4 ms·

I think the story is possibly confusing this bit. When recorded, and transmitted to Apple, the location, Apple ID, etc. of the recording device is known. The sa

by zaroth 7y ago

I think the story is possibly confusing this bit. When recorded, and transmitted to Apple, the location, Apple ID, etc. of the recording device is known. The same (similar) would be true for any voice assistant. When the contractors are reviewing snippets for training purposes, this data is anonymized. In the case of Apple; > Apple has said that it takes steps to protect users from being connected with the recordings sent to contractors. The audio is not linked to an Apple ID and less than 1% of daily Siri activations are reviewed."

romwell 7y ago
I wish the article was more clear on this. It takes a lot of work to properly anonymize the data. The question is: what information does the operator see?
- panpanna 7y ago
  As I understand it, the data was not anonymized. They simply asked the contractors to sign a non-disclosure contract.
Buge 7y ago
It's a direct quote from the whistleblower: > The whistleblower said: “There have been countless instances of recordings featuring private discussions between doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings, sexual encounters and so on. These recordings are accompanied by user data showing location, contact details, and app data.” > That accompanying information may be used to verify whether a request was successfully dealt with. In its privacy documents, Apple says the Siri data “is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services”. There is no specific name or identifier attached to a record and no individual recording can be easily linked to other recordings. > Apple told the Guardian: “A small portion of Siri requests are analysed to improve Siri and dictation. User requests are not associated with the user’s Apple ID. Siri responses are analysed in secure facilities and all reviewers are under the obligation to adhere to Apple’s strict confidentiality requirements.” Strangely, the whistleblower's quote directly contradicts Apple's privacy documents. The whistleblower says the recordings are linked to some other information, but the privacy documents say the recordings are not linked to other information. But the whistleblower's quote does not contradict Apple's quote to the Guardian. The whistleblower never says the recordings are linked to the user's Apple ID. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-con...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
vatueil 7y ago
> When recorded, and transmitted to Apple, the location, Apple ID, etc. of the recording device is known. Actually, according to Apple's statements Siri does not link recordings to your Apple ID. That's a bit of a double-edged sword, though, since it means users cannot easily check what Apple has recorded either. Judging from public reactions, it seems many users think Apple doesn't keep Siri records at all simply because they can't access the audio history. Reportedly, the only way to avoid letting Apple manually review audio was to not use Siri at all, unlike other voice assistants. If so, I wonder if that was also due to the lack of Apple ID, since if audio isn't linked to a user then it follows that it isn't linked to user preferences either. I suppose you could still do something like send data from users that allow QA testing to one system and from those that opt-out to another, but apparently that wasn't done.
occamrazor 7y ago
1% is an unexpectedly high number.
- panpanna 7y ago
  It's a huge number. I am surprised they have the manpower.
- eitland 7y ago
  In fairness gp says less than 1%.
  - benj111 7y ago
    I would expect 'less than 1%' to be 0.1% to 0.99%. 0.1% is still a high figure.
    - schuke 7y ago
      I would bet it’s closer to 0.99% otherwise wouldn’t they have phrased it something like “slightly more than 0.1%” to make it sound smaller?
      - Symmetry 7y ago
        If I was talking to a reporter and the real number was .01% I would still say "less than 1%" to make sure I was properly understood. The whole reason we use percentages and say "one percent" instead of "point zero one" is that some people tend to get confused with decimals but not with integers. EDIT: And part of this is just how we say things. "Twenty" is just easier to parse in a conversation than "Two Oh" even though the later is perfectly comprehensible when written out.
        jklein11 7y ago
        1% vs .01% would be overstating the truth by 100x. If you were a spokesperson for apple you would want to make that number seem as small as possible.

by zaroth 7y ago

romwell 7y ago

I wish the article was more clear on this. It takes a lot of work to properly anonymize the data. The question is: what information does the operator see?

panpanna 7y ago
As I understand it, the data was not anonymized. They simply asked the contractors to sign a non-disclosure contract.

Buge 7y ago

It's a direct quote from the whistleblower: > The whistleblower said: “There have been countless instances of recordings featuring private discussions between doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings, sexual encounters and so on. These recordings are accompanied by user data showing location, contact details, and app data.” > That accompanying information may be used to verify whether a request was successfully dealt with. In its privacy documents, Apple says the Siri data “is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services”. There is no specific name or identifier attached to a record and no individual recording can be easily linked to other recordings. > Apple told the Guardian: “A small portion of Siri requests are analysed to improve Siri and dictation. User requests are not associated with the user’s Apple ID. Siri responses are analysed in secure facilities and all reviewers are under the obligation to adhere to Apple’s strict confidentiality requirements.” Strangely, the whistleblower's quote directly contradicts Apple's privacy documents. The whistleblower says the recordings are linked to some other information, but the privacy documents say the recordings are not linked to other information. But the whistleblower's quote does not contradict Apple's quote to the Guardian. The whistleblower never says the recordings are linked to the user's Apple ID. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-con...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

vatueil 7y ago

> When recorded, and transmitted to Apple, the location, Apple ID, etc. of the recording device is known. Actually, according to Apple's statements Siri does not link recordings to your Apple ID. That's a bit of a double-edged sword, though, since it means users cannot easily check what Apple has recorded either. Judging from public reactions, it seems many users think Apple doesn't keep Siri records at all simply because they can't access the audio history. Reportedly, the only way to avoid letting Apple manually review audio was to not use Siri at all, unlike other voice assistants. If so, I wonder if that was also due to the lack of Apple ID, since if audio isn't linked to a user then it follows that it isn't linked to user preferences either. I suppose you could still do something like send data from users that allow QA testing to one system and from those that opt-out to another, but apparently that wasn't done.

occamrazor 7y ago

1% is an unexpectedly high number.

panpanna 7y ago
It's a huge number. I am surprised they have the manpower.
eitland 7y ago
In fairness gp says less than 1%.
- benj111 7y ago
  I would expect 'less than 1%' to be 0.1% to 0.99%. 0.1% is still a high figure.
  - schuke 7y ago
    I would bet it’s closer to 0.99% otherwise wouldn’t they have phrased it something like “slightly more than 0.1%” to make it sound smaller?
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      If I was talking to a reporter and the real number was .01% I would still say "less than 1%" to make sure I was properly understood. The whole reason we use percentages and say "one percent" instead of "point zero one" is that some people tend to get confused with decimals but not with integers. EDIT: And part of this is just how we say things. "Twenty" is just easier to parse in a conversation than "Two Oh" even though the later is perfectly comprehensible when written out.
      - jklein11 7y ago
        1% vs .01% would be overstating the truth by 100x. If you were a spokesperson for apple you would want to make that number seem as small as possible.