4 ms·

Any opt out protection racket should be illegal. Even if it is "anonymous", someone could be identified from their behavioural patterns which are unique to each

Any opt out protection racket should be illegal. Even if it is "anonymous", someone could be identified from their behavioural patterns which are unique to each human. I hope that Apple gets at least hundred billion fine for such brazen violation of privacy so they will learn their lesson and they should be ordered to delete all personal data they don't have legitimate business need for.

user-the-name 6y ago
Why would they try to identify you from your "behavioural patterns", when they already have the device identifier and your Apple ID, which identify you are your computer uniquely? Which, to be very specific, they _do not send_. They COULD identify you extremely easily, and they specifically chose not to do that.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  May be they have other channels which could or already do send device identifiter and Apple ID. How do you know what _else_ they do ? Who knew they were sending hashes till the recent malfunctioning? What _esle_ we do not know now?
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    If they wanted that information tied together, they would send it together. Otherwise they have to keep guessing about what goes together with what. That would make no sense. And it was known this data was being sent.
    - lovelyviking 6y ago
      >That would make no sense. Hiding such feature without option to turn it off would also make no sense to me but they did it. >If they wanted that information tied together, they would send it together. sure, unless they wanted to hide the fact they wanted information tied together. In that case they can always provide the line of argument you provide once they caught and say "Oh, if we wanted to spy we would do it openly and brutally. There is no sense for us to make it complicated." But something is telling me that one who wish to spy would do it in some sophisticated manner. The bottom line we do not know and we _can_not_ know since we did not see _all_ sources. You also cannot know what they wanted, so your guess is as good as any other? Or somehow you know something we don't? The bottom line here is the same: who knows. But I think if they wanted to make it open and secure they would simply put option in GUI with clear text explaining what it does and how it does it with ability to turn this thing off. And they didn't do it this way. For me it can mean 'they are hiding something' possibly. What else they hide and why we simply do not know.
- yyyk 6y ago
  It's sent unencrypted. Anyone else could use said patterns to track and identify, with good reason because they do not have the ID.

user-the-name 6y ago

Why would they try to identify you from your "behavioural patterns", when they already have the device identifier and your Apple ID, which identify you are your computer uniquely? Which, to be very specific, they _do not send_. They COULD identify you extremely easily, and they specifically chose not to do that.

lovelyviking 6y ago
May be they have other channels which could or already do send device identifiter and Apple ID. How do you know what _else_ they do ? Who knew they were sending hashes till the recent malfunctioning? What _esle_ we do not know now?
- user-the-name 6y ago
  If they wanted that information tied together, they would send it together. Otherwise they have to keep guessing about what goes together with what. That would make no sense. And it was known this data was being sent.
  - lovelyviking 6y ago
    >That would make no sense. Hiding such feature without option to turn it off would also make no sense to me but they did it. >If they wanted that information tied together, they would send it together. sure, unless they wanted to hide the fact they wanted information tied together. In that case they can always provide the line of argument you provide once they caught and say "Oh, if we wanted to spy we would do it openly and brutally. There is no sense for us to make it complicated." But something is telling me that one who wish to spy would do it in some sophisticated manner. The bottom line we do not know and we _can_not_ know since we did not see _all_ sources. You also cannot know what they wanted, so your guess is as good as any other? Or somehow you know something we don't? The bottom line here is the same: who knows. But I think if they wanted to make it open and secure they would simply put option in GUI with clear text explaining what it does and how it does it with ability to turn this thing off. And they didn't do it this way. For me it can mean 'they are hiding something' possibly. What else they hide and why we simply do not know.
yyyk 6y ago
It's sent unencrypted. Anyone else could use said patterns to track and identify, with good reason because they do not have the ID.