy is making me consider switching. I don't mind the extra cost that much if I can be assured that the phone is the actual product the company is making money from—not by selling ads targeting me. The problem is that Android phones are so much better now (IMO of course). :/
  - iamdave 11y ago
    Agreed to both, I have a Macbook and that's the only apple product I own (sans mouse and keyboard of course), and I'll almost certainly NEVER use that finger print function on a device connected to the cloud (ostensibly), but I've kind of softened up towards maybe having an iPhone seeing the way Apple straight up tells the government "not just no, but hell no" regarding access to consumer data. Yet....I love my S6 too damn much
  - ignoramous 11y ago
    Android M is fraught with issues (memory leakage, battery drain). Looks like the QA at Android HQ missed a trick or two before signing off this release.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
kyrra 11y ago
Google's CEO had at least a short response to Apple's letter on twitter. https://twitter.com/sundarpichai https://twitter.com/sundarpichai https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272 https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272
jordanthoms 11y ago
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Apple's _Cloud Services_ i.e. iCloud, do not prevent Apple accessing the data, and Apple does comply with 'valid' requests for that data, just like Google and Facebook. As for data stored on user's devices, Google also ships their phones with full disk encryption which Google cannot bypass - the implementation isn't as good as Apple's, but the concept is the same. Facebook doesn't sell any end-user devices so I'm not sure why they are even in your comparison.
riquito 11y ago
> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks And here I believed that the difference was that one sells hardware and the others software.
mconley 11y ago
> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it. FWIW, Mozilla does the same thing for Firefox Accounts sync data - it's an opaque blob that we couldn't decrypt even if we wanted to. (Disclosure: Mozilla employee)
- Sakiina_ 11y ago
  This is good to know. Might tempt me back to Firefox from Chrome.
  - autoreleasepool 11y ago
    I switched to chromium with homebrew via brew cask install chromium last night. AFAICT, it's exactly the same as chrome minus the proprietary code. I literally haven't noticed a single difference other than the nicer icon.
- timothya 11y ago
  For the record, Chrome's sync data can also be an encrypted blob that Google can't decrypt[0]. [0]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en
Oletros 11y ago
> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it In an smartphone with encryption. If the data is on iCloud they can read it Ups, the same case than Google

zoul 11y ago

Don’t the modern Android phones with Trusted Execution Environment do about the same?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
keehun 11y ago
I think what gtrubetskoy is talking about is Google (namely: search, Gmail, calendar, contacts, Plus--which are all tied to your Google account) and Facebook (namely: relationships, posting content, private messages, what you look at, etc) is information which is then mined or allowed to be targeted by advertisers for a handsome profit. Apple doesn't do that. Their iAds are nothing in comparison to Google/FB's data mining. The only thing you get to go off of is the Advertising Identifier and the user can change/reset that at any moment effectively not tying them to any specific targeting. I'm not sure what could be said of iCloud, but Apple itself isn't a big player in the ad-selling market unlike Google and Facebook. So unless Apple is straight selling off iCloud user data, it's a different ballgame. edit: you also have to take into account Google and FB's ability to track you across the (near)-ENTIRE internet. Every FB/G-Plus share button, every video, image, asset loaded from FB/Google can track you via cookies. You could be reading a blog about pregnancies and how to prepare for a newborn on a cute little blog and Facebook may then target you for pregnancy/newborn products and services, etc. Unlike Apple, Google and Facebook aren't limited to their own properties in terms of info harvesting and ad-targeting.
- mcintyre1994 11y ago
  > The only thing you get to go off of is the Advertising Identifier and the user can change/reset that at any moment effectively not tying them to any specific targeting. People say this a lot, but Apple disagree: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 Highlights: name, address, age, iTunes/app etc. purchases, offers in Wallet, news read. There is an opt out of those ("Limit ad tracking") but by default Apple will target on those things. Probably semi-irrelevant because of Apple stepping away from iAd but Apple clearly use the Apple ID to target advertising.
- AngrySkillzz 11y ago
  Google has a lot to lose in this debate though. If government encroachment on security/privacy online becomes enough to worry people, they'll be less willing to share data. Less data means less effective advertising and lower rates, killing Google's business model.
- curt15 11y ago
  Regardless of whether Apple profits from iCloud user data, the key question how well they protect the data on iCloud. Do they encrypt the data at rest? Are the links between data centers encrypted?
05 11y ago
Do you seriously expect Samsung to come up with something like that? Because here's what they are shipping so far: http://uk.businessinsider.com/android-phones-fingerprint-scanners-have-serious-security-vulnerabilities-2015-8 http://uk.businessinsider.com/android-phones-fingerprint-sca...
dingaling 11y ago
> Don’t the modern Android phones with Trusted Execution Environment do about the same? Not from what I've been able to determine doing some research today. Or at leaast they're very poor at advertising it if they do. Samsung KNOX uses the ARM TrustedZone to provide remte-attestation of running software, but I can't see anything similar to Apple's Secure Enclave for filesystem encryption keys. If anyone does know an Android phone that does this properly, please let me know and I'll buy two this week. I am very impressed at the engineering Apple have built in this regard.
- jayd16 11y ago
  They probably mean this. https://source.android.com/security/encryption/ https://source.android.com/security/encryption/ Pretty sure anything made in the last few years has had a secure element because you needed it for Google Wallet. That might have changed for Android Pay though.

herge 11y ago

Apple also makes most of it's money by selling phones, not user information...

SquareWheel 11y ago
>Apple also makes most of it's money by selling phones, not user information... Google is the advertiser. I'm surprised how often people make this mistake. They don't sell user data to other advertisers. This not only goes against their terms of service, but also makes no business sense. Why would they give up their best signal for targeted ads?
- return0 11y ago
  It's like keeping the cow and selling the milk. It's pedantic, but google is collecting rent from user information.
- cvburgess 11y ago
  They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. They aren't directly selling the data itself but they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. I think the semantics are negligible. They make money selling [ads based on] user data.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. That's not selling user information in the same way that Ford doesn't sell automobile factories. > They aren't directly selling the data itself Nor are they indirectly selling the data. No one else gets the data. > they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. They are using the data to produce a service that they are selling, in the same way that Ford uses a factory to make a car. No one else gets the data, in the same way that no one else gets the factory from Ford. > I think the semantics are negligible. I think there is a substantive difference between transferring data to third parties and over whom neither the person the data describes nor Google exercises control and retaining the data internally and using it to provide a service to third parties. And I think that is a critical difference when it comes to privacy. I mean, you erase the distinction between a armed security guard (who sells a service which involves a firearm) and an arms dealer (who sells firearms).

sleeping_pills 11y ago

Probably because at Apple the consumer is not the product.

agumonkey 11y ago
The product is the consumer.

ignoramous 11y ago

This just made me realise that Apple is a true "do no evil" company and not Google, for all its technology powress and fancy marketing. A sad realisation as I have been using Google products for almost everything-- they pitch up everything under the F/OSS banner and it's so tempting. I think I should consider moving to iOS pretty seriously. I had been dismissing it for being over-priced and not being OSS. But the true fact of the matter is, the extra cost might be worth it, because frankly, Android without Google Apps and the Google Play Services is absolutely useless.

PeCaN 11y ago
I feel the same way. I don't actually like iOS that much, and historically I haven't liked Apple for their human rights issues, but seeing that they relatively consistently take a stand on privacy is making me consider switching. I don't mind the extra cost that much if I can be assured that the phone is the actual product the company is making money from—not by selling ads targeting me. The problem is that Android phones are so much better now (IMO of course). :/
- iamdave 11y ago
  Agreed to both, I have a Macbook and that's the only apple product I own (sans mouse and keyboard of course), and I'll almost certainly NEVER use that finger print function on a device connected to the cloud (ostensibly), but I've kind of softened up towards maybe having an iPhone seeing the way Apple straight up tells the government "not just no, but hell no" regarding access to consumer data. Yet....I love my S6 too damn much
- ignoramous 11y ago
  Android M is fraught with issues (memory leakage, battery drain). Looks like the QA at Android HQ missed a trick or two before signing off this release.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

kyrra 11y ago

Google's CEO had at least a short response to Apple's letter on twitter. https://twitter.com/sundarpichai https://twitter.com/sundarpichai https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272 https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272

jordanthoms 11y ago

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Apple's _Cloud Services_ i.e. iCloud, do not prevent Apple accessing the data, and Apple does comply with 'valid' requests for that data, just like Google and Facebook. As for data stored on user's devices, Google also ships their phones with full disk encryption which Google cannot bypass - the implementation isn't as good as Apple's, but the concept is the same. Facebook doesn't sell any end-user devices so I'm not sure why they are even in your comparison.

riquito 11y ago

> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks And here I believed that the difference was that one sells hardware and the others software.

mconley 11y ago

> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it. FWIW, Mozilla does the same thing for Firefox Accounts sync data - it's an opaque blob that we couldn't decrypt even if we wanted to. (Disclosure: Mozilla employee)

Sakiina_ 11y ago
This is good to know. Might tempt me back to Firefox from Chrome.
- autoreleasepool 11y ago
  I switched to chromium with homebrew via brew cask install chromium last night. AFAICT, it's exactly the same as chrome minus the proprietary code. I literally haven't noticed a single difference other than the nicer icon.
timothya 11y ago
For the record, Chrome's sync data can also be an encrypted blob that Google can't decrypt[0]. [0]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en

Oletros 11y ago

> What sets Apple apart from Googles and Facebooks is that it's the only company that stores the data in way that Apple itself cannot read it In an smartphone with encryption. If the data is on iCloud they can read it Ups, the same case than Google