7 ms·

Apple always took location privacy seriously. I remember an interview between Steve Jobs and Walt Mossberg years ago on this subject. I looked it up again: http

by maire 8y ago

Apple always took location privacy seriously. I remember an interview between Steve Jobs and Walt Mossberg years ago on this subject. I looked it up again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo

parthdesai 8y ago
Explain China then. Apple is being hypocritical in this case. Giving in to the demands of government when it hurts their business ( if it did take privacy as seriously as HN makes it out to be, they would take a stand in China) while advocating privacy in Western world.
- Jerry2 8y ago
  Like every business operating in China, Apple has to comply with local laws. And that's what they do. Everyone else who operates in China complies with them as well. Apple also complies with US laws and laws of EU.
  - ghostly_s 8y ago
    Operating in China is a choice every one of these companies makes.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  I can’t be the only person tired of this canard, right? It’s said over and over that the benefit of Apple is an alignment of incentives in Western markets. That is to say, Apple is not faux-idealistic, they are capitalistic, and in most places that aligns with user goals. China is the exception, but for the same reasons.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Explain what with China? Apple are legally required to follow the law of countries they do business in. In China the law requires that the government, not third party apps, gains access to additional information. Apple can limit third party app privacy violations while still following the law. The only stand Apple could take here is: - Stop selling in China - Have executives go to jail Just as if they violated US law or EU-member's law.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    So what you are saying that Apple's core beliefs are location-dependent. Personally, I think it is totally cool to have location-dependent core beliefs. I just think it is a total fan-boism not to acknowledge it.
    - abc_lisper 8y ago
      Umm. No. I don’t wear the same clothes in a desert and a forest. To do so would be foolish. Imposing yourself on others when you have no power to do is not wise. I can keep my house clean but can’t expect everyone in my neighborhood to do so.
      - ams6110 8y ago
        But you can choose not to visit the dirty houses. Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. This is a similar argument we had a couple decades ago about companies doing business in South Africa, which at the time had official racial segregation policies (Apartheid). There was a popular push for divestment and it was fairly successful.
        FussyZeus 8y ago
        > Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. They're a corporation, their sole ethic is "to make money," full stop, that is the only reason Apple exists. To ignore China as a market would cost them millions if not billions of dollars. Tons of businesses with very ethical practices operate in and with China. China's current anti-privacy stances are unfortunate, but if we refuse to do business with them, all we're doing is giving a leg-up to Chinese corporations who don't even pretend to care about user privacy in the form of an insulated market.
        notyourday 8y ago
        I'm glad you are starting to acknowledge that Apple will sell its users for money. It is just for now it seems to have other venues to get that money. Except in China where it needs to sell its users to the government in order to be able to extract money from that market right now.
- fiblye 8y ago
  With China, there's literally no option aside from having their products being barred from being sold or manufactured there. The fact they're standing up for user rights when given a legal possibility is a good sign, compared to most major companies which are harvesting anything and everything even going beyond the scope of what's legally permissible.
- hungerstrike 8y ago
  Apple is just like any other western company - their shareholders and chiefs don't really give a fuck about privacy. They only care about their bottom line. If China demanded that someone from your company sacrifice a new-born baby in order to do business there, I'm positive that we'd still have many, many western companies doing business in China.
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    Maybe some startups would even go to the trouble of getting late aborted featus classified as "new-born" and spin it as an "ethics enhanced feature".
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Serious in the sense that they seriously wanted it? July 2010 was when they rolled out their silent tracking of all ios 4 users in an unencrypted database on the device for up to 10 months. In a happy coincidence, a bug ensured that the (presumably untested) feature of turning of location serviced didn't actually prevent the tracking. And of course they never asked users for consent about this, except by putting something in the end of their 15000 word EULA. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tr... https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/
- osteele 8y ago
  If Apple intended to collect locations, I would expect them to have recorded GPS (when otherwise enabled), and WiFi RSSI, instead of just cell tower RSSI. I can imagine theories that include this omission as part of deniability for a cover-up, or from a combination of incompetence and malevolence, but such theories seem overly complicated compared to the assumption of a simple log leak like Twitter's recent password logging bug. Whether these theories are too complicated depends on your priors about the evil intent of Apple's management and employees. If you already assume they're hypocrites about privacy, the location logging confirms it. I doubt it's convincing otherwise. (It's not convincing to me, unless there's a simpler story that ties it into ill intent, and that I'm just not coming up with.)
- kalleboo 8y ago
  This was the dumbest privacy scandal ever. The database was on your phone. It wasn't sent anywhere. What good does that do Apple? What do they have to gain? It's obvious it was just a bug.

by maire 8y ago

parthdesai 8y ago

Explain China then. Apple is being hypocritical in this case. Giving in to the demands of government when it hurts their business ( if it did take privacy as seriously as HN makes it out to be, they would take a stand in China) while advocating privacy in Western world.

Jerry2 8y ago
Like every business operating in China, Apple has to comply with local laws. And that's what they do. Everyone else who operates in China complies with them as well. Apple also complies with US laws and laws of EU.
- ghostly_s 8y ago
  Operating in China is a choice every one of these companies makes.
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
I can’t be the only person tired of this canard, right? It’s said over and over that the benefit of Apple is an alignment of incentives in Western markets. That is to say, Apple is not faux-idealistic, they are capitalistic, and in most places that aligns with user goals. China is the exception, but for the same reasons.
Someone1234 8y ago
Explain what with China? Apple are legally required to follow the law of countries they do business in. In China the law requires that the government, not third party apps, gains access to additional information. Apple can limit third party app privacy violations while still following the law. The only stand Apple could take here is: - Stop selling in China - Have executives go to jail Just as if they violated US law or EU-member's law.
- notyourday 8y ago
  So what you are saying that Apple's core beliefs are location-dependent. Personally, I think it is totally cool to have location-dependent core beliefs. I just think it is a total fan-boism not to acknowledge it.
  - abc_lisper 8y ago
    Umm. No. I don’t wear the same clothes in a desert and a forest. To do so would be foolish. Imposing yourself on others when you have no power to do is not wise. I can keep my house clean but can’t expect everyone in my neighborhood to do so.
    - ams6110 8y ago
      But you can choose not to visit the dirty houses. Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. This is a similar argument we had a couple decades ago about companies doing business in South Africa, which at the time had official racial segregation policies (Apartheid). There was a popular push for divestment and it was fairly successful.
      - FussyZeus 8y ago
        > Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. They're a corporation, their sole ethic is "to make money," full stop, that is the only reason Apple exists. To ignore China as a market would cost them millions if not billions of dollars. Tons of businesses with very ethical practices operate in and with China. China's current anti-privacy stances are unfortunate, but if we refuse to do business with them, all we're doing is giving a leg-up to Chinese corporations who don't even pretend to care about user privacy in the form of an insulated market.
        notyourday 8y ago
        I'm glad you are starting to acknowledge that Apple will sell its users for money. It is just for now it seems to have other venues to get that money. Except in China where it needs to sell its users to the government in order to be able to extract money from that market right now.
fiblye 8y ago
With China, there's literally no option aside from having their products being barred from being sold or manufactured there. The fact they're standing up for user rights when given a legal possibility is a good sign, compared to most major companies which are harvesting anything and everything even going beyond the scope of what's legally permissible.
hungerstrike 8y ago
Apple is just like any other western company - their shareholders and chiefs don't really give a fuck about privacy. They only care about their bottom line. If China demanded that someone from your company sacrifice a new-born baby in order to do business there, I'm positive that we'd still have many, many western companies doing business in China.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Maybe some startups would even go to the trouble of getting late aborted featus classified as "new-born" and spin it as an "ethics enhanced feature".

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Serious in the sense that they seriously wanted it? July 2010 was when they rolled out their silent tracking of all ios 4 users in an unencrypted database on the device for up to 10 months. In a happy coincidence, a bug ensured that the (presumably untested) feature of turning of location serviced didn't actually prevent the tracking. And of course they never asked users for consent about this, except by putting something in the end of their 15000 word EULA. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tr... https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/

osteele 8y ago
If Apple intended to collect locations, I would expect them to have recorded GPS (when otherwise enabled), and WiFi RSSI, instead of just cell tower RSSI. I can imagine theories that include this omission as part of deniability for a cover-up, or from a combination of incompetence and malevolence, but such theories seem overly complicated compared to the assumption of a simple log leak like Twitter's recent password logging bug. Whether these theories are too complicated depends on your priors about the evil intent of Apple's management and employees. If you already assume they're hypocrites about privacy, the location logging confirms it. I doubt it's convincing otherwise. (It's not convincing to me, unless there's a simpler story that ties it into ill intent, and that I'm just not coming up with.)
kalleboo 8y ago
This was the dumbest privacy scandal ever. The database was on your phone. It wasn't sent anywhere. What good does that do Apple? What do they have to gain? It's obvious it was just a bug.