6 ms·

I feel like I'm in bizarro world. It opens with: >At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right. We design our products to protect users’ personal

I feel like I'm in bizarro world. It opens with: >At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right. We design our products to protect users’ personal data, and we are constantly working to strengthen those protections. And ends with Apple saying they will no longer store audio recordings listened to by third party contractors by default. If Apple cares about privacy, why was that not opt-in to begin with?

bobwaycott 7y ago
A couple simple, potential explanatory thoughts/ideas strike my mind: - All this digital privacy stuff is new to humanity - We've only been trying to figure it out for a couple decades - We're still learning—sadly, mostly through trial and error—all the ways in which people can come up with privacy-invading techniques and tools - Motivated actors are clever, and think up ways to invade, violate, and compromise privacy, often in ways software/hardware makers haven't already thought of—but seem obvious in retrospect - Apple's concern for privacy has emerged alongside its development of devices and software that can be used to invade privacy—they can only take action against a danger/threat after they've thought or become aware of it - Again, all this stuff is new. We used to run e-commerce and punch in credit cards without thinking about SSL certs—cos shit was new, shiny, and magical. We're all becoming increasingly aware of just how much privacy needs to be a core development premise of just about any technology. And we're currently stuck in a weird place of individuals and companies trying to increase privacy levels while other individuals, companies, and governments are trying to break it down, get backdoors, invade everyone's privacy and track them everywhere they go, etc. tl;dr — Respecting, protecting, and increasing digital privacy is a constant process.
- izacus 7y ago
  Are you going to put the same post under Facebook's, Google's and some other news... or does this "It's all new!" cop-out count only for Apple? Remember, they plastered "What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone" ads all over CES this years while they kept transcribing Siri audio. And they did that until they got caught. Just like they throttled iPhone performance until they got caught and THEN they finally told users about that. Why would they get a benefit of doubt?
  - ghostpepper 7y ago
    Not the OP but for some reason this privacy-first messaging comes across as much more genuine from Apple than it does from Facebook or Google. Probably due to the comparatively small number of privacy incidents, coupled with the business models of those companies compared to Apple. Apple may not be perfect but at least it feels like they are trying.
    - izacus 7y ago
      Or perhaps it comes across as more genuine because they have better marketing while they follow the others as soon as it suits them to make a buck? They lied to their customers faces with building sized ads.
      - mattkevan 7y ago
        Follow the money. Google and Facebook are built on renting our privacy out to the highest bidders. The minutiae of our lives are their raw materials, and to make more money they have to find new and exciting ways of exploiting our information. Apple is built on making things we want to buy, then selling us stuff to do, watch, play, read or hear on those things. They’re also very good at telling us about those things and why we might want to buy them. So yes, privacy-first messaging comes across as more genuine when it comes from companies that aren’t designed from the ground up to scrape every bit of information about us that they possibly can.
  - bobwaycott 7y ago
    One can think Apple's decision was wrong while also thinking it wasn't intentionally malicious. Five or more years ago, I gave FB & Google the benefit of the doubt—when the first few major privacy fiascos came to light, making it clear that it was a big deal and privacy needed to be cared about. Sadly, Facebook and Google have repeatedly shown themselves to be actively hostile to user privacy, and continue to double and triple down on invading privacy and breaching trust. They've been the giants who have proven the need for making privacy a primary concern of all tech hardware/software—because they are dependent on breaching and invading privacy to earn their income. Apple does not depend on providing third parties access to identifiable data and profiles to better target ads, identify users, and destroy privacy and anonymity to earn their income. This pretty much means a wholly different default outlook from Facebook and Google. Apple continues to not just market, but take active steps toward increasing privacy and data protection for its users across its hardware lineup. I'm not at all suggesting Apple isn't worthy of criticism when they fuck up—they absolutely are. I'm only responding to the question of why a certain feature may not have been opt-in to begin with—when it appears obvious in retrospect that it should have been. In short, Apple still has my reserved, cautious trust. Facebook and Google have long since lost it, and I can't even imagine what they might be able to do to ever earn it back. When Apple starts building the privacy-related reputation that Google and Facebook have, I'll be all over the hate train. As it stands, as someone who believes he really cares about digital privacy for himself and others, I never thought about the fact that a Siri recording might be listened to by humans—but now, in retrospect, of course it was (I would have wanted to listen to recordings to grade my own software's responses), and of course it should have been opt-in to begin with.
mikestew 7y ago
If Apple cares about privacy, why was that not opt-in to begin with? Apple has to invent a time machine before you'll offer any forgiveness? They made a mistake, if previous behavior was so egregious that no improvements going forward will suffice, then from where I stand the only remaining option is to use other vendors.
- izacus 7y ago
  Well they can perhaps also stop doing business with Chinese government and then continue preaching about privacy. They've proven flexible with their morals when it came to money too many times to be trusted. Just like any other corporation.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    Maybe they should also stop doing business with the American government? ;-)
  - threeseed 7y ago
    If Apple stopped doing business with China they would have to stop selling products all together. There just isn't the manufacturing capability anywhere else in the world to compete with China. It's a shame that the world outsourced such an important skill but that's where we are.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Other phone makers manage to manufacture phones in China without handing all Chinese customer data to the Chinese government. It is possible to manufacture in China without selling to Chinese consumers.
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    Don't forget that they take google's money and put them as the default search provider in safari. Apple loves privacy, but they love money more.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Terretta 7y ago
> If Apple cares about privacy, why was that not opt-in to begin with? Partly because Siri wasn’t Apple to begin with. It was a company they acquired with its own app, with established processes. M&A doesn’t necessarily replace all processes with new processes.

bobwaycott 7y ago

A couple simple, potential explanatory thoughts/ideas strike my mind: - All this digital privacy stuff is new to humanity - We've only been trying to figure it out for a couple decades - We're still learning—sadly, mostly through trial and error—all the ways in which people can come up with privacy-invading techniques and tools - Motivated actors are clever, and think up ways to invade, violate, and compromise privacy, often in ways software/hardware makers haven't already thought of—but seem obvious in retrospect - Apple's concern for privacy has emerged alongside its development of devices and software that can be used to invade privacy—they can only take action against a danger/threat after they've thought or become aware of it - Again, all this stuff is new. We used to run e-commerce and punch in credit cards without thinking about SSL certs—cos shit was new, shiny, and magical. We're all becoming increasingly aware of just how much privacy needs to be a core development premise of just about any technology. And we're currently stuck in a weird place of individuals and companies trying to increase privacy levels while other individuals, companies, and governments are trying to break it down, get backdoors, invade everyone's privacy and track them everywhere they go, etc. tl;dr — Respecting, protecting, and increasing digital privacy is a constant process.

izacus 7y ago
Are you going to put the same post under Facebook's, Google's and some other news... or does this "It's all new!" cop-out count only for Apple? Remember, they plastered "What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone" ads all over CES this years while they kept transcribing Siri audio. And they did that until they got caught. Just like they throttled iPhone performance until they got caught and THEN they finally told users about that. Why would they get a benefit of doubt?
- ghostpepper 7y ago
  Not the OP but for some reason this privacy-first messaging comes across as much more genuine from Apple than it does from Facebook or Google. Probably due to the comparatively small number of privacy incidents, coupled with the business models of those companies compared to Apple. Apple may not be perfect but at least it feels like they are trying.
  - izacus 7y ago
    Or perhaps it comes across as more genuine because they have better marketing while they follow the others as soon as it suits them to make a buck? They lied to their customers faces with building sized ads.
    - mattkevan 7y ago
      Follow the money. Google and Facebook are built on renting our privacy out to the highest bidders. The minutiae of our lives are their raw materials, and to make more money they have to find new and exciting ways of exploiting our information. Apple is built on making things we want to buy, then selling us stuff to do, watch, play, read or hear on those things. They’re also very good at telling us about those things and why we might want to buy them. So yes, privacy-first messaging comes across as more genuine when it comes from companies that aren’t designed from the ground up to scrape every bit of information about us that they possibly can.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  One can think Apple's decision was wrong while also thinking it wasn't intentionally malicious. Five or more years ago, I gave FB & Google the benefit of the doubt—when the first few major privacy fiascos came to light, making it clear that it was a big deal and privacy needed to be cared about. Sadly, Facebook and Google have repeatedly shown themselves to be actively hostile to user privacy, and continue to double and triple down on invading privacy and breaching trust. They've been the giants who have proven the need for making privacy a primary concern of all tech hardware/software—because they are dependent on breaching and invading privacy to earn their income. Apple does not depend on providing third parties access to identifiable data and profiles to better target ads, identify users, and destroy privacy and anonymity to earn their income. This pretty much means a wholly different default outlook from Facebook and Google. Apple continues to not just market, but take active steps toward increasing privacy and data protection for its users across its hardware lineup. I'm not at all suggesting Apple isn't worthy of criticism when they fuck up—they absolutely are. I'm only responding to the question of why a certain feature may not have been opt-in to begin with—when it appears obvious in retrospect that it should have been. In short, Apple still has my reserved, cautious trust. Facebook and Google have long since lost it, and I can't even imagine what they might be able to do to ever earn it back. When Apple starts building the privacy-related reputation that Google and Facebook have, I'll be all over the hate train. As it stands, as someone who believes he really cares about digital privacy for himself and others, I never thought about the fact that a Siri recording might be listened to by humans—but now, in retrospect, of course it was (I would have wanted to listen to recordings to grade my own software's responses), and of course it should have been opt-in to begin with.

mikestew 7y ago

If Apple cares about privacy, why was that not opt-in to begin with? Apple has to invent a time machine before you'll offer any forgiveness? They made a mistake, if previous behavior was so egregious that no improvements going forward will suffice, then from where I stand the only remaining option is to use other vendors.

izacus 7y ago
Well they can perhaps also stop doing business with Chinese government and then continue preaching about privacy. They've proven flexible with their morals when it came to money too many times to be trusted. Just like any other corporation.
- Tomte 7y ago
  Maybe they should also stop doing business with the American government? ;-)
- threeseed 7y ago
  If Apple stopped doing business with China they would have to stop selling products all together. There just isn't the manufacturing capability anywhere else in the world to compete with China. It's a shame that the world outsourced such an important skill but that's where we are.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Other phone makers manage to manufacture phones in China without handing all Chinese customer data to the Chinese government. It is possible to manufacture in China without selling to Chinese consumers.
- bryan_w 7y ago
  Don't forget that they take google's money and put them as the default search provider in safari. Apple loves privacy, but they love money more.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago

Terretta 7y ago

> If Apple cares about privacy, why was that not opt-in to begin with? Partly because Siri wasn’t Apple to begin with. It was a company they acquired with its own app, with established processes. M&A doesn’t necessarily replace all processes with new processes.