4 ms·

That’s a very long, thoughtful, and detailed document. Linking to it without any context at all isn’t super helpful. What exactly are you referring to when yo

That’s a very long, thoughtful, and detailed document. Linking to it without any context at all isn’t super helpful. What exactly are you referring to when you claim Apple ‘spies on its [sic] users’? Every bit of data Apple has about me is a) made explicitly clear, b) used for a specific purpose or feature, and c) isn’t sold to or used in any adtech bs. That all sounds good to me…

yladiz 6y ago
Tangential: why did you put [sic] after its? "its" is correct there.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  Yes. The way I remember this is that 'his' and 'her' don't have apostophes so neither does 'its' when used as a possessive.
littlestymaar 6y ago
> c) isn’t sold to or used in any adtech bs What makes you think so? Because the privacy policies you agreed on allows them to (in the the Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data section): >Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. Yes, that's it (there is an “Example” section following, but this is non-binding). Any kind of partner, for any kind of “other offering”. Partnering with any ad tech for selling ads complies with this clause. Also, as I'm not a native speaker, what's wrong with “spies on its[sic] users“? (Note that the original sentence was “operating system that spies on its users” not “Apple spies on its users”)
- sbuk 6y ago
  The difference, of course, is that if I message someone about an iPhone in messages.app, I'm not inundated with "targeted" ads for phones everywhere I go. Or, if I'm talking to someone about a recipe, my devices don't suddenly start displaying recipes (looking at you, Echo). Anonymized analytics, the type that Apple are informing you about in that document, are fine. Searching the App Store for a productivity app and being shown a single ad for a productivity app at the top of the search results is fine. What you are doing is trying to convince the world that the Emperor is naked, when in fact they merely have their top shirt button undone.
  - littlestymaar 6y ago
    Displaying real-time targeted ads (1) isn't Apple Business for sure. Selling you health data to health insurance companies (2) fits their strategy much more, and by accepting their privacy policy, you allowed them to do it. I don't consider (2) less harmful than (1).
    - sbuk 6y ago
      Got any evidence, tangible or otherwise, of (2)?
      - littlestymaar 6y ago
        In French[1] (2014) linking to a Bloomberg link behind a paywall[2]. There's no evidence that they have done anything like this yet, but they at least considered it and their privacy policies allows it as soon as they decide it's worth it. And you wouldn't necessarily know it. Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can. [1]: https://www.numerama.com/magazine/30323-apple-approche-les-mutuelles-pour-divulguer-le-comportement-des-assures.html https://www.numerama.com/magazine/30323-apple-approche-les-m... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-21/wear-this-device-so-the-boss-knows-you-re-losing-weight https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-21/wear-this...
        sbuk 6y ago
        So your first source (from 2014) is based on Withings working with AXA and is also speculation based on your second source, who's reporting it must be pointed out is of an extremely dubious nature (cf. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...) which has been debunked and vehemently refuted by all parties, including the very sources Bloomberg cite in the article. Sorry, no. Did Apple consider it? Possibly, in fact it almost a certainty. More importantly, did the act on it? No. Nothing wrong with exploring options. Let's not engage in slippery-slope hypotheses. > Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can. You still haven't shown us where it says they can. I'll take your word for it...

yladiz 6y ago

Tangential: why did you put [sic] after its? "its" is correct there.

KineticLensman 6y ago
Yes. The way I remember this is that 'his' and 'her' don't have apostophes so neither does 'its' when used as a possessive.

littlestymaar 6y ago

> c) isn’t sold to or used in any adtech bs What makes you think so? Because the privacy policies you agreed on allows them to (in the the Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data section): >Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. Yes, that's it (there is an “Example” section following, but this is non-binding). Any kind of partner, for any kind of “other offering”. Partnering with any ad tech for selling ads complies with this clause. Also, as I'm not a native speaker, what's wrong with “spies on its[sic] users“? (Note that the original sentence was “operating system that spies on its users” not “Apple spies on its users”)

sbuk 6y ago
The difference, of course, is that if I message someone about an iPhone in messages.app, I'm not inundated with "targeted" ads for phones everywhere I go. Or, if I'm talking to someone about a recipe, my devices don't suddenly start displaying recipes (looking at you, Echo). Anonymized analytics, the type that Apple are informing you about in that document, are fine. Searching the App Store for a productivity app and being shown a single ad for a productivity app at the top of the search results is fine. What you are doing is trying to convince the world that the Emperor is naked, when in fact they merely have their top shirt button undone.
- littlestymaar 6y ago
  Displaying real-time targeted ads (1) isn't Apple Business for sure. Selling you health data to health insurance companies (2) fits their strategy much more, and by accepting their privacy policy, you allowed them to do it. I don't consider (2) less harmful than (1).
  - sbuk 6y ago
    Got any evidence, tangible or otherwise, of (2)?
    - littlestymaar 6y ago
      In French[1] (2014) linking to a Bloomberg link behind a paywall[2]. There's no evidence that they have done anything like this yet, but they at least considered it and their privacy policies allows it as soon as they decide it's worth it. And you wouldn't necessarily know it. Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can. [1]: https://www.numerama.com/magazine/30323-apple-approche-les-mutuelles-pour-divulguer-le-comportement-des-assures.html https://www.numerama.com/magazine/30323-apple-approche-les-m... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-21/wear-this-device-so-the-boss-knows-you-re-losing-weight https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-21/wear-this...
      - sbuk 6y ago
        So your first source (from 2014) is based on Withings working with AXA and is also speculation based on your second source, who's reporting it must be pointed out is of an extremely dubious nature (cf. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...) which has been debunked and vehemently refuted by all parties, including the very sources Bloomberg cite in the article. Sorry, no. Did Apple consider it? Possibly, in fact it almost a certainty. More importantly, did the act on it? No. Nothing wrong with exploring options. Let's not engage in slippery-slope hypotheses. > Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can. You still haven't shown us where it says they can. I'll take your word for it...