6 ms·

I don’t know why this is getting downvoted. I feel the same way. Amazon and Google have yet to demonstrate to me that they value my privacy enough to take neces

I don’t know why this is getting downvoted. I feel the same way. Amazon and Google have yet to demonstrate to me that they value my privacy enough to take necessary steps to protect it. They, like Facebook, know most people foolishly don’t care enough to hold these companies feet to the fire on it. At the risk of stating the obvious; Facebook has more than demonstrated the opposite.

lykr0n 8y ago
The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon have never given me a single reason to trust that they have my privacy concerns on their mind.
- tfha 8y ago
  But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board that it would be more profitable to start violating privacy. The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. As soon as privacy is no longer a fad that makes more money and growth than the opportunity cost to not violating it, Apple will flip a switch. That's their duty as a for profit company.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby: > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
    - tfha 8y ago
      The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        That's a different issue entirely. Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes. Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.
- bduerst 8y ago
  >The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. The same Apple that gave the Chinese government access to all their Chinese user's iCloud data? https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in-china-is-now-handled-by-a-state-owned-mobile-operator/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...
  - mlindner 8y ago
    This is false. iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Yes they gave access to metadata, but this is China where privacy basically doesn't exist, not a western country.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Wrong - Apple moved all iCloud data, which includes text messages, email and other data stored in iCloud (according to Reuters) as well as the access keys. Apple even forced users to sign the updated TOS or drop service. The Chinese government access is _not_ limited to metadata. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
      - mlindner 8y ago
        Text messages are not stored in iCloud... https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
    - B0btheBuilder 8y ago
      >iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Literally the first paragraph of both of bduerst's links suggest otherwise. Also, I don't know if you've used iCloud on multiple devices before, but it very much contains iMessage data contents.
  - patrec 8y ago
    Is there anything Apple could have done to protect the privacy of its Chinese users better (whilst still having some)? You could say they shouldn't have Chinese users, but that's a different argument, I believe.
danso 8y ago
What evidence or steps would be sufficient for you?
- aero142 8y ago
  Not parent, but I'll answer. 1) The implementation of the wake word recognition is implemented in hardware that cannot be updated remotely. 2) The device is unable to transmit information without lighting up a TX light. Implemented in unmodifiable hardware. 3) Voice recordings are processed and then deleted within one month. 4) The device is run by a company that doesn't make money through marketing or data analysis.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    1 means it's impossible to offer better voice recognition accuracy or change the wake word, meaning they get pilloried by reviewers for offering a device that's strictly worse than the current gen, and they get pilloried by HN for contributing to tech waste. 1&2 get the company pilloried by HN the moment a vulnerability comes out. 3 is a requirement that doesn't actually solve any problems and ruins a legitimate need of ML - comparing performance against a known baseline. 4 is overbroad - most software companies make their money through data analysis of one form or another.
  - illumin8 8y ago
    Be honest, even if the manufacturer tells you #1 is true you're not going to believe them. You're setting up an impossible set of demands that no manufacturer is going to meet and no consumer really cares about (other than perhaps yourself and a few tinfoil hat wearing crypto-anarchists).
    - aero142 8y ago
      The iPhone hardware meets my standards. The secure enclave for touchID is detailed in it's description and security. The Apple business model is not data collection, and the legal fights they have put up give me a reasonable belief that they take my security and privacy seriously enough for me. They are also printing money so it seems to be workable as part of a business model. I think you are wrong on all accounts.

lykr0n 8y ago

The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon have never given me a single reason to trust that they have my privacy concerns on their mind.

tfha 8y ago
But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board that it would be more profitable to start violating privacy. The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. As soon as privacy is no longer a fad that makes more money and growth than the opportunity cost to not violating it, Apple will flip a switch. That's their duty as a for profit company.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby: > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
  - tfha 8y ago
    The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      That's a different issue entirely. Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes. Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.
bduerst 8y ago
>The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. The same Apple that gave the Chinese government access to all their Chinese user's iCloud data? https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in-china-is-now-handled-by-a-state-owned-mobile-operator/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...
- mlindner 8y ago
  This is false. iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Yes they gave access to metadata, but this is China where privacy basically doesn't exist, not a western country.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Wrong - Apple moved all iCloud data, which includes text messages, email and other data stored in iCloud (according to Reuters) as well as the access keys. Apple even forced users to sign the updated TOS or drop service. The Chinese government access is _not_ limited to metadata. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
    - mlindner 8y ago
      Text messages are not stored in iCloud... https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
  - B0btheBuilder 8y ago
    >iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Literally the first paragraph of both of bduerst's links suggest otherwise. Also, I don't know if you've used iCloud on multiple devices before, but it very much contains iMessage data contents.
- patrec 8y ago
  Is there anything Apple could have done to protect the privacy of its Chinese users better (whilst still having some)? You could say they shouldn't have Chinese users, but that's a different argument, I believe.

danso 8y ago

What evidence or steps would be sufficient for you?

aero142 8y ago
Not parent, but I'll answer. 1) The implementation of the wake word recognition is implemented in hardware that cannot be updated remotely. 2) The device is unable to transmit information without lighting up a TX light. Implemented in unmodifiable hardware. 3) Voice recordings are processed and then deleted within one month. 4) The device is run by a company that doesn't make money through marketing or data analysis.
- Karunamon 8y ago
  1 means it's impossible to offer better voice recognition accuracy or change the wake word, meaning they get pilloried by reviewers for offering a device that's strictly worse than the current gen, and they get pilloried by HN for contributing to tech waste. 1&2 get the company pilloried by HN the moment a vulnerability comes out. 3 is a requirement that doesn't actually solve any problems and ruins a legitimate need of ML - comparing performance against a known baseline. 4 is overbroad - most software companies make their money through data analysis of one form or another.
- illumin8 8y ago
  Be honest, even if the manufacturer tells you #1 is true you're not going to believe them. You're setting up an impossible set of demands that no manufacturer is going to meet and no consumer really cares about (other than perhaps yourself and a few tinfoil hat wearing crypto-anarchists).
  - aero142 8y ago
    The iPhone hardware meets my standards. The secure enclave for touchID is detailed in it's description and security. The Apple business model is not data collection, and the legal fights they have put up give me a reasonable belief that they take my security and privacy seriously enough for me. They are also printing money so it seems to be workable as part of a business model. I think you are wrong on all accounts.