8 ms·

The headline is editorialized, which isn't surprising considering the biased news source. You can see in the body of the article, Apple is _stifling_ competiti

The headline is editorialized, which isn't surprising considering the biased news source. You can see in the body of the article, Apple is _stifling_ competition, which is what the antitrust is about. The headline reduces it to "stave off" to make it appear harmless. I'm glad this is being pointed out, as Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. The main aim has not been privacy, it has always been to lock users into their ecosystem with carefully controlled images, misleading advertising campaigns, PR spins, and their analogues/equivalents to "think of the children". Realistically, I do not have any hope of anything being done as there is far too much support for, and normalization of, the current jail. This isn't the same landscape that punished MS many years ago - who have been relatively harmless when compared to FB, Apple and Google - these three companies have been playing a slightly more clever game with their EU ties and I fully expect them to get away with little more than a slap on the wrist, while relaxing in their tax haven.

CharlesW 5y ago
> …Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. If you listen to the interview, the actual message from Cook is "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data. Maybe I'm missing something from a different source. Where has Apple said, "privacy can be obtained by giving up privacy"?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Of course Apple doesn't say that explicitly. That stance in implicit in Apples refusal to users to install without Apple's knowledge (i.e. use other app storea) and their many measure to force apple product users to pay for amy software features or services outside Apple's ecosystem.
- ampdepolymerase 5y ago
  They pretend to care about consumer privacy by only encrypting on device and at the same time hand data over to governments through unencrypted iCloud backups.
  - srtjstjsj 5y ago
    That's a user choice. iCloud supports storage if encrypted data and disabling unencrypted backups. It's fine that you reject the legitimacy of government, but unreasonable to expect huge organizations to do the same while serving hundreds of millions of users.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted. It seems to me that either you keep the key that’s used to encrypt the data or Apple does. If Apple keeps the key then they have to comply with subpoenas. If you keep the key then you’re on the hook to not lose it which is a big ask for non-technical users (I’ve seen lots of technical users lose important keys too). Am I missing something?
      - saagarjha 5y ago
        Apple doesn’t let you keep the key but give them your encrypted data.
    - mcfedr 5y ago
      So they let you choose how much privacy you have with all you backed up data,but if the choice of privacy might also let someone compete with Apple it's not a choice the user can make
- saurik 5y ago
  Well, I want decentralized peer-to-peer networks and the ability to pay for things using currencies like Monero and Zcash; only, to build the tools that make that world happen, I can't only build apps and platforms that only work for half the potential users: the network effects simply don't work like that :/. And yet, Apple insists that, for their own good, all push notifications for users must go through their servers--requiring apps to always have centralized backends, which they currently often outsource to Google or Amazon, further centralizing all data collection--and all payments for all products everywhere by anyone must be made with centralized credit cards through Apple's payment processor. I mean, this is the same company that implemented a feature that causes your computer to phone home to Apple every time you run a program, which they also claim is for your own good? Even the entire setup of their centralized App Store makes them a tool of oppressive governments to do further surveillance on their population, providing centralized chokepoints--ones that only exist because of Apple: Android phones that are marketed to these same regions do not have these issues, proving Apple's excuses are lies--to ban applications such a scam VPNs. The whole situation is ridiculous: centralized systems are inherently anti-private, if not in the short term then in the long term as their incentives wear out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms
  - srtjstjsj 5y ago
    Privacy is not the same as anonymity. Confidentiality is a technique for offering a degree of privacy without anonymity. Offering services to fully anonymous counterparties is fraught with challenges. Android is extremely vulnerable to third party attackers via apps. > I can't only build apps and platforms that only work for half the potential users. Are you sure even close to half of your potential users use (exclusively) iOS? I severely doubt that. Exactly for the reasons you mention, people who want self-managed security don't use iOS.
    - novok 5y ago
      If you're a mobile developer, the market numbers are pretty well known. About %50 in the USA is iOS & %15-%20 is iOS internationally. And even in the international case, that %15-20 is around +%50 of the REVENUE. iOS users pay way more and these facts have been fairly stable for years. And what apple is doing is not giving their customers and users a choice other than an extremely radical one of abandoning the platform completely.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  What OP meant was that Apple has access to, and does datamine our personal information on every Apple devices. They sell the idea that Apple is the only "trustworthy" entity capable of handling and protecting your data, so you can trust them with your data and you should ignore how they are datamining it (because they are "trustworthy").
  - srtjstjsj 5y ago
    What personal data does Apple data mine?
    - simonh 5y ago
      The do data mine user information, if given permission, but they anonymise it first.
    - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
      According to their privacy policy, virtually anything you send them. The only promise they make is that they don't link it in an identifiable way with third party data.
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      Location traffic data. How do you think Apple Maps shows traffic flow on the most minor side streets?
      - simondotau 5y ago
        Location data used by Maps is aggressively anonymized prior to being collated.[1] By the time Apple has a "mine" of data to collate for Maps, it has no practical privacy implications and is no longer usefully described as "user data". At most you could describe it as user-derived. [1] https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/13/apple-maps-navigation-privacy/ https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/13/apple-maps-navigati...
      - spideymans 5y ago
        That traffic data is opt-in. You're asked if you want to participate when setting up a new iPhone.
- SquishyPanda23 5y ago
  > "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data. This doesn't seem to be true. Privacy here means "user privacy" whereas security means the security of the systems holding the user data. Almost any system that hold large amounts of user data is a counter example. Such systems are typically highly secured but are antagonistic to user privacy.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    You are correct that privacy is not necessary for security. But here, Apple is arguing that security is necessary for privacy. This seems to me obviously true. If a system isn't secure, it cannot safely store private data. Think about this in the extreme: imagine your computation platform is a virtual machine on a hypervisor controlled by your adversary. There would be no way to use this platform to safely interact with your private data.
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    It is definitely true. A good example, since we are talking about Apple is "the fappening". A massive leak of celebrity photos, including nudes, coming from compromised personal iCloud accounts. It is an obvious attack on privacy, made possible by poor security. Now, you can tell me that the best way to respect privacy is not to store user data, and it certainly helps, but if your software is insecure, it may be used to harvest passwords or do all sorts of nasty stuff. In other words, maybe you don't store anything but hackers will. You can't guarantee privacy without security. And even for companies with poor privacy practices, with security, only authorized people can spy on you, without it, anyone can do it.
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      That’s a pretty poor example considering we’re talking about a spearphishing campaign.
heavyset_go 5y ago
MS is (slowly) reading off of the same script when it comes to security on Windows, as well.
purpmint008 5y ago
Apple sells you privacy from everyone but Apple. When are they going to allow us to opt out of the baseline telemetry that we cannot opt out of as per their EULAs? When are they going to make their own ad targeting network opt-in instead of opt-out? When are they going to give us the option of full E2EE for our iCloud data?
- simondotau 5y ago
  > Apple sells you privacy from everyone but Apple. What you have just described sounds like a really good product to me since Apple themselves are not a vector in my privacy threat model.
  - purpmint008 5y ago
    > Apple themselves are not a vector in my privacy threat model Mostly the same here. But, when their ad-targeting goes fully online? When they hand over your data due to a lawsuit you didn't expect?
    - simondotau 5y ago
      There's no limit to the scenarios you could posit as a hypothetical. What if the US Government had a backdoor in every Wi-Fi chip (which works even if you don't load drivers for it) and a brutal exploit for SHA-256? Hey, it's possible. And there goes your façade of security.

CharlesW 5y ago

> …Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. If you listen to the interview, the actual message from Cook is "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data. Maybe I'm missing something from a different source. Where has Apple said, "privacy can be obtained by giving up privacy"?

shkkmo 5y ago
Of course Apple doesn't say that explicitly. That stance in implicit in Apples refusal to users to install without Apple's knowledge (i.e. use other app storea) and their many measure to force apple product users to pay for amy software features or services outside Apple's ecosystem.
ampdepolymerase 5y ago
They pretend to care about consumer privacy by only encrypting on device and at the same time hand data over to governments through unencrypted iCloud backups.
- srtjstjsj 5y ago
  That's a user choice. iCloud supports storage if encrypted data and disabling unencrypted backups. It's fine that you reject the legitimacy of government, but unreasonable to expect huge organizations to do the same while serving hundreds of millions of users.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted. It seems to me that either you keep the key that’s used to encrypt the data or Apple does. If Apple keeps the key then they have to comply with subpoenas. If you keep the key then you’re on the hook to not lose it which is a big ask for non-technical users (I’ve seen lots of technical users lose important keys too). Am I missing something?
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      Apple doesn’t let you keep the key but give them your encrypted data.
  - mcfedr 5y ago
    So they let you choose how much privacy you have with all you backed up data,but if the choice of privacy might also let someone compete with Apple it's not a choice the user can make
saurik 5y ago
Well, I want decentralized peer-to-peer networks and the ability to pay for things using currencies like Monero and Zcash; only, to build the tools that make that world happen, I can't only build apps and platforms that only work for half the potential users: the network effects simply don't work like that :/. And yet, Apple insists that, for their own good, all push notifications for users must go through their servers--requiring apps to always have centralized backends, which they currently often outsource to Google or Amazon, further centralizing all data collection--and all payments for all products everywhere by anyone must be made with centralized credit cards through Apple's payment processor. I mean, this is the same company that implemented a feature that causes your computer to phone home to Apple every time you run a program, which they also claim is for your own good? Even the entire setup of their centralized App Store makes them a tool of oppressive governments to do further surveillance on their population, providing centralized chokepoints--ones that only exist because of Apple: Android phones that are marketed to these same regions do not have these issues, proving Apple's excuses are lies--to ban applications such a scam VPNs. The whole situation is ridiculous: centralized systems are inherently anti-private, if not in the short term then in the long term as their incentives wear out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms
- srtjstjsj 5y ago
  Privacy is not the same as anonymity. Confidentiality is a technique for offering a degree of privacy without anonymity. Offering services to fully anonymous counterparties is fraught with challenges. Android is extremely vulnerable to third party attackers via apps. > I can't only build apps and platforms that only work for half the potential users. Are you sure even close to half of your potential users use (exclusively) iOS? I severely doubt that. Exactly for the reasons you mention, people who want self-managed security don't use iOS.
  - novok 5y ago
    If you're a mobile developer, the market numbers are pretty well known. About %50 in the USA is iOS & %15-%20 is iOS internationally. And even in the international case, that %15-20 is around +%50 of the REVENUE. iOS users pay way more and these facts have been fairly stable for years. And what apple is doing is not giving their customers and users a choice other than an extremely radical one of abandoning the platform completely.
webmobdev 5y ago
What OP meant was that Apple has access to, and does datamine our personal information on every Apple devices. They sell the idea that Apple is the only "trustworthy" entity capable of handling and protecting your data, so you can trust them with your data and you should ignore how they are datamining it (because they are "trustworthy").
- srtjstjsj 5y ago
  What personal data does Apple data mine?
  - simonh 5y ago
    The do data mine user information, if given permission, but they anonymise it first.
  - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
    According to their privacy policy, virtually anything you send them. The only promise they make is that they don't link it in an identifiable way with third party data.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    Location traffic data. How do you think Apple Maps shows traffic flow on the most minor side streets?
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Location data used by Maps is aggressively anonymized prior to being collated.[1] By the time Apple has a "mine" of data to collate for Maps, it has no practical privacy implications and is no longer usefully described as "user data". At most you could describe it as user-derived. [1] https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/13/apple-maps-navigation-privacy/ https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/13/apple-maps-navigati...
    - spideymans 5y ago
      That traffic data is opt-in. You're asked if you want to participate when setting up a new iPhone.
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
> "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data. This doesn't seem to be true. Privacy here means "user privacy" whereas security means the security of the systems holding the user data. Almost any system that hold large amounts of user data is a counter example. Such systems are typically highly secured but are antagonistic to user privacy.
- simondotau 5y ago
  You are correct that privacy is not necessary for security. But here, Apple is arguing that security is necessary for privacy. This seems to me obviously true. If a system isn't secure, it cannot safely store private data. Think about this in the extreme: imagine your computation platform is a virtual machine on a hypervisor controlled by your adversary. There would be no way to use this platform to safely interact with your private data.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  It is definitely true. A good example, since we are talking about Apple is "the fappening". A massive leak of celebrity photos, including nudes, coming from compromised personal iCloud accounts. It is an obvious attack on privacy, made possible by poor security. Now, you can tell me that the best way to respect privacy is not to store user data, and it certainly helps, but if your software is insecure, it may be used to harvest passwords or do all sorts of nasty stuff. In other words, maybe you don't store anything but hackers will. You can't guarantee privacy without security. And even for companies with poor privacy practices, with security, only authorized people can spy on you, without it, anyone can do it.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    That’s a pretty poor example considering we’re talking about a spearphishing campaign.

heavyset_go 5y ago

MS is (slowly) reading off of the same script when it comes to security on Windows, as well.

purpmint008 5y ago

Apple sells you privacy from everyone but Apple. When are they going to allow us to opt out of the baseline telemetry that we cannot opt out of as per their EULAs? When are they going to make their own ad targeting network opt-in instead of opt-out? When are they going to give us the option of full E2EE for our iCloud data?

simondotau 5y ago
> Apple sells you privacy from everyone but Apple. What you have just described sounds like a really good product to me since Apple themselves are not a vector in my privacy threat model.
- purpmint008 5y ago
  > Apple themselves are not a vector in my privacy threat model Mostly the same here. But, when their ad-targeting goes fully online? When they hand over your data due to a lawsuit you didn't expect?
  - simondotau 5y ago
    There's no limit to the scenarios you could posit as a hypothetical. What if the US Government had a backdoor in every Wi-Fi chip (which works even if you don't load drivers for it) and a brutal exploit for SHA-256? Hey, it's possible. And there goes your façade of security.