4 ms·

I am not going to enter a discussion on who rolled whatever first, whose userbase has the most up to date OS, or the like. iOS is not going to win any privacy a

I am not going to enter a discussion on who rolled whatever first, whose userbase has the most up to date OS, or the like. iOS is not going to win any privacy argument here anyway for the simple reason that at least I can de-googlefy Android. The point is that they make extremely similar promises that you can't verify. > You need to trust someone on a claim vs someone not making the claim at all... those are not the same thing. What is the difference between someone saying that your data is not visible to them (oh but you can't verify it!) versus someone saying that they will not touch or store your data after processing it on their privacy policy? When they control the entire platform, the fact that they claim to be doing something technical to prevent them from accessing the data is absolutely pointless. Even if it were true, they could be able to change it in an instant after a silent update (by themselves, by the government, or even by a third party attack!), and no one would be the wiser. > Apple hasn't shown a reason to lie, and here's no equivalent financial incentive to Google unless you think Apple Not sure I understand. In any case, most companies have already lied multiple times, and _all_ companies share at least one big reason to lie: Come tomorrow, some three letter agency could send them the letter and outright force them to capture your data, and since the only thing that prevents them from capturing your data is empty promises, they could do it in an instant. And would do it. And in fact do it regularly (TFA could in fact be an example of Apple trying to get rid of that). Btw, > I have literally never seen Google claim Google Photos is using on device classification, I have never put a SIM nor network credentials on my only Google Android device that has practically never abandoned my residence and yet it is tagging photos of objects. That's my source. I have not put a SIM either on my iOS devices and they do not tag pictures :)

BoorishBears 5y ago
I stopped reading at "what's the difference between a massive cover up of subverting the most basic tenants of how your systems are designed and never claiming those tenants in the first place". That's exactly what I just explained, and I don't enjoy these kinds of circular back and forth. If you feel like an OS where the biggest comfort is you can tear out it's core works best for you, go ahead. But I will point out starting your comment with "I'm not going to get into the most important aspects of how secure a modern platform" is not a ringing endorsement. - I work on embedded Android for a living, so it's not like I'm afraid if what I don't know or something, iOS is a demonstrably privacy-oriented platform. A mentality of privacy first even if it's just for the sake of marketing differentiation will always come ahead of a mentality of "data collection so we can sell ads", you're not going to change that for me with baseless insistence.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  > I stopped reading at "what's the difference between a massive cover up of subverting the most basic tenants of how your systems are designed and never claiming those tenants in the first place". I do not see who is "subverting the most basic tenants of how your systems are designed", and if this is trying to say that the other companies are never claiming those tenants in the first place, then that is objectively false. Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have claimed being "privacy first" more times than I count, and, my point is, they are all making similarly dubious promises regarding policy (like, closed-source encryption, no data sent unless you ask for it, etc.). > If you feel like an OS where the biggest comfort is you can tear out it's core works best for you, go ahead. This is misleading. Thing is, it is not "tearing out its core" precisely because Google services are actually _not_ at the core of Android, yet. You still cannot do that with iOS (because they do not allow tampering to begin with, least you figure out a way to avoid leaving a fingerprint in their servers). > "I'm not going to get into the most important aspects of how secure a modern platform" is not a ringing endorsement. First, none of the topics mentioned are the "most important aspects of how [to?] secure a modern platform". Second, I distinguish privacy from security. i.e. it doesn't matter if it was the most secure platform in the world if I have to trust all the data to a distrustful entity to begin with. In fact, I actually prefer privacy over security. E.g. for messaging, I value using servers _I_ control/trust much higher than E2EE encryption, which is definite secondary worry. Metadata is a dangerous thing to leak. > A mentality of privacy first even if it's just for the sake of marketing differentiation will always come ahead of a mentality of "data collection so we can sell ads", This is basically trying to answer "to whom I put my blind trust?", so it's subjective. But in my experience it is usually the most "privacy marketing" companies that are usually the worst regarding privacy. See most VPN resellers. Most privacy marketing is just bullshit.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    I can't tell if you're unintentionally talking past the points everyone else with, or if you just think that your personal preferences/thoughts/observations just supersede the reality everyone else lives in. Like > they are all making similarly dubious promises regarding policy (like, closed-source encryption, no data sent unless you ask for it, etc.). I just listed multiple of the most common pieces of software where Google and Apple make claims to wildly differing levels of privacy! Does your decision that none of that matters because both companies mention privacy in marketing somehow override reality? > First, none of the topics mentioned are the "most important aspects of how [to?] secure a modern platform". You're not sure if "to" is the missing word? And if you think the number of updated devices is not one of, if not the most important aspect of securing a modern platform, then your opinion on security doesn't matter. And contrary to your implications, privacy and security are not something you prefer over each other, privacy does not exist without security. > Second, I distinguish privacy from security. i.e. it doesn't matter if it was the most secure platform in the world if I have to trust all the data to a distrustful entity to begin with. It doesn't matter if you have the most private platform in the world if it's not secure? You can control all the servers you want, if they're not secure your privacy is even worse off than it'd be with a 3rd party at least trying to anonymize it for an ad platform... > This is basically trying to answer "to whom I put my blind trust?", so it's subjective. But in my experience it is usually the most "privacy marketing" companies that are usually the worst regarding privacy. See most VPN resellers. Most privacy marketing is just bullshit. Lol so your hunch based on VPNs is supposed to just supersede basic reasoning that if a company can profit off not selling your data wholesale, and is openly designing systems that do benefit your privacy... they're somehow less trustworthy than one that is openly selling your data and requires that they do to exist.

BoorishBears 5y ago

I stopped reading at "what's the difference between a massive cover up of subverting the most basic tenants of how your systems are designed and never claiming those tenants in the first place". That's exactly what I just explained, and I don't enjoy these kinds of circular back and forth. If you feel like an OS where the biggest comfort is you can tear out it's core works best for you, go ahead. But I will point out starting your comment with "I'm not going to get into the most important aspects of how secure a modern platform" is not a ringing endorsement. - I work on embedded Android for a living, so it's not like I'm afraid if what I don't know or something, iOS is a demonstrably privacy-oriented platform. A mentality of privacy first even if it's just for the sake of marketing differentiation will always come ahead of a mentality of "data collection so we can sell ads", you're not going to change that for me with baseless insistence.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> I stopped reading at "what's the difference between a massive cover up of subverting the most basic tenants of how your systems are designed and never claiming those tenants in the first place". I do not see who is "subverting the most basic tenants of how your systems are designed", and if this is trying to say that the other companies are never claiming those tenants in the first place, then that is objectively false. Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have claimed being "privacy first" more times than I count, and, my point is, they are all making similarly dubious promises regarding policy (like, closed-source encryption, no data sent unless you ask for it, etc.). > If you feel like an OS where the biggest comfort is you can tear out it's core works best for you, go ahead. This is misleading. Thing is, it is not "tearing out its core" precisely because Google services are actually _not_ at the core of Android, yet. You still cannot do that with iOS (because they do not allow tampering to begin with, least you figure out a way to avoid leaving a fingerprint in their servers). > "I'm not going to get into the most important aspects of how secure a modern platform" is not a ringing endorsement. First, none of the topics mentioned are the "most important aspects of how [to?] secure a modern platform". Second, I distinguish privacy from security. i.e. it doesn't matter if it was the most secure platform in the world if I have to trust all the data to a distrustful entity to begin with. In fact, I actually prefer privacy over security. E.g. for messaging, I value using servers _I_ control/trust much higher than E2EE encryption, which is definite secondary worry. Metadata is a dangerous thing to leak. > A mentality of privacy first even if it's just for the sake of marketing differentiation will always come ahead of a mentality of "data collection so we can sell ads", This is basically trying to answer "to whom I put my blind trust?", so it's subjective. But in my experience it is usually the most "privacy marketing" companies that are usually the worst regarding privacy. See most VPN resellers. Most privacy marketing is just bullshit.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  I can't tell if you're unintentionally talking past the points everyone else with, or if you just think that your personal preferences/thoughts/observations just supersede the reality everyone else lives in. Like > they are all making similarly dubious promises regarding policy (like, closed-source encryption, no data sent unless you ask for it, etc.). I just listed multiple of the most common pieces of software where Google and Apple make claims to wildly differing levels of privacy! Does your decision that none of that matters because both companies mention privacy in marketing somehow override reality? > First, none of the topics mentioned are the "most important aspects of how [to?] secure a modern platform". You're not sure if "to" is the missing word? And if you think the number of updated devices is not one of, if not the most important aspect of securing a modern platform, then your opinion on security doesn't matter. And contrary to your implications, privacy and security are not something you prefer over each other, privacy does not exist without security. > Second, I distinguish privacy from security. i.e. it doesn't matter if it was the most secure platform in the world if I have to trust all the data to a distrustful entity to begin with. It doesn't matter if you have the most private platform in the world if it's not secure? You can control all the servers you want, if they're not secure your privacy is even worse off than it'd be with a 3rd party at least trying to anonymize it for an ad platform... > This is basically trying to answer "to whom I put my blind trust?", so it's subjective. But in my experience it is usually the most "privacy marketing" companies that are usually the worst regarding privacy. See most VPN resellers. Most privacy marketing is just bullshit. Lol so your hunch based on VPNs is supposed to just supersede basic reasoning that if a company can profit off not selling your data wholesale, and is openly designing systems that do benefit your privacy... they're somehow less trustworthy than one that is openly selling your data and requires that they do to exist.