10 ms·

It's Time for Action on Data Privacy

114 points by deca6cda37d0 8y ago

zigzaggy 8y ago
Tim Cook has been a single light of hope in this vast dark ocean of surveillance capitalism. I’m so tired of hearing the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” type responses. Privacy is not “hiding.” I shouldn’t have to hide to keep my business, well, my business. I believe I have the right to carry on with my life without this all-seeing eye recording every part of me and using it to con me into buying, or selling it to the highest bidder. I was such an idealist about freeing information and empowering people. And I’m no fan of government regulation. But we know business won’t regulate itself when it’s either the bottom line or what’s best for people. Yes, it’s time for action.
- DennisAleynikov 8y ago
  It's not the "nothing to hide" folks you fear, its the general crowd who couldn't give two shits that their tech is phoning home all the time until something they find private gets leaked and causes them embarrassment. suprisingly few people have been burned badly enough for anyone other than Apple to take this stance on privacy. Apple is doing a good deed fighting for privacy and data control being returned to the consumers but its a fight against human laziness and the willingness to go with the easier option, instead of chosing the platform that actually respects their privacy and rights to data. Apple by definition is in the minority when it comes to fighting for privacy and at this point its a little too late for anyone to care other than tech savvy apple users who intentionally chose apple for privacy. The rest of the market has traded privacy for all you can eat buffets of information and content. And people actually like all you can eat buffets, who would've thought?
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    It's not the "nothing to hide" folks you fear, its the general crowd who couldn't give two shits that their tech is phoning home all the time until something they find private gets leaked and causes them embarrassment. I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. Among my non-technical friends, several have expressed concern or even active disapproval about things they know are happening in this area. They just don't see that they have any alternative. How do you buy any modern phone or participate in any modern social networks or buy any modern car -- all things most regular people need to integrate with society and live a normal life today -- without surrendering huge amounts of your personal privacy and potentially security?
  - dingaling 8y ago
    Until Apple enables a user to deny all Internet access to an app then they haven't really committed to data control.
    - danieldk 8y ago
      This is a strange benchmark. Along those standards, Linux or BSD also haven't committed to data control. Like Linux or BSD, you can set up the packet filter to do so. Like Linux or BSD there are no user-friendly, out-of-the-box ways to do it. On macOS it is at least easy to do using third-party applications (e.g. Little Snitch or TripMode).
      - glennpratt 8y ago
        unshare -n
        danieldk 8y ago
        Thank you for illustrating my point ;).
        glennpratt 8y ago
        It was mostly a joke, but at the same time this is what makes Docker, et al possible. A firewall alone is not much of a sandbox.
      - pdimitar 8y ago
        > Along those standards, Linux or BSD also haven't committed to data control. Well yes, they haven't. Not in a convenient way anyway. I've had a sysadmin friend explaining me the lenghts you have to go to to achieve such results. To him it was easy. I just said "feck that". The fact that every single app isn't sandboxed is also pretty disappointing.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      I think this is a thing in China, where you can turn off all data access to apps?
- cm2187 8y ago
  My understanding is that it is only after Apple failed at setting up their own advertising business that they jumped into the privacy bandwagon. Now I agree that when you want to achieve something, there is nothing to be gained from questioning the motivations of powerful allies (which in this case I think are more about attacking the competition than guenine concerns about privacy). But it does mean that Apple’s stance could change quickly if its business interest evolves. Not complaining, I am all for privacy regulations, merely a word of caution.
  - danieldk 8y ago
    My understanding is that it is only after Apple failed at setting up their own advertising business that they jumped into the privacy bandwagon. - Introduction iAd: 2010 - Introduction of iMessage with end-to-end encryption: 2011 - Introduction of the secure enclave: 2013 (iPhone 5s). Remember that Apple plans several years ahead, so the secure enclave was probably already in the cards ~2011. - Shutdown iAd: 2016 The timelines just don't match up. Apple has been pursuing a focus on encryption and privacy since at least 2011. Remember that Apple was the first to roll out an end-to-end encrypted messenger to hunderds of million users, years before WhatsApp. (I am not contesting that their focus on privacy is for marketing reasons. We don't know, it could be or Tim Cook has strong beliefs on this topic.)
  - GeekyBear 8y ago
    iAd stood out because it didn't share customer data with advertisers as was the standard in the industry. >Apple has a lot of knowledge regarding its users,but what it doesn’t do with that data is share it with advertisers very freely. That makes Madison Avenue very mad. >rather than offering a cookie-based ad-tracking and targeting mechanism, it essentially requires partners to tell it what kind of audience it needs to reach, and then trust that Apple will handle the rest, AdAge says. And it’s well worth noting that Apple prioritizes customer privacy here over a big potential upside in ad revenue. >what it doesn’t do is hand over the keys to all that data and let advertisers plug into it directly with their own data-mining and targeting software. That’s not standard for the ad industry and that’s likely the reason a few Madison Avenue feathers are ruffled over their approach. https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/18/advertisers-not-thrilled-with-apples-practice-of-protecting-its-users-data/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/18/advertisers-not-thrilled-w... It's not impossible to sell ads without spying on users on behalf of your advertising customers, it's just less profitable.
- redwall_hp 8y ago
  Whether he's the origin or just fond of the sentiment, the "nothing to hide" argument is commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in the 1930s. I feel like that should be pointed out more. Perhaps it would make people question that line of thinking more...
- jjeaff 8y ago
  While I usually question the sincerity of the leadership of large ccompanies (whether they really believe what they are saying or if they are just trying to increase shareholder value). But it strikes me that Tim Cook, being a professional gay man of his age, almost certainly has had times in his past where privacy was a big concern. Especially during times when it was much less acceptable to be gay, especially in the corporate world. He likely intimately understands the reality of the "nothing to hide" farce.
chj 8y ago
And it is time for running whatever we want on our device.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Tell that to the manufacturers of TVs, cars, home alarms, AV receivers, smart watches, digital cameras, smart home devices, dash cams, game consoles, universal remotes, cordless phones, cable tv boxes, baby monitors and printers. The world is full of devices that are not open platforms for alternative operating systems. If you don't like Apple's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate software-hardware integration, the answer is to buy from a competitor. There are lots of them and they make an extremely diverse array of alternatives. Personally I'm pleased that Apple is making the product the way they do. If Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs.
  - chj 8y ago
    well, phones and pads are good starters update: I compare it to computing slavery.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago
      Yes, taking on large market monoplists has always worked so well in the past, let's try that again /s
    - sjwright 8y ago
      You don't need to demand Apple change. There are countless phones and pads available from other companies, many of which will satisfy your requirements.
      - chj 8y ago
        Look, I am not saying these things to satisfy my personal needs, and I am not demanding Apple anything, that's only a piece of advice. A reminder that there is a bigger elephant in the room. I have been using Android since my iphone6 retired, and everything is great.
Silhouette 8y ago
Cook's version here is significantly stronger than Jobs'. Not that Jobs was wrong as far as he went, but merely being informed that you're about to be punched in the face doesn't actually make being punched in the face acceptable. What we're missing today is the option to use normal products and services without any of this data sharing and telemetry going on when they aren't necessary for the normal functioning of the product or service, which the kinds that upset or concern people almost never are. We need to sever the ties between using everyday things and participating in data-based schemes that make the suppliers more money but are otherwise not necessary for what the customer was buying. Clearly the market has failed here and is in a race to the bottom, and that is the point where regulation/legislation should step in.
- luckylion 8y ago
  They are often "necessary" for monetization though, aren't they? A few privacy-minded people would probably pay a few bucks a month to use Google without tracking, ads etc, but I doubt that it would be a lot. And it wouldn't be cheap either, I'm afraid. Let's say you take what Gmail offers for free and buy it at ProtonMail - that'd be 20-30 euros a month just for Email. Who would spend hundreds of dollars a month to get today's average digital experience but with solid privacy? And who could actually afford to?
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    It's not so much Google I'm worried about. I can choose to use other online services. But I should be able to buy a car without the vendor tracking me everywhere I go, or a phone without it becoming a beacon that stores use to follow me around as I do my shopping, or a TV that just lets me watch a show without phoning home to tell the manufacturer all about it. None of the data sharing in these cases is in any way essential to the device I've bought, it's just being added because it can be, as an extra revenue stream at the expense of my privacy and potentially security.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      I agree, but it would increase the prices, right? Would you buy a phone that doesn't include "we'll sell the user's data" in the financial planning at twice the price? And pay another premium for a mobile provider that doesn't actively track you & sells profile data? I'm not so sure about it being added just because they can make a few extra bucks. I believe it becomes part of the revenue system and drives down the margin they make on the actual product. Once somebody starts, everybody has to follow or they can't compete because their product is expensive. With privacy minded people being a small minority, it probably doesn't make sense financially to cater to them in many markets. Emails is relatively simple, building a cell phone, or running a cell network, is not, so you don't do it for a handful of users.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Mikeb85 8y ago
Can Apple refuse to give information to the US government? Can they even disclose it if they do? After the Snowden NSA revelations it seems any corporation in the US is suspect. And that's not even counting the fact that all the telecoms sell your data anyway.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I don’t think so, no. But I believe that they are moving towards the goal of keeping data in an encrypted format that they cannot read themselves, or not collecting it all.
fooker 8y ago
Also time to give up user data to the Chinese government, apparently. https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/24/apple-to-move-chinese-icloud-keys-to-china-servers-opens-door-to-government-data-requests https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/24/apple-to-m...
- sjwright 8y ago
  Only if you're a Chinese citizen in China. From the article: "Apple to move Chinese iCloud keys to China servers...Once on Chinese soil, government agencies will be able to request information through the Chinese legal system, which lacks the transparency, checks or oversight of its American counterpart." If you think the US Government would never act without transparency, checks or oversight, you are being delusional. And factually wrong. Apple is complying with the local laws, just as it does in all other countries. The suggestion that Apple should breach these laws—or exit the market entirely—is absurd and unproductive.
  - tylerl 8y ago
    The difference is that traditional "free" governments don't maintain the entrenchment of existing political officials and the competitive dominance of their own domestic industry as a defensive justification for using their legal system to force companies to disclose, steal, falsify, or destroy information in secret. Companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft are free to challenge court orders from the US or other friendly governments, even those ordered in secret, and they regularly do so. You don't hear about it, but it's pretty common. And these cases do get the scrutiny of many eyes, following similar legal paths as more traditional court challenges, only without all the news coverage.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Have you tried replacing "China" with "Hitler Germany" in your argument? Do you think it still applies? Or can you explain why not?
    - fooker 8y ago
srkmno 8y ago
Which roughly translates to: "competing devices are too cheap".
- saagarjha 8y ago
  You’re going to have to provide more context here, since otherwise your comment doesn’t seem very substantial.
3xblah 8y ago
Is "content" "data"? (Assume "content" is something the user generates and intentionally shares with one or more other users via a computer network. It could be a text message, a web page, a PDF, a photo, a video, whatever.) For example, when he says companies should avoid collecting identifiable data is he arguing against companies that collect user "content" (e.g., a cache of googleusercontent webpages, or a backup of photos stored in an Apple iCloud datacenter)? Or is he arguing against promoting user "accounts" where users identify themselves to companies to receieve the "benefits of signing in" or perhaps as a absolute requirement for access to "content" created by someone else via the company middleman? Much of the "data" that concerns privacy activists is what they might call "metadata". It is not the collection of "content" that alarms them, and no doubt the companies collecting it would remind us this content has been voluntarily shared. However... without the collection of "content" first by a middleman, there is no metadata for these companies to collect. We could have a debate about regulating the middlemen. We could try to define what their obligations should be toward users. A more interesting conversation IMO would be about how we can use technology to eliminate the middleman.
ackfoo 8y ago
Sure, Tim, so why is the App Store infested with apps that phone home to Google Analytics? Why does every other IOS framework report to FaceBook et al? If Apple were serious about this, they would expose the massive amount of data that is streaming out of Apple App Store apps into big corporate other than Apple. Or, they would provide their own analytics service that works the way Tim says it should. Sorry, but this guy is the worst leader Apple has ever had, including Scully. Locking every iDevice by default so that it can’t be reused, grinding up products for recycling instead of keeping them in service just to make an extra buck, these things are atrocious for the planet. If you care about the environment, don’t buy Apple. Oh, they claim to be environmentally-friendly, just like they claim to be for data privacy, but it’s all BS. If Apple gave one-half-shit about the environment, they would relay a message to the owner of a locked iPhone/iPad so they would have the option to unlock it for those who bought it second-hand but didn’t know to get the device taken out of Find-My-Phone, and for those of us who run charitable re-use centres—-we get locked iPads & iPhones because the owners who donated them didn’t know to unlock them. They’re e-waste. And if you’re so concerned about data, Tim, why don’t you stop releasing a new OS every year and focus on fixing the bugs in every framework that render them both unusable and insecure? We don’t need new emojis or stickers, and we sure as shit don’t need anything to be thinner and have even worse battery life. Those things may impress the morons out there, but you’re losing us techies. And we, ultimately, set the trends and make the markets. If we stop telling people to buy Apple, they will eventually stop. Tim Cook, you are a liar and you suck. And I’m an Apple fan with multiple phones, iPads, MacBook pros etc. I’m disgusted with them.
- tempodox 8y ago
  I think you're making some fair points but the fact that you're going ad hominem very much detracts from that. One man alone wouldn't have the power to change a whole culture of misuse and overreach.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  It only took you 5 sentences to then go on an off-tangent about the "locked iDevices", ecology and buggy frameworks. Especially having in mind that everybody else is already doing 100% recycling and their frameworks are flawless! And of course, they all have unlocked bootloaders. Right? You're basically just ranting. Please stay on topic.
praptak 8y ago
Apple failed at the business of mining users private data, its CEO takes a moral stance against it.
- foobiekr 8y ago
  On some level you take what you can get.
tempodox 8y ago
Even if qualified as an instance of “do good and talk about it”, Tim Cook's stance on this matter is rather untypical for not only the IT industry (see other comments in this thread). I for one see no alternative to legal regulations for stopping this race to the bottom.
blokeley 8y ago
We already have a good definition and framework for privacy, thanks Tim. We don't need a watered-down definition that plays to your current business model and leaves out bits that don't. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
urvader 8y ago
The irony that the article isn't available in the EU because of data/privacy laws that time.com obviously thinks is too restricted so they decided to block the EU.
- bad_user 8y ago
  So that's why I'm getting a "The page isn’t redirecting properly" message from my browser?
  - DennisAleynikov 8y ago
    welcome to cookie policies in 2019. EU privacy breaks the internet for european IP ranges.
    - bad_user 8y ago
      Well actually I'm glad that I'm protected by GDPR. If I can't read time.com, that's their loss, not mine. If they are blocking EU users, that can only mean they were using ad bidding exchanges that violate users privacy and I want nothing to do with such publications.
      - laythea 8y ago
        Well said.
      - ersii 8y ago
        Or maybe the rules are too crazy to keep up with and not worth their time and resources? Who knows.
        baq 8y ago
        Rules are simple really - if you can identify me, you must provide a way for me to tell me what you know about me and to stop tracking me for any purpose at my discretion. Is it much to ask for?
marknadal 8y ago
He says there should be a "Federal Clearinghouse" Where users can "Correct and delete personal data online" How does that not definitionally centralize data... Straight into Governments' view?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SeanMacConMara 8y ago
continue button doesnt even work without disabling all my browser security. no thanks.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

114 points by deca6cda37d0 8y ago

Tim Cook has been a single light of hope in this vast dark ocean of surveillance capitalism. I’m so tired of hearing the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” type responses. Privacy is not “hiding.” I shouldn’t have to hide to keep my business, well, my business. I believe I have the right to carry on with my life without this all-seeing eye recording every part of me and using it to con me into buying, or selling it to the highest bidder. I was such an idealist about freeing information and empowering people. And I’m no fan of government regulation. But we know business won’t regulate itself when it’s either the bottom line or what’s best for people. Yes, it’s time for action.

DennisAleynikov 8y ago
It's not the "nothing to hide" folks you fear, its the general crowd who couldn't give two shits that their tech is phoning home all the time until something they find private gets leaked and causes them embarrassment. suprisingly few people have been burned badly enough for anyone other than Apple to take this stance on privacy. Apple is doing a good deed fighting for privacy and data control being returned to the consumers but its a fight against human laziness and the willingness to go with the easier option, instead of chosing the platform that actually respects their privacy and rights to data. Apple by definition is in the minority when it comes to fighting for privacy and at this point its a little too late for anyone to care other than tech savvy apple users who intentionally chose apple for privacy. The rest of the market has traded privacy for all you can eat buffets of information and content. And people actually like all you can eat buffets, who would've thought?
- Silhouette 8y ago
  It's not the "nothing to hide" folks you fear, its the general crowd who couldn't give two shits that their tech is phoning home all the time until something they find private gets leaked and causes them embarrassment. I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. Among my non-technical friends, several have expressed concern or even active disapproval about things they know are happening in this area. They just don't see that they have any alternative. How do you buy any modern phone or participate in any modern social networks or buy any modern car -- all things most regular people need to integrate with society and live a normal life today -- without surrendering huge amounts of your personal privacy and potentially security?
- dingaling 8y ago
  Until Apple enables a user to deny all Internet access to an app then they haven't really committed to data control.
  - danieldk 8y ago
    This is a strange benchmark. Along those standards, Linux or BSD also haven't committed to data control. Like Linux or BSD, you can set up the packet filter to do so. Like Linux or BSD there are no user-friendly, out-of-the-box ways to do it. On macOS it is at least easy to do using third-party applications (e.g. Little Snitch or TripMode).
    - glennpratt 8y ago
      unshare -n
      - danieldk 8y ago
        Thank you for illustrating my point ;).
        glennpratt 8y ago
        It was mostly a joke, but at the same time this is what makes Docker, et al possible. A firewall alone is not much of a sandbox.
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      > Along those standards, Linux or BSD also haven't committed to data control. Well yes, they haven't. Not in a convenient way anyway. I've had a sysadmin friend explaining me the lenghts you have to go to to achieve such results. To him it was easy. I just said "feck that". The fact that every single app isn't sandboxed is also pretty disappointing.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I think this is a thing in China, where you can turn off all data access to apps?
cm2187 8y ago
My understanding is that it is only after Apple failed at setting up their own advertising business that they jumped into the privacy bandwagon. Now I agree that when you want to achieve something, there is nothing to be gained from questioning the motivations of powerful allies (which in this case I think are more about attacking the competition than guenine concerns about privacy). But it does mean that Apple’s stance could change quickly if its business interest evolves. Not complaining, I am all for privacy regulations, merely a word of caution.
- danieldk 8y ago
  My understanding is that it is only after Apple failed at setting up their own advertising business that they jumped into the privacy bandwagon. - Introduction iAd: 2010 - Introduction of iMessage with end-to-end encryption: 2011 - Introduction of the secure enclave: 2013 (iPhone 5s). Remember that Apple plans several years ahead, so the secure enclave was probably already in the cards ~2011. - Shutdown iAd: 2016 The timelines just don't match up. Apple has been pursuing a focus on encryption and privacy since at least 2011. Remember that Apple was the first to roll out an end-to-end encrypted messenger to hunderds of million users, years before WhatsApp. (I am not contesting that their focus on privacy is for marketing reasons. We don't know, it could be or Tim Cook has strong beliefs on this topic.)
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  iAd stood out because it didn't share customer data with advertisers as was the standard in the industry. >Apple has a lot of knowledge regarding its users,but what it doesn’t do with that data is share it with advertisers very freely. That makes Madison Avenue very mad. >rather than offering a cookie-based ad-tracking and targeting mechanism, it essentially requires partners to tell it what kind of audience it needs to reach, and then trust that Apple will handle the rest, AdAge says. And it’s well worth noting that Apple prioritizes customer privacy here over a big potential upside in ad revenue. >what it doesn’t do is hand over the keys to all that data and let advertisers plug into it directly with their own data-mining and targeting software. That’s not standard for the ad industry and that’s likely the reason a few Madison Avenue feathers are ruffled over their approach. https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/18/advertisers-not-thrilled-with-apples-practice-of-protecting-its-users-data/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/18/advertisers-not-thrilled-w... It's not impossible to sell ads without spying on users on behalf of your advertising customers, it's just less profitable.
redwall_hp 8y ago
Whether he's the origin or just fond of the sentiment, the "nothing to hide" argument is commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in the 1930s. I feel like that should be pointed out more. Perhaps it would make people question that line of thinking more...
jjeaff 8y ago
While I usually question the sincerity of the leadership of large ccompanies (whether they really believe what they are saying or if they are just trying to increase shareholder value). But it strikes me that Tim Cook, being a professional gay man of his age, almost certainly has had times in his past where privacy was a big concern. Especially during times when it was much less acceptable to be gay, especially in the corporate world. He likely intimately understands the reality of the "nothing to hide" farce.

chj 8y ago

And it is time for running whatever we want on our device.

sjwright 8y ago
Tell that to the manufacturers of TVs, cars, home alarms, AV receivers, smart watches, digital cameras, smart home devices, dash cams, game consoles, universal remotes, cordless phones, cable tv boxes, baby monitors and printers. The world is full of devices that are not open platforms for alternative operating systems. If you don't like Apple's choice in focusing on their particular solution which involves intimate software-hardware integration, the answer is to buy from a competitor. There are lots of them and they make an extremely diverse array of alternatives. Personally I'm pleased that Apple is making the product the way they do. If Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs.
- chj 8y ago
  well, phones and pads are good starters update: I compare it to computing slavery.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    Yes, taking on large market monoplists has always worked so well in the past, let's try that again /s
  - sjwright 8y ago
    You don't need to demand Apple change. There are countless phones and pads available from other companies, many of which will satisfy your requirements.
    - chj 8y ago
      Look, I am not saying these things to satisfy my personal needs, and I am not demanding Apple anything, that's only a piece of advice. A reminder that there is a bigger elephant in the room. I have been using Android since my iphone6 retired, and everything is great.

Silhouette 8y ago

Cook's version here is significantly stronger than Jobs'. Not that Jobs was wrong as far as he went, but merely being informed that you're about to be punched in the face doesn't actually make being punched in the face acceptable. What we're missing today is the option to use normal products and services without any of this data sharing and telemetry going on when they aren't necessary for the normal functioning of the product or service, which the kinds that upset or concern people almost never are. We need to sever the ties between using everyday things and participating in data-based schemes that make the suppliers more money but are otherwise not necessary for what the customer was buying. Clearly the market has failed here and is in a race to the bottom, and that is the point where regulation/legislation should step in.

luckylion 8y ago
They are often "necessary" for monetization though, aren't they? A few privacy-minded people would probably pay a few bucks a month to use Google without tracking, ads etc, but I doubt that it would be a lot. And it wouldn't be cheap either, I'm afraid. Let's say you take what Gmail offers for free and buy it at ProtonMail - that'd be 20-30 euros a month just for Email. Who would spend hundreds of dollars a month to get today's average digital experience but with solid privacy? And who could actually afford to?
- Silhouette 8y ago
  It's not so much Google I'm worried about. I can choose to use other online services. But I should be able to buy a car without the vendor tracking me everywhere I go, or a phone without it becoming a beacon that stores use to follow me around as I do my shopping, or a TV that just lets me watch a show without phoning home to tell the manufacturer all about it. None of the data sharing in these cases is in any way essential to the device I've bought, it's just being added because it can be, as an extra revenue stream at the expense of my privacy and potentially security.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    I agree, but it would increase the prices, right? Would you buy a phone that doesn't include "we'll sell the user's data" in the financial planning at twice the price? And pay another premium for a mobile provider that doesn't actively track you & sells profile data? I'm not so sure about it being added just because they can make a few extra bucks. I believe it becomes part of the revenue system and drives down the margin they make on the actual product. Once somebody starts, everybody has to follow or they can't compete because their product is expensive. With privacy minded people being a small minority, it probably doesn't make sense financially to cater to them in many markets. Emails is relatively simple, building a cell phone, or running a cell network, is not, so you don't do it for a handful of users.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Mikeb85 8y ago

Can Apple refuse to give information to the US government? Can they even disclose it if they do? After the Snowden NSA revelations it seems any corporation in the US is suspect. And that's not even counting the fact that all the telecoms sell your data anyway.

saagarjha 8y ago
I don’t think so, no. But I believe that they are moving towards the goal of keeping data in an encrypted format that they cannot read themselves, or not collecting it all.

fooker 8y ago

Also time to give up user data to the Chinese government, apparently. https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/24/apple-to-move-chinese-icloud-keys-to-china-servers-opens-door-to-government-data-requests https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/24/apple-to-m...

sjwright 8y ago
Only if you're a Chinese citizen in China. From the article: "Apple to move Chinese iCloud keys to China servers...Once on Chinese soil, government agencies will be able to request information through the Chinese legal system, which lacks the transparency, checks or oversight of its American counterpart." If you think the US Government would never act without transparency, checks or oversight, you are being delusional. And factually wrong. Apple is complying with the local laws, just as it does in all other countries. The suggestion that Apple should breach these laws—or exit the market entirely—is absurd and unproductive.
- tylerl 8y ago
  The difference is that traditional "free" governments don't maintain the entrenchment of existing political officials and the competitive dominance of their own domestic industry as a defensive justification for using their legal system to force companies to disclose, steal, falsify, or destroy information in secret. Companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft are free to challenge court orders from the US or other friendly governments, even those ordered in secret, and they regularly do so. You don't hear about it, but it's pretty common. And these cases do get the scrutiny of many eyes, following similar legal paths as more traditional court challenges, only without all the news coverage.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Have you tried replacing "China" with "Hitler Germany" in your argument? Do you think it still applies? Or can you explain why not?
  - fooker 8y ago

srkmno 8y ago

Which roughly translates to: "competing devices are too cheap".

saagarjha 8y ago
You’re going to have to provide more context here, since otherwise your comment doesn’t seem very substantial.

3xblah 8y ago

Is "content" "data"? (Assume "content" is something the user generates and intentionally shares with one or more other users via a computer network. It could be a text message, a web page, a PDF, a photo, a video, whatever.) For example, when he says companies should avoid collecting identifiable data is he arguing against companies that collect user "content" (e.g., a cache of googleusercontent webpages, or a backup of photos stored in an Apple iCloud datacenter)? Or is he arguing against promoting user "accounts" where users identify themselves to companies to receieve the "benefits of signing in" or perhaps as a absolute requirement for access to "content" created by someone else via the company middleman? Much of the "data" that concerns privacy activists is what they might call "metadata". It is not the collection of "content" that alarms them, and no doubt the companies collecting it would remind us this content has been voluntarily shared. However... without the collection of "content" first by a middleman, there is no metadata for these companies to collect. We could have a debate about regulating the middlemen. We could try to define what their obligations should be toward users. A more interesting conversation IMO would be about how we can use technology to eliminate the middleman.

ackfoo 8y ago

Sure, Tim, so why is the App Store infested with apps that phone home to Google Analytics? Why does every other IOS framework report to FaceBook et al? If Apple were serious about this, they would expose the massive amount of data that is streaming out of Apple App Store apps into big corporate other than Apple. Or, they would provide their own analytics service that works the way Tim says it should. Sorry, but this guy is the worst leader Apple has ever had, including Scully. Locking every iDevice by default so that it can’t be reused, grinding up products for recycling instead of keeping them in service just to make an extra buck, these things are atrocious for the planet. If you care about the environment, don’t buy Apple. Oh, they claim to be environmentally-friendly, just like they claim to be for data privacy, but it’s all BS. If Apple gave one-half-shit about the environment, they would relay a message to the owner of a locked iPhone/iPad so they would have the option to unlock it for those who bought it second-hand but didn’t know to get the device taken out of Find-My-Phone, and for those of us who run charitable re-use centres—-we get locked iPads & iPhones because the owners who donated them didn’t know to unlock them. They’re e-waste. And if you’re so concerned about data, Tim, why don’t you stop releasing a new OS every year and focus on fixing the bugs in every framework that render them both unusable and insecure? We don’t need new emojis or stickers, and we sure as shit don’t need anything to be thinner and have even worse battery life. Those things may impress the morons out there, but you’re losing us techies. And we, ultimately, set the trends and make the markets. If we stop telling people to buy Apple, they will eventually stop. Tim Cook, you are a liar and you suck. And I’m an Apple fan with multiple phones, iPads, MacBook pros etc. I’m disgusted with them.

tempodox 8y ago
I think you're making some fair points but the fact that you're going ad hominem very much detracts from that. One man alone wouldn't have the power to change a whole culture of misuse and overreach.
pdimitar 8y ago
It only took you 5 sentences to then go on an off-tangent about the "locked iDevices", ecology and buggy frameworks. Especially having in mind that everybody else is already doing 100% recycling and their frameworks are flawless! And of course, they all have unlocked bootloaders. Right? You're basically just ranting. Please stay on topic.

praptak 8y ago

Apple failed at the business of mining users private data, its CEO takes a moral stance against it.

foobiekr 8y ago
On some level you take what you can get.

tempodox 8y ago

Even if qualified as an instance of “do good and talk about it”, Tim Cook's stance on this matter is rather untypical for not only the IT industry (see other comments in this thread). I for one see no alternative to legal regulations for stopping this race to the bottom.

blokeley 8y ago

We already have a good definition and framework for privacy, thanks Tim. We don't need a watered-down definition that plays to your current business model and leaves out bits that don't. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

urvader 8y ago

The irony that the article isn't available in the EU because of data/privacy laws that time.com obviously thinks is too restricted so they decided to block the EU.

bad_user 8y ago
So that's why I'm getting a "The page isn’t redirecting properly" message from my browser?
- DennisAleynikov 8y ago
  welcome to cookie policies in 2019. EU privacy breaks the internet for european IP ranges.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    Well actually I'm glad that I'm protected by GDPR. If I can't read time.com, that's their loss, not mine. If they are blocking EU users, that can only mean they were using ad bidding exchanges that violate users privacy and I want nothing to do with such publications.
    - laythea 8y ago
      Well said.
    - ersii 8y ago
      Or maybe the rules are too crazy to keep up with and not worth their time and resources? Who knows.
      - baq 8y ago
        Rules are simple really - if you can identify me, you must provide a way for me to tell me what you know about me and to stop tracking me for any purpose at my discretion. Is it much to ask for?

marknadal 8y ago

He says there should be a "Federal Clearinghouse" Where users can "Correct and delete personal data online" How does that not definitionally centralize data... Straight into Governments' view?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

SeanMacConMara 8y ago

continue button doesnt even work without disabling all my browser security. no thanks.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]