8 ms·

I am confused. Everything I read on the website is very vague. What exactly is their issue with Apple? Apple is already privacy focused. I can imagine what it

I am confused. Everything I read on the website is very vague. What exactly is their issue with Apple? Apple is already privacy focused. I can imagine what it could be (mistrust of closed source, big corporations) but they never say so. What exactly are they building? Are they just a distro or are they building their own software? EDIT: All the replies focus on Apple. But my point is not that Apple is privacy-friendly. When I say Apple is privacy-focused, I just mean Apple claims they focus on privacy. They can disagree, but should provide some arguments.

colordrops 8y ago
Why does everyone keep repeating this idea that Apple is the privacy company? They are just less bad than Google, but that isn't saying much. It's a marketing point for apple, but they still collect hoards of data and work directly with governments and agencies.
- ianai 8y ago
  Source?
- RL_Quine 8y ago
  Source? Everything we've seen in terms of technical publication about the design of their software and hardware says the opposite. They're intentionally baking privacy into their services where others have done the exact opposite.
  - markstos 8y ago
    You ask for others to provide sources to back up their comments, but don't provide any of your own.
    - slededit 8y ago
      It’s not possible to prove a negative. Do you want a quote from Tim Cook?
      - Falling3 8y ago
        >It’s not possible to prove a negative. _Of course_ it's possible to prove a negative. Why do people insist on repeating this as if it's actually true?
        slededit 8y ago
        Could you educate me on how this would be achieved?
        chipotle_coyote 8y ago
        Because it's shorthand for "the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and negative claims are much harder to prove or disprove." If your rebuttal to my assertion that Taylor Swift is not, in fact a zebra boils down to "you SAY that none of those zebras are secretly Taylor Swift, but maybe that just means Zebra Taylor Swift is just that good," I mean, I can't technically disprove that, but shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
        dcbadacd 8y ago
        "you SAY that none of those Apple devices are secretly spying, but maybe that just means Apple devices are spying just that good" Are you saying that Apple can be proven a company that can be trusted to keep user data secure?
        Falling3 8y ago
        If the intention is to talk about burden of proof, then that's what we should be talking about. That's clearly not the case because the parent comment replied asking how it was possible. They seemed to have meant it very literally that negatives are impossible to prove. It's a common saying and it's flatly wrong. Additionally, in this case, the claim that a company can be trusted is much more difficult to prove than the claim that they cannot be. Burden of proof, difficulty of proof, and whether the claim is expressed as a positive or a negative have no intrinsic link.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > negative claims are much harder to prove or disprove. No, they aren't. One, disproving a negative claim is exactly proving the opposite (positive, if the same style of expression is used) claim (and vice versa), so it can't be harder to both prove and disprove negative claims, even if they were real distinct classes. Second, “positive” and “negative” claims are largely phrasing choices; it's quite possible to have positive and negative claims that are semantically equivalent.
    - tw04 8y ago
      Ignoring the fact that it's EXTREMELY easy to find links showing Apple's commitment to privacy: https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+privacy+efforts&oq=apple+privacy+efforts https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+privacy+efforts&oq=app... https://www.apple.com/lae/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/lae/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989608/apple-data-download-tool-us-users-privacy-gdpr https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989608/apple-data-down... When you are the one making a claim refuting what is generally considered common knowledge, you're expected to provide SOME citation of your disputed claim... not to mention it's such a common internet troll tactic to spew BS just to make people do research to prove you're full of it that it's just kind of common courtesy to start with links (assuming you aren't a troll).
      - kcirtap-hs 8y ago
        Equally easy to find recent articles outlining Apple is getting billions from Google to have Google search by default in Safari. Doesn’t sound fitting commitment to privacy. http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/ http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng...
        Redoubts 8y ago
        You can change that to DDG with a click, if you want.
        Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        While I'm sure apple's default choices are partially profit-motivated, defaulting to Duck Duck Go would be a poor UX for the vast majority of iPhone customers. There is a valid discussion to be had as to whether UX or data privacy should be prioritized, but I'm inclined towards UX--most people just want to get the best search results possible. If anything, on the UX <--> privacy scale, I'd argue Apple has sometimes been prioritizing privacy too highly as of late. As a heavy user of custom Applescripts, the new TCC dialogs introduced in Mojave have been causing me a lot of grief.
      - codedokode 8y ago
  - jakobegger 8y ago
    Here's a recent blog post that describes some of the massive amounts of data that iPhones collect: https://www.mac4n6.com/blog/2018/9/12/knowledge-is-power-ii-a-day-in-the-life-of-my-iphone-using-knowledgecdb https://www.mac4n6.com/blog/2018/9/12/knowledge-is-power-ii-... Granted, this data is on-device, and we don't know how much (if any) leaves the device, but if Apple really had privacy as their top priority, they wouldn't collect that data in the first place. Privacy is surely important for Apple, but it's not the absolute top.
    - Bud 8y ago
      Um, on-device means it's not collected. At least not yet. By definition.
      - jakobegger 8y ago
        The phone collects data and stores it on device. "Collect" data does not mean "transmit" data. After data is stored, it can be extracted by attackers who exploit a vulnerability in the OS, or by anyone with physical access who finds out the passcode. (eg. by coercion, by camera surveillance, or by simply looking over someone's shoulder) If an operating system truly put privacy first, all that data would never be stored in the first place. Obviously it's a tradeoff. If you want smart recommendations and all the "AI" features, you need to collect and store a lot of data. If you value privacy above all else, you have to store as little data as possible, and you have to say "no" to features that require analyzing a lot of data.
    - willstrafach 8y ago
      This data is on-device precisely to avoid the usual route of uploading it to the cloud. None of that is uploaded to Apple.
      - dcbadacd 8y ago
        Most of the OS is proprietary, you can't say it isn't uploaded.
  - choward 8y ago
    > Source? Exactly. Without source code you have no idea what they're doing. All you know it's what they say they are doing. Two completely different things.
    - willstrafach 8y ago
      Untrue. You can sniff outgoing connections and reverse engineer whatever you’d like (I sure have and am glad to have a full understanding of everything going out).
      - dcbadacd 8y ago
        Time is another dimension here, you'd have to indefinitely monitor the device to make sure there's nothing sent out. There's also the possibility of stenography and remote-activation. > (I sure have and am glad to have a full understanding of everything going out). That's impossible.
        willstrafach 8y ago
        There is a finite amount of code on the system. That code would also include any functions related to stenography or remote activation and could be easily called out. However, do not exist in iOS. Anything can happen in the future, and those future versions can also be examined to find out if any such functionality was added.
        dcbadacd 8y ago
        You're delusional if you think you can audit every line of code running on your iPhone. That'd be something newsworthy.
        willstrafach 8y ago
        Your comment contains an insult with no additional substance to back up the claim.
  - throwaway32ytr 8y ago
    Requiring a physical address to create an Apple ID to download free apps doesn’t seem privacy oriented to me. Sure, I can use a fake address, but what if they start to check against it and then lock me out of my account? It’s bad enough all the players require my full name. I do use an alias whenever I can, but for vital accounts, I don’t because I’m afraid one day they’ll ask for a government issued ID to verify my account or I get locked out.
    - oneplane 8y ago
      You can do without by using prepaid cards you buy with cash.
    - willstrafach 8y ago
      Usually “None” is an available option for payment method. This does depend on your region though.
  - tomcooks 8y ago
    Check the NSA PowerPoint that came with Snowden's revelations.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  And the switch to Apple meme only works for those fortunate enough to live in countries with a monthly wage that actually makes it a viable option.
- Ecolog 8y ago
  Exactly. It's one of their main competitive features in each of their annual reports, yet they collect just as much data...
ForHackernews 8y ago
Apple costs a fortune and only runs on specialized hardware. As technologists, I think we should stand against the notion that personal privacy is a luxury feature for those wealthy enough to afford it.
- diegoperini 8y ago
  Nice summary. For example buying an iPhone in Turkey is harder than buying a car in UK in terms of an avarage middle class person's monthly income.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  You've met technologists who were for the notion that personal privacy is only for the rich? I've met a ton of technologists interested in privacy, and none of them were for the notion that only the rich should have it.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    All that advocate switch to iOS as solution to the security issues on Android. On plenty of countries getting an Android device is already a dream come true, let alone being able to get an iPhone.
- criddell 8y ago
  Ethically, I think just about everybody agrees with you. However, as soon as the ad-supported device is 10% cheaper, it's going to capture most of the market. I don't think the market can solve personal privacy issues - only legislation can.
andrepd 8y ago
>Apple is already privacy focused. Says you (and say them). >I can imagine what it could be (mistrust of closed source, big corporations) but they never say so. Yes, that's exactly it. With proprietary software I have no idea what my device is doing. Maybe they're spying on me! Maybe they aren't! Who knows! The reasoning behind the people that say "Apple respects privacy" is always "because they say so".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- EugeneOZ 8y ago
  "Says you" works in both directions. Apple at least has that case whith FBI, anti-proprietary activists have just their doubts. Would be interesting to read some story about traffic analysis with some suspicious activities, but all I see is just compilation of doubts and talks about what is possible.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Apple also has a case where it transferred Chinese users' data to China government.
    - natch 8y ago
      I am very curious to learn more details about how they handled this, with specifics.
- JKCalhoun 8y ago
  > Maybe they're spying on me! Maybe they aren't! Who knows! I suspect we would all know if Apple were spying on us. Really think there still secrets anymore?
  - dleslie 8y ago
    Of course there are huge secrets that have yet to be revealed. If there's anything to learn from the 20th century it's that huge projects can be maintained in relative secrecy from the public so long as the denial is plausible. After all, it's become clear that "secret" is not sufficiently revealed when those convinced of its truth are regarded as cranks and crazies. I'm certain that decades hence we will be shocked to discover what is going on now, under our noses.
indidea 8y ago
From e Foundation website: "our mobile phones, even when using no Google service, connect to Google Servers tens of times per hour (91 times per hour for an Android mobile with a total amount of 11,6MB of data sent on a single day, and 51 times per hour for an iphone, corresponding to 5,7MB of data sent to Google servers)." With a reference to: https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DC...
- ma2rten 8y ago
  Thanks. I didn't see that. Why exactly do iPhones send data to Google servers? Ads on apps/websites?
  - johnklos 8y ago
    Section F, page 4 has a summary: f. While using an iOS device, if a user decides to forgo the use of any Google product (i.e. no Android, no Chrome, no Google applications), and visits only non-Google webpages, the number of times data is communicated to Google servers still remains surprisingly high. This communication is driven purely by advertiser/publisher services. The number of times such Google services are called from an iOS device is similar to an Android device. In this experiment, the total magnitude of data communicated to Google servers from an iOS device is found to be approximately half of that from the Android device.
  - alain94040 8y ago
    From the article, I gather that the traffic is for google ads as you browse the web (AdSense).
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      Don’t forget Google Analytics, Google Fonts and Google AMP?
  - kcirtap-hs 8y ago
    iPhone uses Google as built-in search engine in Safari, thus indirectly compromising data privacy. And Apple is reported to get billions from Google for this https://community.e.foundation/t/google-could-be-paying-apple-9b-or-more-to-stay-safaris-default-search-engine/1223 https://community.e.foundation/t/google-could-be-paying-appl...
gilbetron 8y ago
Apple is focused (theoretically) on privacy now, but that doesn't mean they won't change, and if they do change, Apple users won't know about it until their information is sold.
- nneonneo 8y ago
  (a) it’s not really theoretical, considering both their public stance on it and the design choices that they’ve made; (b) “but they might change” is a bugaboo that could apply to anyone. An open source project could get compromised, taken over or bought by a malvertiser who replaces the software with a signed malware - and we have ample evidence that this has happened before to many projects (e.g. Chrome addons).
fghtr 8y ago
>What exactly is their issue with Apple? https://puri.sm/posts/apple-is-right-about-privacy-but-wrong-about-freedom/ https://puri.sm/posts/apple-is-right-about-privacy-but-wrong...
- natch 8y ago
  Like seemingly every other post taking this position, again this post totally ignores one of the big problems Apple is solving, which is protecting the interests of the user. Search the article for these words: roommate. boyfriend. partner. family. household. abuse. abusive. stalking. stalker. spying. No hits. The article is 100% free of any mention of one of the top dangers Apple addresses for users with its built in protections. No phone can fix the problem completely, but iOS bends over backwards to ensure that a user who takes an active interest in protecting their own privacy has the tools to do so.
  - fghtr 8y ago
    I do not fully understand your point. If you have free software on your phone you can do anything, including protect yourself from a neighbour/partner. All it takes is to find the software and install it. If your phone supports GNU/Linux, it's surely a solved problem. Apple creates a walled garden, where they decide what you can and cannot run on "your" device. Even if such devices are useful in specific circumstances, the problem of freedom is still there.
    - natch 8y ago
      It’s not so much that you as a HN user and presumably very computer literate person can protect your own device. It’s more about others who are not like you, and what an evil version of you can install on their devices while tricking them to think there is no problem. If the phone owner is not knowledgeable about the dangers, they should not be required to become a security expert and download special apps in order to deserve protection from those who would install privacy invading apps on their devices.
      - 8y ago
nine_k 8y ago
Since that /e/ thing allows you to self-host the cloud part, you need neither Google nor Apple. Apple may, of course, be better than Google at defending user's privacy. Apple's efforts are laudable, but Apple still controls access to your data. With self-hosting everything, you are in control of your data. This may be more secure, or less secure than Apple's cloud, depending on how well you manage it, but now you're in control.
codedokode 8y ago
No. You are suggesting that we should trust Apple (why?) and upload all our data to their cloud. By why cannot we just keep our data on our phone without sharing them with anyone. Nothing stops Apple from becoming a new Google. And nothing stops NSA from installing backdoors in Apple's data centers as they did with Google.
- bognition 8y ago
  So what’s your threat model here? Are you worried about being targeted individually or in aggregate? In aggregate it’s not clear that the risks of putting your data in the cloud are as dire as everyone fears. If your worried about being targeted individually then you’re already screwed. There’s no way a single individual can guard against state level actors.

colordrops 8y ago

Why does everyone keep repeating this idea that Apple is the privacy company? They are just less bad than Google, but that isn't saying much. It's a marketing point for apple, but they still collect hoards of data and work directly with governments and agencies.

ianai 8y ago
Source?
RL_Quine 8y ago
Source? Everything we've seen in terms of technical publication about the design of their software and hardware says the opposite. They're intentionally baking privacy into their services where others have done the exact opposite.
- markstos 8y ago
  You ask for others to provide sources to back up their comments, but don't provide any of your own.
  - slededit 8y ago
    It’s not possible to prove a negative. Do you want a quote from Tim Cook?
    - Falling3 8y ago
      >It’s not possible to prove a negative. _Of course_ it's possible to prove a negative. Why do people insist on repeating this as if it's actually true?
      - slededit 8y ago
        Could you educate me on how this would be achieved?
      - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
        Because it's shorthand for "the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and negative claims are much harder to prove or disprove." If your rebuttal to my assertion that Taylor Swift is not, in fact a zebra boils down to "you SAY that none of those zebras are secretly Taylor Swift, but maybe that just means Zebra Taylor Swift is just that good," I mean, I can't technically disprove that, but shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
        dcbadacd 8y ago
        "you SAY that none of those Apple devices are secretly spying, but maybe that just means Apple devices are spying just that good" Are you saying that Apple can be proven a company that can be trusted to keep user data secure?
        Falling3 8y ago
        If the intention is to talk about burden of proof, then that's what we should be talking about. That's clearly not the case because the parent comment replied asking how it was possible. They seemed to have meant it very literally that negatives are impossible to prove. It's a common saying and it's flatly wrong. Additionally, in this case, the claim that a company can be trusted is much more difficult to prove than the claim that they cannot be. Burden of proof, difficulty of proof, and whether the claim is expressed as a positive or a negative have no intrinsic link.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > negative claims are much harder to prove or disprove. No, they aren't. One, disproving a negative claim is exactly proving the opposite (positive, if the same style of expression is used) claim (and vice versa), so it can't be harder to both prove and disprove negative claims, even if they were real distinct classes. Second, “positive” and “negative” claims are largely phrasing choices; it's quite possible to have positive and negative claims that are semantically equivalent.
  - tw04 8y ago
    Ignoring the fact that it's EXTREMELY easy to find links showing Apple's commitment to privacy: https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+privacy+efforts&oq=apple+privacy+efforts https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+privacy+efforts&oq=app... https://www.apple.com/lae/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/lae/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989608/apple-data-download-tool-us-users-privacy-gdpr https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989608/apple-data-down... When you are the one making a claim refuting what is generally considered common knowledge, you're expected to provide SOME citation of your disputed claim... not to mention it's such a common internet troll tactic to spew BS just to make people do research to prove you're full of it that it's just kind of common courtesy to start with links (assuming you aren't a troll).
    - kcirtap-hs 8y ago
      Equally easy to find recent articles outlining Apple is getting billions from Google to have Google search by default in Safari. Doesn’t sound fitting commitment to privacy. http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/ http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng...
      - Redoubts 8y ago
        You can change that to DDG with a click, if you want.
      - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        While I'm sure apple's default choices are partially profit-motivated, defaulting to Duck Duck Go would be a poor UX for the vast majority of iPhone customers. There is a valid discussion to be had as to whether UX or data privacy should be prioritized, but I'm inclined towards UX--most people just want to get the best search results possible. If anything, on the UX <--> privacy scale, I'd argue Apple has sometimes been prioritizing privacy too highly as of late. As a heavy user of custom Applescripts, the new TCC dialogs introduced in Mojave have been causing me a lot of grief.
    - codedokode 8y ago
- jakobegger 8y ago
  Here's a recent blog post that describes some of the massive amounts of data that iPhones collect: https://www.mac4n6.com/blog/2018/9/12/knowledge-is-power-ii-a-day-in-the-life-of-my-iphone-using-knowledgecdb https://www.mac4n6.com/blog/2018/9/12/knowledge-is-power-ii-... Granted, this data is on-device, and we don't know how much (if any) leaves the device, but if Apple really had privacy as their top priority, they wouldn't collect that data in the first place. Privacy is surely important for Apple, but it's not the absolute top.
  - Bud 8y ago
    Um, on-device means it's not collected. At least not yet. By definition.
    - jakobegger 8y ago
      The phone collects data and stores it on device. "Collect" data does not mean "transmit" data. After data is stored, it can be extracted by attackers who exploit a vulnerability in the OS, or by anyone with physical access who finds out the passcode. (eg. by coercion, by camera surveillance, or by simply looking over someone's shoulder) If an operating system truly put privacy first, all that data would never be stored in the first place. Obviously it's a tradeoff. If you want smart recommendations and all the "AI" features, you need to collect and store a lot of data. If you value privacy above all else, you have to store as little data as possible, and you have to say "no" to features that require analyzing a lot of data.
  - willstrafach 8y ago
    This data is on-device precisely to avoid the usual route of uploading it to the cloud. None of that is uploaded to Apple.
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      Most of the OS is proprietary, you can't say it isn't uploaded.
- choward 8y ago
  > Source? Exactly. Without source code you have no idea what they're doing. All you know it's what they say they are doing. Two completely different things.
  - willstrafach 8y ago
    Untrue. You can sniff outgoing connections and reverse engineer whatever you’d like (I sure have and am glad to have a full understanding of everything going out).
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      Time is another dimension here, you'd have to indefinitely monitor the device to make sure there's nothing sent out. There's also the possibility of stenography and remote-activation. > (I sure have and am glad to have a full understanding of everything going out). That's impossible.
      - willstrafach 8y ago
        There is a finite amount of code on the system. That code would also include any functions related to stenography or remote activation and could be easily called out. However, do not exist in iOS. Anything can happen in the future, and those future versions can also be examined to find out if any such functionality was added.
        dcbadacd 8y ago
        You're delusional if you think you can audit every line of code running on your iPhone. That'd be something newsworthy.
        willstrafach 8y ago
        Your comment contains an insult with no additional substance to back up the claim.
- throwaway32ytr 8y ago
  Requiring a physical address to create an Apple ID to download free apps doesn’t seem privacy oriented to me. Sure, I can use a fake address, but what if they start to check against it and then lock me out of my account? It’s bad enough all the players require my full name. I do use an alias whenever I can, but for vital accounts, I don’t because I’m afraid one day they’ll ask for a government issued ID to verify my account or I get locked out.
  - oneplane 8y ago
    You can do without by using prepaid cards you buy with cash.
  - willstrafach 8y ago
    Usually “None” is an available option for payment method. This does depend on your region though.
- tomcooks 8y ago
  Check the NSA PowerPoint that came with Snowden's revelations.
pjmlp 8y ago
And the switch to Apple meme only works for those fortunate enough to live in countries with a monthly wage that actually makes it a viable option.
Ecolog 8y ago
Exactly. It's one of their main competitive features in each of their annual reports, yet they collect just as much data...

ForHackernews 8y ago

Apple costs a fortune and only runs on specialized hardware. As technologists, I think we should stand against the notion that personal privacy is a luxury feature for those wealthy enough to afford it.

diegoperini 8y ago
Nice summary. For example buying an iPhone in Turkey is harder than buying a car in UK in terms of an avarage middle class person's monthly income.
greglindahl 8y ago
You've met technologists who were for the notion that personal privacy is only for the rich? I've met a ton of technologists interested in privacy, and none of them were for the notion that only the rich should have it.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  All that advocate switch to iOS as solution to the security issues on Android. On plenty of countries getting an Android device is already a dream come true, let alone being able to get an iPhone.
criddell 8y ago
Ethically, I think just about everybody agrees with you. However, as soon as the ad-supported device is 10% cheaper, it's going to capture most of the market. I don't think the market can solve personal privacy issues - only legislation can.

andrepd 8y ago

>Apple is already privacy focused. Says you (and say them). >I can imagine what it could be (mistrust of closed source, big corporations) but they never say so. Yes, that's exactly it. With proprietary software I have no idea what my device is doing. Maybe they're spying on me! Maybe they aren't! Who knows! The reasoning behind the people that say "Apple respects privacy" is always "because they say so".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
EugeneOZ 8y ago
"Says you" works in both directions. Apple at least has that case whith FBI, anti-proprietary activists have just their doubts. Would be interesting to read some story about traffic analysis with some suspicious activities, but all I see is just compilation of doubts and talks about what is possible.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Apple also has a case where it transferred Chinese users' data to China government.
  - natch 8y ago
    I am very curious to learn more details about how they handled this, with specifics.
JKCalhoun 8y ago
> Maybe they're spying on me! Maybe they aren't! Who knows! I suspect we would all know if Apple were spying on us. Really think there still secrets anymore?
- dleslie 8y ago
  Of course there are huge secrets that have yet to be revealed. If there's anything to learn from the 20th century it's that huge projects can be maintained in relative secrecy from the public so long as the denial is plausible. After all, it's become clear that "secret" is not sufficiently revealed when those convinced of its truth are regarded as cranks and crazies. I'm certain that decades hence we will be shocked to discover what is going on now, under our noses.

indidea 8y ago

From e Foundation website: "our mobile phones, even when using no Google service, connect to Google Servers tens of times per hour (91 times per hour for an Android mobile with a total amount of 11,6MB of data sent on a single day, and 51 times per hour for an iphone, corresponding to 5,7MB of data sent to Google servers)." With a reference to: https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DCN-Google-Data-Collection-Paper.pdf https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DC...

ma2rten 8y ago
Thanks. I didn't see that. Why exactly do iPhones send data to Google servers? Ads on apps/websites?
- johnklos 8y ago
  Section F, page 4 has a summary: f. While using an iOS device, if a user decides to forgo the use of any Google product (i.e. no Android, no Chrome, no Google applications), and visits only non-Google webpages, the number of times data is communicated to Google servers still remains surprisingly high. This communication is driven purely by advertiser/publisher services. The number of times such Google services are called from an iOS device is similar to an Android device. In this experiment, the total magnitude of data communicated to Google servers from an iOS device is found to be approximately half of that from the Android device.
- alain94040 8y ago
  From the article, I gather that the traffic is for google ads as you browse the web (AdSense).
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    Don’t forget Google Analytics, Google Fonts and Google AMP?
- kcirtap-hs 8y ago
  iPhone uses Google as built-in search engine in Safari, thus indirectly compromising data privacy. And Apple is reported to get billions from Google for this https://community.e.foundation/t/google-could-be-paying-apple-9b-or-more-to-stay-safaris-default-search-engine/1223 https://community.e.foundation/t/google-could-be-paying-appl...

gilbetron 8y ago

Apple is focused (theoretically) on privacy now, but that doesn't mean they won't change, and if they do change, Apple users won't know about it until their information is sold.

nneonneo 8y ago
(a) it’s not really theoretical, considering both their public stance on it and the design choices that they’ve made; (b) “but they might change” is a bugaboo that could apply to anyone. An open source project could get compromised, taken over or bought by a malvertiser who replaces the software with a signed malware - and we have ample evidence that this has happened before to many projects (e.g. Chrome addons).

fghtr 8y ago

>What exactly is their issue with Apple? https://puri.sm/posts/apple-is-right-about-privacy-but-wrong-about-freedom/ https://puri.sm/posts/apple-is-right-about-privacy-but-wrong...

natch 8y ago
Like seemingly every other post taking this position, again this post totally ignores one of the big problems Apple is solving, which is protecting the interests of the user. Search the article for these words: roommate. boyfriend. partner. family. household. abuse. abusive. stalking. stalker. spying. No hits. The article is 100% free of any mention of one of the top dangers Apple addresses for users with its built in protections. No phone can fix the problem completely, but iOS bends over backwards to ensure that a user who takes an active interest in protecting their own privacy has the tools to do so.
- fghtr 8y ago
  I do not fully understand your point. If you have free software on your phone you can do anything, including protect yourself from a neighbour/partner. All it takes is to find the software and install it. If your phone supports GNU/Linux, it's surely a solved problem. Apple creates a walled garden, where they decide what you can and cannot run on "your" device. Even if such devices are useful in specific circumstances, the problem of freedom is still there.
  - natch 8y ago
    It’s not so much that you as a HN user and presumably very computer literate person can protect your own device. It’s more about others who are not like you, and what an evil version of you can install on their devices while tricking them to think there is no problem. If the phone owner is not knowledgeable about the dangers, they should not be required to become a security expert and download special apps in order to deserve protection from those who would install privacy invading apps on their devices.
    - 8y ago

nine_k 8y ago

Since that /e/ thing allows you to self-host the cloud part, you need neither Google nor Apple. Apple may, of course, be better than Google at defending user's privacy. Apple's efforts are laudable, but Apple still controls access to your data. With self-hosting everything, you are in control of your data. This may be more secure, or less secure than Apple's cloud, depending on how well you manage it, but now you're in control.

codedokode 8y ago

No. You are suggesting that we should trust Apple (why?) and upload all our data to their cloud. By why cannot we just keep our data on our phone without sharing them with anyone. Nothing stops Apple from becoming a new Google. And nothing stops NSA from installing backdoors in Apple's data centers as they did with Google.

bognition 8y ago
So what’s your threat model here? Are you worried about being targeted individually or in aggregate? In aggregate it’s not clear that the risks of putting your data in the cloud are as dire as everyone fears. If your worried about being targeted individually then you’re already screwed. There’s no way a single individual can guard against state level actors.