6 ms·

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

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.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- 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.

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.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
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.