4 ms·

Google or Facebook would not post this because they would be combining the data. Instead it would be some meaningless claim that they don’t use the data for adv

Google or Facebook would not post this because they would be combining the data. Instead it would be some meaningless claim that they don’t use the data for advertising or don’t sell the data, leaving themselves free to do anything else with it (plus, the “we can change the terms at any time” clauses)

refulgentis 6y ago
I would argue it's because Google has to value security and privacy in a way Apple doesn't - Google has to build platforms instead of gardens, so there's an 'adversarial' incentive to make sure you're not held liable due to a 3rd parties actions. Also, these incidents would be a thermonuclear event for search due to the intimacy and inherent 'Internet-ness' of the data - versus Apple, who can get away with incidents like introducing Intelligent Tracking Prevention - two years later, it turned out it was a globally unique identifier that also leaked your web history [1] Yet, because Apple didn't have a perceived incentive to leak this information, people see it as a 'mere' competency issue and move on. [1] https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/curious-case-of-privacy-vulnerability-in-intelligent-tracking-prevention/ https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/curious-case-of-privacy-vulne...
- stingraycharles 6y ago
  Nah it’s because Google and Facebook earn their money with advertising, which implies data. Apple, on the other hand, earns their money by selling hardware. It’s a different value exchange, and Apple doesn’t really have a lot to gain by becoming a “bad actor” with data. See also, for example, their planned advertising tracking protections coming up in 2021. They don’t have a lot to lose in this area, and a lot to gain.
  - refulgentis 6y ago
    I think that analysis is adequate for describing why Apple shouldn't be a bad actor with data, but, they meet the criteria for one - the security incidents the past couple years (supercookie, history leak, root, leaking app launches in plaintext...), assisting government access, softening E2E encryption to de facto unencrypted...

refulgentis 6y ago

I would argue it's because Google has to value security and privacy in a way Apple doesn't - Google has to build platforms instead of gardens, so there's an 'adversarial' incentive to make sure you're not held liable due to a 3rd parties actions. Also, these incidents would be a thermonuclear event for search due to the intimacy and inherent 'Internet-ness' of the data - versus Apple, who can get away with incidents like introducing Intelligent Tracking Prevention - two years later, it turned out it was a globally unique identifier that also leaked your web history [1] Yet, because Apple didn't have a perceived incentive to leak this information, people see it as a 'mere' competency issue and move on. [1] https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/curious-case-of-privacy-vulnerability-in-intelligent-tracking-prevention/ https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/curious-case-of-privacy-vulne...

stingraycharles 6y ago
Nah it’s because Google and Facebook earn their money with advertising, which implies data. Apple, on the other hand, earns their money by selling hardware. It’s a different value exchange, and Apple doesn’t really have a lot to gain by becoming a “bad actor” with data. See also, for example, their planned advertising tracking protections coming up in 2021. They don’t have a lot to lose in this area, and a lot to gain.
- refulgentis 6y ago
  I think that analysis is adequate for describing why Apple shouldn't be a bad actor with data, but, they meet the criteria for one - the security incidents the past couple years (supercookie, history leak, root, leaking app launches in plaintext...), assisting government access, softening E2E encryption to de facto unencrypted...