6 ms·

Is Apple Really Your Privacy Hero?

92 points by hyperrail 8y ago

hyperrail 8y ago
A quick summary: iOS has very coarse-grained controls for app permissions to the contact list, either allowing all access to data about every contact, including free-form text notes that could contain arbitrary sensitive information, or no contact list access at all. The App Store's policies controlling use of contact list data are too weak without technical enforcement. (It's also noted that Google has the same problem with Android and the Play Store, but the author argues that Apple is more hypocritical because of its public pro-privacy stance.) To correct the problem: > the first step is obvious: Restrict [apps] from getting any information from users' lists beyond phone numbers and email addresses. The next step is redesigning the controls of the list to allow users to encrypt or decline to share certain contacts. The names in a contact list could be benign, or they could be revealing—a doctor's patients, a dealmaker's network, a journalist's sources.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  While iOS can improve on a lot of things the biggest factor here is that Apple’s business model does not revolve around their user’s data. If I’m in all honest i don’t have that many apps on my iPhone and the same goes for most of the people I know the app craze has I think settled down quite a bit. I have 15 apps installed and only 3 have access to my contact list and those are Protonmail, Signal and WhatsApp which I would allow access too anyhow for convenience. Apple can and should improve permission granularity but as far as contacts go I’m not sure that it’s even a good idea. All or nothing seems like a good compromise to ensure that apps that you don’t want to have access to contacts don’t, how many usecases can you see when you’ll have to go to individual contacts and approve them one by one? The best thing beyond that that Apple can implement is per field permissions e.g. I would like ProtonMail to only have access to the contact name and email fields but not to phone number or address but this level of granularity isn’t available on any platform afaik.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - LiweiZ 8y ago
    And consumers simply don't have any other options can match what Apple is offering. If an average cares about both product and service experience and data privacy, I don't see any alternative comes remotely close. That's the position Apple has been building for a few years and it's a clever move. This alone can make Apple a lot more attractive for data privacy concerned consumers. Apple doesn't have to worry about the decline of their software/hardware design/production level as before. Data privacy service can compensate those to a very big degree. Any alternative not more expensive, easy to use and not more burden on user's mind as a whole is welcomed. Am I trust Apple with my data? No, but that's my best choice for now and near future.
  - 05 8y ago
    > only 3 have access to my contact list and those are Protonmail, Signal and WhatsApp Yeah, one of them shares your contacts with Facebook. Might as well given all 15 this permission..
    - Skunkleton 8y ago
      I avoid sharing data with FB, but personally I would rather share my contacts with FB than with some random app developers.
      - JKCalhoun 8y ago
        I'm the opposite.
      - ionised 8y ago
        Don't worry, FB will share it with random app developers on your behalf.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      That’s not the point the point is that I would not go and mark individual contacts to share or not to share. W/A can function just as well without access to contacts I just don’t see the benefit of doing that considering that W/A has my details and likely my social network from the other end anyhow.
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  On android, it's possible for apps to access contacts in a few ways: 1. Request permission to access all contacts at runtime - user chooses yes or no. 2. Ask the user to choose a specific contact. This pops up some system UI, and then relays back the information the app requested about the contact the user chose: public void pickContact(View v) { Intent contactPickerIntent = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_PICK, ContactsContract.CommonDataKinds.Phone.CONTENT_URI); startActivityForResult(contactPickerIntent, RESULT_PICK_CONTACT); } @Override protected void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data) { if (resultCode == RESULT_OK) { switch (requestCode) { case RESULT_PICK_CONTACT: soSomethingWithContact(data); return; } } else { Log.e("MainActivity", "Failed to pick contact"); } } And for most cases, it's also fine to just use the "share" intent to send a link or similar via whatever app and whatever contact the user chooses, without any extra info leaking to the providing app. You can actually see this in action with the uber app - if you choose to share your ETA with someone, it first asks for permission to access all your contacts. If you deny it (which I do) then it follows up by having you send a link via the regular share intent.
  - dep_b 8y ago
    It's the same on iOS: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/contactsui/cncontactviewcontroller https://developer.apple.com/documentation/contactsui/cnconta... I don't think I ever allowed any app to access my address book ever.
- gerardnll 8y ago
  A few months? weeks? (I've lost track of time) ago we all saw how much data Facebook was able to collect on Android, and how much from iOS. Calls, SMS for example, cannot be collected on iOS.
- 7402 8y ago
  Well that would having been annoying in the days when I published a little iOS app that took all the information from a contact list and reformatted it into a pdf file so it could be printed out in a wallet-sized address book. My app had no web access and didn't transfer the information anywhere except over to the Mail app, which waited for you to enter the e-mail address for mailing the file.
IBM 8y ago
This is a Facebook submarine [1]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- CGamesPlay 8y ago
  Other than the repeated references to the company, do you have any evidence to support that?
- badlucklottery 8y ago
  Eh. Without proof that seems like a method of easy dismissal instead of arguing why it's wrong. And if it is PR, it's a weird tactic. The article seems to be using FB as benchmark for "worst offender".
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    If eveyone’s doing it then there are no options and everyone is just the same level of bad.
  - IBM 8y ago
    This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. There are no quotes from anyone in the infosec field who is familiar with the technical underpinnings of iOS or is otherwise familiar with Apple's history with privacy (policy, technical, business model, etc). The entire premise of this story which amounts to "Is Apple really so virtuous?" is completely unsubstantiated. So sure, I don't have any definite proof that this was a story planted by Facebook's PR team. That would require me to have seen the communications between this reporter and them, but I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was A Facebook Production given the context (the running spat between Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook employees on Twitter whining about this very thing, etc).
    - badlucklottery 8y ago
      >This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. >I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was a Facebook Production given the context For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor.
tzakrajs 8y ago
Yup, they really are your privacy hero when comparing with competitors.
- MBCook 8y ago
  That’s what I was thinking. Does it matter? They’re no worse than MS (maybe better? Honestly don’t know). They’re way better than Google. Or Amazon. If we ignore phones or what Android does natively, TV makers like LG and Samsung and even Sony have all sorts of stuff on their TVs to spy on you. My guess is Apple could fall very far and still be one of the best, because the bar is incredibly low.
Bud 8y ago
This article clumsily papers over the fundamental difference between Apple, and companies like Facebook and Google: Apple does not collect or possess that customer data in the first place. That is the essence of why, and how, Apple can manage to be a better steward of your privacy: it doesn't collect all kinds of data on you. That data is under your control, as a user, which is how it should be. But that in turn means that you have to be responsible for who you share that data with.
- vkou 8y ago
  > Apple does not collect or possess that customer data in the first place. For now. When their growth, or margins start shrinking, Wall Street will push hard on them to collect and monetize this data. Remember when you paid a premium for cable TV, because it didn't have advertisements? Now, you still pay a premium, but it's 33% ads.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Remember when you paid a premium for cable TV, because it didn't have advertisements? No, cable originated as means to deliver broadcast channels, which had ads. You never paid for basic cable because it did have ads, because it always did. You paid a premium because you got a clear signal not degraded by distance and atmospheric conditions. And later because it offered channels (still ad supported) that you couldn't get over the air at all. Now, even later, it was possible to pay a premium on top of basic cable to get additional channels without ads, but those premium channels still don't have ads.
    - Skunkleton 8y ago
      I'm not sure about the other channels but HBO wont even do product placement, which is very nice.
  - Bud 8y ago
    Wall Street has had precisely zero influence on Apple in this area, and this was true even when Apple was pretty near going out of business. It's not in Apple's DNA to do this, and it's firmly outside of their core ethics. Don't count on this happening, or assume that everyone is stupid and evil just because most people are stupid and evil.
Tloewald 8y ago
Yes. Unlike FB they don’t do secret backdoor deals with phone manufacturers to spy on you. Also they don’t spy on you. Also they don’t make ALL their money from advertising creating an unavoidable incentive for violating your privacy (and wasting your time but that’s beside the point). Unlike Android they aren’t a Wild West of malware and dodgy phone manufacturers who do secret deals with everyone to spy on you. Unlike Google they don’t make almost all their money from advertising (see above). Unlike Microsoft they don’t bake ads into their OS despite the fact that they don’t make much money from it. Also they aren’t trying to compete with Google. Also hardware Wild West thing. Unl
- CaptSpify 8y ago
  > Unlike FB they don’t do secret backdoor deals with phone manufacturers to spy on you. Also they don’t spy on you. How do you know this to be true?
  - dkonofalski 8y ago
    Apple manufactures all their own devices. They don't have any incentive to do so nor any way to do so since they're not dealing with 3rd party phone manufacturers.
    - CaptSpify 8y ago
      A) Of course they have incentive to do so. They Also have incentive to hide it tho. B) Not dealing with 3rd party manufacturers seems unrelated to the discussion. Can you expand?
      - dkonofalski 8y ago
        A) I disagree. Apple's incentive is in getting people to pay top dollar to live in the Apple ecosystem. They require a certain level of trust. Selling out people's data to Facebook does not achieve that end. The risk of getting caught is far higher than the reward from those analytics. B) Apple controls the entire supply chain for iPhones. They have no need from a profit standpoint to try and insert hardware that allows other companies to do anything to their users. The secret backdoors are almost always the result of some exchange - FB offers data about users in exchange for the ability to insert hardware/software into a phone. Since that exchange doesn't exist for Apple, there's no reason for it.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Apple is a huge company that needs to grow every year and has access to a lot of data. I think even if Apple is doing well now they easily can change their data strategy to make more money or be forced by governments. We should work on a system where it's not possible for a company to accumulate that much data.
craigsmansion 8y ago
There is no fundamental difference. The difference is that at this point in time, it's more profitable for Apple to not collect and posses data than the other way around. That is not a given. The only future-proof way around this is to be in control of the software (and hardware) you use, something Apple is not very comfortable with.
- vkou 8y ago
  There is another, more future-proof way around this - legislature similar to GDPR.
  - zyang 8y ago
    Seeing how Do Not Call registry has failed, I have little faith in a GDPR like legislation being properly enforced. The likes of Google and FB can easily lobby/bribe their way out of it, or simply just pay the fines and business as usual. Unfortunately having a company like Apple with the aligned financial incentives is best defense we have.
    - BonesJustice 8y ago
      Even Google can’t count on being able to ‘bribe’ their way out of GDPR compliance, as complaints can be brought individually. And the fines have to be large, as a percentage of revenue, or they are useless. GDPR is pretty strong on this, but I would have liked the ceilings on fines to be even higher. I have zero hope that we’ll get anything remotely comparable in the USA, though.
  - Bud 8y ago
    This solution posits the permanent existence of an authority structure that is willing to regulate aggressively in this area, and also competent to do so. Good luck with that!
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    GDPR does not fix bigco bad behavior, because they can afford compliance or nation state intelligence agencies for that matter, the real scary actors.
Havoc 8y ago
Hardly. But I trust them marginally more than say Google.
jakobdabo 8y ago
Apple are no better data hoarders. A personal anecdote - last year I tried to (for the first time) use an iPhone. First of all, why do we need to "activate" it? What's wrong with just turning it on and using? Then comes data collection, they wouldn't allow me to use my smartphone without a SIM card (I couldn't use my old SIM in that moment because it was not in the micro format). So, you can't "activate" your iPhone and use it as wifi-only device, they want your SIM card's data first. OK, trying again with an old inactive SIM card from the drawer, now they want my full name, my email, my telephone, my birthday and my address. Why though? I decided to play their game and entered bogus data and a temporary email address. Now they want me to confirm the email and the telephone. Just let me use it already! I managed to confirm the email (the unconfirmed telephone number was nagging in the notifications area), and hooray, I already could use some of my phone and get online. Next comes the iTunes account. If you want to install any app from the store you must have an iTunes account. Again, full name, telephone, address, zip code, etc.. In the end it refused to register (maybe some algo detected my bogus data which I didn't even try to make it look legit) and it just suggested to contact their support. This is when I reseted it and decided to return it.
- davymac 8y ago
  “No better”? I’ll disagree there. “This is when I reseted it and decided to return it” - I respect this. I’m honestly very curious what you’ve decided on in its place.
  - guitarbill 8y ago
    > I’m honestly very curious what you’ve decided on in its place. Me too. I'm looking for something with good privacy and good security, including things like anti-imaging or timely security updates for at least 3 years (don't change my phone very often). Seems like I could either buy Apple, maybe flash LineageOS (what a pain), or not use a smartphone.
  - jakobdabo 8y ago
    A combination of a dumb phone and a wifi tablet with LineageOS.
djrogers 8y ago
> When developers get our information, and that of the acquaintances in our contacts list, it’s theirs to use and move around unseen by Apple. It can be sold to data brokers, shared with political campaigns, or posted on the internet. The new rule forbids that, but Apple does nothing to make it technically difficult for developers to harvest the information. The article seems to really be trying hard to gloss over a lot of details to make a relatively minor complaint (really? The notes field in your contacts is your big concern?). It's perfectly clear when you try to use an app that wants to access your contacts, and Apple makes it very easy to prevent. And unlike other platforms, apps are required to still work even if you deny such access.
andrepd 8y ago
>Apple does not collect or possess that customer data in the first place. I'm genuinely curious. How do you know that?
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  The data is encrypted. The US government has attempted to retrieve customer data from Apple and they were unable to comply.
jamesrom 8y ago
Everyone talks about the 'collecting' of customer data. Like simply collecting and holding that data is somehow wrong. Apple doesn't collect the same customer data that Google does, but even if they did, it's much much more important to talk about how that data is used. Google are an advertising company. It's in their best interest to use that data to INFLUENCE you to the whims of the highest bidder. Google are running a platform whereby they sell their brainwashing services to anyone willing to pay. That's not an exaggeration.
skybrian 8y ago
That headline is an interesting choice of phrase. Are we expecting big tech corporations to almost literally be superheroes or villains? It does seem like many people expect them to fight for justice. Protect the innocents. Maybe not punch the bad guys, but at least banish them. This is not what corporate PR is usually going for. But suppose someone decided, heck yeah, we're going to be a virtual superhero, and just ran with that?
MrPleberson 8y ago
Apple respects your privacy because Tim Cook says so, and so does their webpage. Without any audit of the code, you're taking it on faith. And their privacy statement seemingly has a "nowness" to it, non-committal. There is no assurance of privacy in the future. For example, Apple could have said ... "We are committed to never sharing your data with 3rd parties or governments for the entirety of our existence as a company. This contract can not be changed, and in doing so we are guilty of blah blah" (not a lawyer) Questions I have are... Is there privacy statement a legally binding contract? Is there any legal recourse for customers if they are have found to violate it? Is it only applicable to particular countries? Does it change when you go to different countries? Could Apple decide that the data they harvest is more valuable then their privacy claim and retract their so-called privacy commitment? Could retroactive data then be exploited?

92 points by hyperrail 8y ago

A quick summary: iOS has very coarse-grained controls for app permissions to the contact list, either allowing all access to data about every contact, including free-form text notes that could contain arbitrary sensitive information, or no contact list access at all. The App Store's policies controlling use of contact list data are too weak without technical enforcement. (It's also noted that Google has the same problem with Android and the Play Store, but the author argues that Apple is more hypocritical because of its public pro-privacy stance.) To correct the problem: > the first step is obvious: Restrict [apps] from getting any information from users' lists beyond phone numbers and email addresses. The next step is redesigning the controls of the list to allow users to encrypt or decline to share certain contacts. The names in a contact list could be benign, or they could be revealing—a doctor's patients, a dealmaker's network, a journalist's sources.

dogma1138 8y ago
While iOS can improve on a lot of things the biggest factor here is that Apple’s business model does not revolve around their user’s data. If I’m in all honest i don’t have that many apps on my iPhone and the same goes for most of the people I know the app craze has I think settled down quite a bit. I have 15 apps installed and only 3 have access to my contact list and those are Protonmail, Signal and WhatsApp which I would allow access too anyhow for convenience. Apple can and should improve permission granularity but as far as contacts go I’m not sure that it’s even a good idea. All or nothing seems like a good compromise to ensure that apps that you don’t want to have access to contacts don’t, how many usecases can you see when you’ll have to go to individual contacts and approve them one by one? The best thing beyond that that Apple can implement is per field permissions e.g. I would like ProtonMail to only have access to the contact name and email fields but not to phone number or address but this level of granularity isn’t available on any platform afaik.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- LiweiZ 8y ago
  And consumers simply don't have any other options can match what Apple is offering. If an average cares about both product and service experience and data privacy, I don't see any alternative comes remotely close. That's the position Apple has been building for a few years and it's a clever move. This alone can make Apple a lot more attractive for data privacy concerned consumers. Apple doesn't have to worry about the decline of their software/hardware design/production level as before. Data privacy service can compensate those to a very big degree. Any alternative not more expensive, easy to use and not more burden on user's mind as a whole is welcomed. Am I trust Apple with my data? No, but that's my best choice for now and near future.
- 05 8y ago
  > only 3 have access to my contact list and those are Protonmail, Signal and WhatsApp Yeah, one of them shares your contacts with Facebook. Might as well given all 15 this permission..
  - Skunkleton 8y ago
    I avoid sharing data with FB, but personally I would rather share my contacts with FB than with some random app developers.
    - JKCalhoun 8y ago
      I'm the opposite.
    - ionised 8y ago
      Don't worry, FB will share it with random app developers on your behalf.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    That’s not the point the point is that I would not go and mark individual contacts to share or not to share. W/A can function just as well without access to contacts I just don’t see the benefit of doing that considering that W/A has my details and likely my social network from the other end anyhow.
charleslmunger 8y ago
On android, it's possible for apps to access contacts in a few ways: 1. Request permission to access all contacts at runtime - user chooses yes or no. 2. Ask the user to choose a specific contact. This pops up some system UI, and then relays back the information the app requested about the contact the user chose: public void pickContact(View v) { Intent contactPickerIntent = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_PICK, ContactsContract.CommonDataKinds.Phone.CONTENT_URI); startActivityForResult(contactPickerIntent, RESULT_PICK_CONTACT); } @Override protected void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data) { if (resultCode == RESULT_OK) { switch (requestCode) { case RESULT_PICK_CONTACT: soSomethingWithContact(data); return; } } else { Log.e("MainActivity", "Failed to pick contact"); } } And for most cases, it's also fine to just use the "share" intent to send a link or similar via whatever app and whatever contact the user chooses, without any extra info leaking to the providing app. You can actually see this in action with the uber app - if you choose to share your ETA with someone, it first asks for permission to access all your contacts. If you deny it (which I do) then it follows up by having you send a link via the regular share intent.
- dep_b 8y ago
  It's the same on iOS: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/contactsui/cncontactviewcontroller https://developer.apple.com/documentation/contactsui/cnconta... I don't think I ever allowed any app to access my address book ever.
gerardnll 8y ago
A few months? weeks? (I've lost track of time) ago we all saw how much data Facebook was able to collect on Android, and how much from iOS. Calls, SMS for example, cannot be collected on iOS.
7402 8y ago
Well that would having been annoying in the days when I published a little iOS app that took all the information from a contact list and reformatted it into a pdf file so it could be printed out in a wallet-sized address book. My app had no web access and didn't transfer the information anywhere except over to the Mail app, which waited for you to enter the e-mail address for mailing the file.

IBM 8y ago

This is a Facebook submarine [1]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

CGamesPlay 8y ago
Other than the repeated references to the company, do you have any evidence to support that?
badlucklottery 8y ago
Eh. Without proof that seems like a method of easy dismissal instead of arguing why it's wrong. And if it is PR, it's a weird tactic. The article seems to be using FB as benchmark for "worst offender".
- mattnewton 8y ago
  If eveyone’s doing it then there are no options and everyone is just the same level of bad.
- IBM 8y ago
  This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. There are no quotes from anyone in the infosec field who is familiar with the technical underpinnings of iOS or is otherwise familiar with Apple's history with privacy (policy, technical, business model, etc). The entire premise of this story which amounts to "Is Apple really so virtuous?" is completely unsubstantiated. So sure, I don't have any definite proof that this was a story planted by Facebook's PR team. That would require me to have seen the communications between this reporter and them, but I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was A Facebook Production given the context (the running spat between Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook employees on Twitter whining about this very thing, etc).
  - badlucklottery 8y ago
    >This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. >I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was a Facebook Production given the context For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor.

tzakrajs 8y ago

Yup, they really are your privacy hero when comparing with competitors.

MBCook 8y ago
That’s what I was thinking. Does it matter? They’re no worse than MS (maybe better? Honestly don’t know). They’re way better than Google. Or Amazon. If we ignore phones or what Android does natively, TV makers like LG and Samsung and even Sony have all sorts of stuff on their TVs to spy on you. My guess is Apple could fall very far and still be one of the best, because the bar is incredibly low.

Bud 8y ago

This article clumsily papers over the fundamental difference between Apple, and companies like Facebook and Google: Apple does not collect or possess that customer data in the first place. That is the essence of why, and how, Apple can manage to be a better steward of your privacy: it doesn't collect all kinds of data on you. That data is under your control, as a user, which is how it should be. But that in turn means that you have to be responsible for who you share that data with.

vkou 8y ago
> Apple does not collect or possess that customer data in the first place. For now. When their growth, or margins start shrinking, Wall Street will push hard on them to collect and monetize this data. Remember when you paid a premium for cable TV, because it didn't have advertisements? Now, you still pay a premium, but it's 33% ads.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Remember when you paid a premium for cable TV, because it didn't have advertisements? No, cable originated as means to deliver broadcast channels, which had ads. You never paid for basic cable because it did have ads, because it always did. You paid a premium because you got a clear signal not degraded by distance and atmospheric conditions. And later because it offered channels (still ad supported) that you couldn't get over the air at all. Now, even later, it was possible to pay a premium on top of basic cable to get additional channels without ads, but those premium channels still don't have ads.
  - Skunkleton 8y ago
    I'm not sure about the other channels but HBO wont even do product placement, which is very nice.
- Bud 8y ago
  Wall Street has had precisely zero influence on Apple in this area, and this was true even when Apple was pretty near going out of business. It's not in Apple's DNA to do this, and it's firmly outside of their core ethics. Don't count on this happening, or assume that everyone is stupid and evil just because most people are stupid and evil.

Tloewald 8y ago

Yes. Unlike FB they don’t do secret backdoor deals with phone manufacturers to spy on you. Also they don’t spy on you. Also they don’t make ALL their money from advertising creating an unavoidable incentive for violating your privacy (and wasting your time but that’s beside the point). Unlike Android they aren’t a Wild West of malware and dodgy phone manufacturers who do secret deals with everyone to spy on you. Unlike Google they don’t make almost all their money from advertising (see above). Unlike Microsoft they don’t bake ads into their OS despite the fact that they don’t make much money from it. Also they aren’t trying to compete with Google. Also hardware Wild West thing. Unl

CaptSpify 8y ago
> Unlike FB they don’t do secret backdoor deals with phone manufacturers to spy on you. Also they don’t spy on you. How do you know this to be true?
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  Apple manufactures all their own devices. They don't have any incentive to do so nor any way to do so since they're not dealing with 3rd party phone manufacturers.
  - CaptSpify 8y ago
    A) Of course they have incentive to do so. They Also have incentive to hide it tho. B) Not dealing with 3rd party manufacturers seems unrelated to the discussion. Can you expand?
    - dkonofalski 8y ago
      A) I disagree. Apple's incentive is in getting people to pay top dollar to live in the Apple ecosystem. They require a certain level of trust. Selling out people's data to Facebook does not achieve that end. The risk of getting caught is far higher than the reward from those analytics. B) Apple controls the entire supply chain for iPhones. They have no need from a profit standpoint to try and insert hardware that allows other companies to do anything to their users. The secret backdoors are almost always the result of some exchange - FB offers data about users in exchange for the ability to insert hardware/software into a phone. Since that exchange doesn't exist for Apple, there's no reason for it.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Apple is a huge company that needs to grow every year and has access to a lot of data. I think even if Apple is doing well now they easily can change their data strategy to make more money or be forced by governments. We should work on a system where it's not possible for a company to accumulate that much data.

craigsmansion 8y ago

There is no fundamental difference. The difference is that at this point in time, it's more profitable for Apple to not collect and posses data than the other way around. That is not a given. The only future-proof way around this is to be in control of the software (and hardware) you use, something Apple is not very comfortable with.

vkou 8y ago
There is another, more future-proof way around this - legislature similar to GDPR.
- zyang 8y ago
  Seeing how Do Not Call registry has failed, I have little faith in a GDPR like legislation being properly enforced. The likes of Google and FB can easily lobby/bribe their way out of it, or simply just pay the fines and business as usual. Unfortunately having a company like Apple with the aligned financial incentives is best defense we have.
  - BonesJustice 8y ago
    Even Google can’t count on being able to ‘bribe’ their way out of GDPR compliance, as complaints can be brought individually. And the fines have to be large, as a percentage of revenue, or they are useless. GDPR is pretty strong on this, but I would have liked the ceilings on fines to be even higher. I have zero hope that we’ll get anything remotely comparable in the USA, though.
- Bud 8y ago
  This solution posits the permanent existence of an authority structure that is willing to regulate aggressively in this area, and also competent to do so. Good luck with that!
- woolvalley 8y ago
  GDPR does not fix bigco bad behavior, because they can afford compliance or nation state intelligence agencies for that matter, the real scary actors.

Havoc 8y ago

Hardly. But I trust them marginally more than say Google.

jakobdabo 8y ago

Apple are no better data hoarders. A personal anecdote - last year I tried to (for the first time) use an iPhone. First of all, why do we need to "activate" it? What's wrong with just turning it on and using? Then comes data collection, they wouldn't allow me to use my smartphone without a SIM card (I couldn't use my old SIM in that moment because it was not in the micro format). So, you can't "activate" your iPhone and use it as wifi-only device, they want your SIM card's data first. OK, trying again with an old inactive SIM card from the drawer, now they want my full name, my email, my telephone, my birthday and my address. Why though? I decided to play their game and entered bogus data and a temporary email address. Now they want me to confirm the email and the telephone. Just let me use it already! I managed to confirm the email (the unconfirmed telephone number was nagging in the notifications area), and hooray, I already could use some of my phone and get online. Next comes the iTunes account. If you want to install any app from the store you must have an iTunes account. Again, full name, telephone, address, zip code, etc.. In the end it refused to register (maybe some algo detected my bogus data which I didn't even try to make it look legit) and it just suggested to contact their support. This is when I reseted it and decided to return it.

davymac 8y ago
“No better”? I’ll disagree there. “This is when I reseted it and decided to return it” - I respect this. I’m honestly very curious what you’ve decided on in its place.
- guitarbill 8y ago
  > I’m honestly very curious what you’ve decided on in its place. Me too. I'm looking for something with good privacy and good security, including things like anti-imaging or timely security updates for at least 3 years (don't change my phone very often). Seems like I could either buy Apple, maybe flash LineageOS (what a pain), or not use a smartphone.
- jakobdabo 8y ago
  A combination of a dumb phone and a wifi tablet with LineageOS.

djrogers 8y ago

> When developers get our information, and that of the acquaintances in our contacts list, it’s theirs to use and move around unseen by Apple. It can be sold to data brokers, shared with political campaigns, or posted on the internet. The new rule forbids that, but Apple does nothing to make it technically difficult for developers to harvest the information. The article seems to really be trying hard to gloss over a lot of details to make a relatively minor complaint (really? The notes field in your contacts is your big concern?). It's perfectly clear when you try to use an app that wants to access your contacts, and Apple makes it very easy to prevent. And unlike other platforms, apps are required to still work even if you deny such access.

andrepd 8y ago

>Apple does not collect or possess that customer data in the first place. I'm genuinely curious. How do you know that?

dkonofalski 8y ago
The data is encrypted. The US government has attempted to retrieve customer data from Apple and they were unable to comply.

jamesrom 8y ago

Everyone talks about the 'collecting' of customer data. Like simply collecting and holding that data is somehow wrong. Apple doesn't collect the same customer data that Google does, but even if they did, it's much much more important to talk about how that data is used. Google are an advertising company. It's in their best interest to use that data to INFLUENCE you to the whims of the highest bidder. Google are running a platform whereby they sell their brainwashing services to anyone willing to pay. That's not an exaggeration.

skybrian 8y ago

That headline is an interesting choice of phrase. Are we expecting big tech corporations to almost literally be superheroes or villains? It does seem like many people expect them to fight for justice. Protect the innocents. Maybe not punch the bad guys, but at least banish them. This is not what corporate PR is usually going for. But suppose someone decided, heck yeah, we're going to be a virtual superhero, and just ran with that?

MrPleberson 8y ago

Apple respects your privacy because Tim Cook says so, and so does their webpage. Without any audit of the code, you're taking it on faith. And their privacy statement seemingly has a "nowness" to it, non-committal. There is no assurance of privacy in the future. For example, Apple could have said ... "We are committed to never sharing your data with 3rd parties or governments for the entirety of our existence as a company. This contract can not be changed, and in doing so we are guilty of blah blah" (not a lawyer) Questions I have are... Is there privacy statement a legally binding contract? Is there any legal recourse for customers if they are have found to violate it? Is it only applicable to particular countries? Does it change when you go to different countries? Could Apple decide that the data they harvest is more valuable then their privacy claim and retract their so-called privacy commitment? Could retroactive data then be exploited?