4 ms·

> 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 claimin

> 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.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  > I just listed multiple of the most common pieces of software where Google and Apple make claims to wildly differing levels of privacy! Wildly different? Apple claims E2EE, Google claims E2EE, _Facebook_ of all companies claims E2EE! Did it really change it your opinion of Whatsapp the fact that they claim E2EE? Everyone just laughed and forgot. Whatsapp is going to E2EE your chats right until they moment they don't, and without warning, and you have no way to check! Why take Apple's word differently? They also lied multiple times already! (e.g. Jabber federation) > 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. I am not sure why my "opinion on security" would be relevant but I for sure think that _ability to verify the security claims_ ranks much higher than anything that has been mentioned so far, including "software updates" of unknown content. > 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 The example is just to show the difference between security and privacy. Your analogy is creating a false association since I can just keep my data offline. > Lol And you have the incorrect "hunch" that Apple is not a services company. And that they design systems that "benefit your privacy". They only design systems that tie you to _their_ systems. Wake me up when they design something that doesn't, which would start to look like real privacy.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    I take back what I said, it must be intentional. Like, I spoke about some very specific features, and now you've literally reduced it to "E2EE"... like the entire honking app that it's built around doesn't matter. If you won't accept that Android's carrier-dependent, 1:1 only RCS app isn't equivalent to iMessage, then there's nothing to talk about. > The example is just to show the difference between security and privacy. Your analogy is creating a false association since I can just keep my data offline. How do you keep a messaging app offline. > And you have the incorrect "hunch" that Apple is not a services company. And that they design systems that "benefit your privacy". They only design systems that tie you to _their_ systems. Wake me up when they design something that doesn't, which would start to look like real privacy. Do you even knows what you're talking about? Or Apple is 100% a services company that's the whole point. They're a public company, following the money is easy, they make a lot of money off selling people services and hardware. Meanwhile Google makes most of it's money selling people's data. It's not rocket science figuring out which is easier to trust, but you just seem hellbent on rationalizing your opinions with more opinions stated as fact and vague paranoia. That's your right, but don't be surprised if people call you out on it!

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.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> I just listed multiple of the most common pieces of software where Google and Apple make claims to wildly differing levels of privacy! Wildly different? Apple claims E2EE, Google claims E2EE, _Facebook_ of all companies claims E2EE! Did it really change it your opinion of Whatsapp the fact that they claim E2EE? Everyone just laughed and forgot. Whatsapp is going to E2EE your chats right until they moment they don't, and without warning, and you have no way to check! Why take Apple's word differently? They also lied multiple times already! (e.g. Jabber federation) > 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. I am not sure why my "opinion on security" would be relevant but I for sure think that _ability to verify the security claims_ ranks much higher than anything that has been mentioned so far, including "software updates" of unknown content. > 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 The example is just to show the difference between security and privacy. Your analogy is creating a false association since I can just keep my data offline. > Lol And you have the incorrect "hunch" that Apple is not a services company. And that they design systems that "benefit your privacy". They only design systems that tie you to _their_ systems. Wake me up when they design something that doesn't, which would start to look like real privacy.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  I take back what I said, it must be intentional. Like, I spoke about some very specific features, and now you've literally reduced it to "E2EE"... like the entire honking app that it's built around doesn't matter. If you won't accept that Android's carrier-dependent, 1:1 only RCS app isn't equivalent to iMessage, then there's nothing to talk about. > The example is just to show the difference between security and privacy. Your analogy is creating a false association since I can just keep my data offline. How do you keep a messaging app offline. > And you have the incorrect "hunch" that Apple is not a services company. And that they design systems that "benefit your privacy". They only design systems that tie you to _their_ systems. Wake me up when they design something that doesn't, which would start to look like real privacy. Do you even knows what you're talking about? Or Apple is 100% a services company that's the whole point. They're a public company, following the money is easy, they make a lot of money off selling people services and hardware. Meanwhile Google makes most of it's money selling people's data. It's not rocket science figuring out which is easier to trust, but you just seem hellbent on rationalizing your opinions with more opinions stated as fact and vague paranoia. That's your right, but don't be surprised if people call you out on it!