5 ms·
Just pointing out the obvious: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only eyeopening part would be the fact, that Apple doesn't store much about
by mgliwka 8y ago
Just pointing out the obvious: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The only eyeopening part would be the fact, that Apple doesn't store much about it's users, which isn't verifiable.
Also unique identifiers are not the only way to link data. And due to differential privacy the guarantees that the data cannot be linked decays over time (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15224312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15224312)
- scarface74 8y agoThe question is motive. Apple's business model isn't predicated on having a lot of data on you. They have to keep a list of your purchase history for instance so you can redownload purchases. Also, why would they risk lying? What's in it for them?
- mgliwka 8y agoI'm by no means implying any malfeasance. I fully agree with your thesis about Apple's business model. Depending on your threat model in regards to your privacy the assurances made by Apple may be enough. To me, it doesn't really matter. As long as I have no proof or control over how my data is being processed, it's better to just assume the worst case and practice data minimisation.
- aeorgnoieang 8y ago> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's neither obvious nor true. Absence of evidence is more likely if there really is an absence of whatever; thus it is in fact evidence of absence, if only weak evidence.