18 ms·

Apple Is Normalising Surveillance

307 points by freddyym 5y ago

throwawaymanbot 5y ago
(This thread seems hijacked already. The top comments are all missing the point to the degree I have to wonder if people are thick or it’s a PR hit team for Apple.) Conflating tracking cookies with surveillance instruments such as phone/device scanning at all times is absolute gibbonry.
willseth 5y ago
Clickbait
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dopamean 5y ago
I'd argue that CCTV everywhere in the UK has done more to normalize surveillance than what Apple is currently doing. I still don't love the trend I'm seeing in tech though.
raxxorrax 5y ago
To be honest, I think this is better for Apple users at this point.
threatofrain 5y ago
This is just a collection of generic arguments against technology, as opposed to an article offering insight about Apple. Then they stuck Apple's name on it and there's the article.
- coldtea 5y ago
  The article is full of particular example of what Apple is doing, and explains how Apple is doing it (collecting more info) while touting "more pricacy".
  - drexlspivey 5y ago
    The digitization of text from photos happens on device and not sent to any remote server afaik. However the article dismisses it and equates it to surveillance because > All of these features increase the amount of data collected. This looks like a cheap attempt to FUD, I don’t see how this feature has anything to do with surveillance.
    - m4rtink 5y ago
      All the locally running software doing this is proprietary, how do we can be so sure what it really does withou inspecting its source code (and making sure it corresponds to the on device binaries) ?
      - drexlspivey 5y ago
        This can be said for all software, even open source. Nothing about that is specific to Apple.
      - quenix 5y ago
        You own the network your device is on and you can see what it sends over the wire. Inspect network traffic if you wish. With the billions of iOS devices running around the planet and with the fact that it just takes one person to blow the whistle on this sort of data collection, I just don't buy the argument that it might have been happening this whole time... purely on the basis that things happen sometimes.
        krageon 5y ago
        You cannot practically do this in the age of certificate pinning. All you can say is that a smartphone communicates, which should be obvious. What it is communicating is frequently unknown.
      - masswerk 5y ago
        You can just disable any network connections and see, if the service still works. Text recognition in images (Live text/Vision framework) does. Now you could obviously say, "Who knows about any logs, and whether they are secretly transferring them as soon as there is any network connection or not?" Well, this is another topic, namely this of basic trust, and applies to any application and any vendor. (And, if your business is operating systems, living up to this trust may be a vital business decision. In contrast to some vendor of a random app, there's a strong incentive to do so.)
- fundad 5y ago
  Anything a digital camera can do is the fault of the first company to sell them: Apple or the company that sells the most: Apple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbBqbONm1_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbBqbONm1_Q
arthur6667 5y ago
What a terrible article. The premise is 'they offer features that use data & say they keep it secure. but what if they actually don't' Seriously?
- dx034 5y ago
  Especially as iPhones tend to do more calculations and AI on the device compared to competitors.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Yes, seriously. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" is a very legitimate and serious question. Not to mention, it doesn't matter if they actually "do" keep it secure, themselves, as a company, would still have access to all this information.
  - masswerk 5y ago
    The problem with this article is that is poorly researched. Most of the services listed are running locally and storage is also local. (Things might change with automatic remote backups, but this is not what's addressed in the article.) E.g., the Vision frameworks subjects any images to a local (built-in) neural network and returns the scanned text, which is then most probably put into the system clipboard. How is this surveillance, but copy-and-paste in MS Word was not?
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >The problem with this article is that is poorly researched. Most of the services listed are running locally and storage is also local. It's also part of the backup to iCloud, which is not encrypted, no?
      - masswerk 5y ago
        > "iCloud secures your information by encrypting it when it's in transit and storing it in iCloud in an encrypted format. Many Apple services use end-to-end encryption, which means that only you can access your information, and only on trusted devices where you’re signed in with your Apple ID." https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 Edit: Mind that this would still apply much the same to copy-and-paste in MS Word and any (encrypted) remote backups of the resulting documents. Where is the significant difference? Also mind that iCloud backups are not mandatory, but yet another (optional) service.
tchalla 5y ago
> The new iPhone operating system, iOS 15, can digitise text in photos, enabling users to copy and paste text from an image, or call a phone number that appears in a picture. Scanning nearby buildings with an iPhone will make Maps recognise them and generate walking directions. Algorithms will identify objects in real-time video, and it will be possible to turn photos into 3D models for augmented reality. And users will now be able to carry their IDs in their phone. All of these features increase the amount of data collected. The basic premise of the article is that : more data -> more surveillance. Certainly, this could be possible. However, is there a way to collect more data and yet not increase surveillance? > Apple created the Bluetooth beacons tracking people in shops, gyms, hotels, airports and more by connecting to their phones. I think, this is where the author lost me. The contact tracing protocol for Covid was anything but more surveillance. This is what happens when you buy into simplistic narratives.
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't understand how people can doublethink so easily about contact tracing. Of course it's surveillance, and it's extremely invasive. You can argue that it's worth it, but to pretend surveillance that you like isn't surveillance is intellectually dishonest.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > how people can doublethink so easily It is really fascinating. It is nothing but surveillance of course. This time it actually may increase security in contrast to most programs government implemented. The difference is that the user has to consent to it, it is transparent and there is the possibility to just shut it off again. That will never happen with hidden data collection by third parties of any kind.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  I think contact tracing is by definition more surveillence (even when reasonably private). It's just a question of how much value it actually adds during times of crisis like COVID. Then it's a matter of precedence.
beermonster 5y ago
“ If Apple is serious about privacy, it should offer an iPhone model for the privacy-conscious: one without facial recognition and without encryption-breaking tools, one in which it is easy to cover the camera, and in which the microphone can be mechanically turned off, among other features. If we want to keep our democracies in the digital age, we need to set limits on what gets tracked. “ So they want Apple to manufacture the Librem 5?[1] [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
- richardwhiuk 5y ago
  You can't easily cover the camera in the Librem 5. The lack of coherent vulnerability tracking makes me suspect you'll be compromised by whoever anyway.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > You can't easily cover the camera in the Librem 5 Librem 5 has a microphone/camera hardware kill switch.
- dx034 5y ago
  I'm even sure Apple would offer it if there was demand. But for the few thousands a year you can sell, it's easier to have 3rd party companies modify existing iPhones/Androids.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsflover 5y ago
    You can't modify an iPhone/Android such that it runs 100% free software.
  - fundad 5y ago
    Yeah if there was enough of a market that Apple sold them, it would be much cheaper than the current cost to make these low-volume Librem devices, not to mention the domestically assembled one for $2000
schleck8 5y ago
Some highlights from the Wired cookie popup: Audience Measurement Targeting Cookies Social Media Cookies Store and/or access information on a device Create a personalised ads profile Select personalised ads Create a personalised content profile Select personalised content Measure ad performance Measure content performance Apply market research to generate audience insights Use precise geolocation data Actively scan device characteristics for identification Link different devices Receive and use automatically-sent device characteristics for identification
- webmobdev 5y ago
  This seems like a deflection - every media platform on the internet relies on the advertising platforms of BigTech in some way. Ultimately, all your data end up there somehow.
  - medstrom 5y ago
    Yes, it's not very relevant for an opinion piece how and where it's published. I could make a video that criticises YouTube and it still makes sense to put it on YouTube.
  - krageon 5y ago
    This is fatalistic and wrong. There are plenty of platforms that do not sell you out in this manner (personal blogs run by ethical people exist, for one) and the platforms that do not deserve to be called out for their bad behaviour.
    - webmobdev 5y ago
      Ok, I get that some of you think it is hypocritical. Now that has been exposed - Does that mean the article is irrelevant? Do the facts change that Apple has been shifting and redefining its stance on user privacy and data collection to suit its business at the expense of its users privacy?
      - krageon 5y ago
xyz11 5y ago
https://www.crewscale.com/ https://www.crewscale.com/
lewisflude 5y ago
I think this is clickbait. The future of tech is really scary and I fully empathise with that. These new societal problems around data tracking, and the ability to process that data do need to be solved, but trying to skirt around problematic technologies when solving user problems is not sustainable. I think at least articles like this are good because they create a conversation. Many people who read HN are software engineers, and we all collectively bear at least a little responsibility to make good ethical choices around the tech we use and develop.
Otek 5y ago
Users normalised surveillance by buying cheap Android phones from brands like Xiaomi, Huawei and others without thinking about real price of such device - data. Also by buying "smart" devices from these brands. Xiaomi Vacuum can gather tons of informations about home. Air Purifier also. But try to find products of similar quality for an equally low price and you will be faced with the choice of either overpaying or being added to the millions of people who are being tracked anyway. You will become a statistic. No wonder most people don't see any danger in this. Dilution of responsibility.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Xiaomi Vacuum can gather tons of informations about home. Air Purifier also" Google ads know your age, location, and tons of personal information. Thats enough info for identify fraud. What does the Air purifier send, level of dust? It does not even know where it is.
  - d3nj4l 5y ago
    > It does not even know where it is. How difficult would it be to add a GPS to one of those? At any rate, "smart" purifiers like the one GP is talking about connect to WiFi etc and are definitely able to find out your location.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      GPS doesn't work indoors, and even if it did, what then? What are you gonna do with indoor dust levels?
      - detaro 5y ago
        air quality sensors are not a bad proxy of activity patterns. (now does that have any value? good question, and probably very much "depends". Probably does in the sense of things like law enforcement requesting data from siri etc for criminal cases, to feed into advertising targeting it's only a tiny datapoint)
- 5y ago
nbzso 5y ago
Apple lost me as a customer completely with CSAM this year. But I am thankful because I dramatically reduced my smartphone usage to incidental and mandatory use-cases. For me this is a strictly personal stance. People will continue to fall into deep surveillance state not just because only “Nothing to hide” false assumptions. Governments love access to citizens data and partnership with corporations is guaranteed. On a professional level I “trust” only FOSS software with network access, the others will be air-gaped as much as possible.
- sbacic 5y ago
  I agree. I've been meaning to buy an Apple laptop to develop on for years now and constantly kept putting it off; first because of quality concerns that have no place in a device with such a price tag and now because of this. If only there was a Linux-compatible laptop with specs similar to the M1. The only thing that comes to mind are Thinkpads and those things are ugly as hell.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    Not really similar specs to M1, but: https://puri.sm/products/librem-14 https://puri.sm/products/librem-14.
    - nbzso 5y ago
      I use PureOS on old Macbook Air for casual browsing with Hardened Firefox and Emacs for RSS/Org-mode and it runs very smoothly. Moved office to Arch/Manjaro, Win VM’s in isolation for design tasks. M advancements of Apple are not so critical when considering cost per performance. There is no denying their advancements, but who knows what’s going on inside this architecture. Some will say that I am overeating, but since reading Trusting trust (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...) I shifted my mind towards Raptor Computers direction. The prices are high but paying for open hardware is smart investment in the current climate.
      - 5y ago
camillomiller 5y ago
Let me explain to you as a journalist how this works. - Facebook is under fire for its leaked papers. - Google is a hot topic because of the lawsuit that reveals collusion with Facebook. - Apple is relatively free of controversy recently after the CSAM blunder. Then let’s cook up a controversial piece on the other behemoth to cater the big chunk of readers that thinks and wants to see that Apple is evil too, “because of course they are and here is why”. Is this based on facts or on a simplistic interpretation of tech? Who cares!
- h2odragon 5y ago
  We're due for some more "Microsoft is Evil" stories soon, too.
mcphage 5y ago
> Apple’s usage of Face ID as a way to unlock the iPhone has contributed to normalising facial recognition. I do t know what their definition of “surveillance” is, but if it includes Face ID, then it’s not a very useful one.
- 28999357 5y ago
  I think the logic goes something like this: Apple is a trusted brand for privacy. Even if FaceID is harmless in terms of surveillance potential, it still associates positively in the minds of users, such that when other vendors — or even the government - decide that they want to use it to, and not with the same on-device protection, etc - people will accept it willingly because it was safe when they did it with Apple. I agree with other commenters here that these arguments lead to a sort of infinite regression. All of the things Apple has implemented is rather old tech by now. If we accept those as surveillance, we practically can’t have anything. Which sucks. Apple is trusted now. But they might not always be. They could go the way of their competitors. Then where would we be?
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
By this definition, making anything that CAN be used for surveillance is normalizing surveillance. I'm tired of this stupid debate and the way its framed. Over the last decade we have made absolutely incredible leaps in technology by any standard. By nature all new technology comes with the potential to do both good and bad, and usually it does a bit of both. But making technology on its own is not a bad thing. Lying about it and/or actively ignoring the impact it has on society the way Google and Facebook did is. Conflating technology itself with shitty morals is dumb. When you build a society where people worship money & fame instead of kindness or sincerity or any moral virtue at all, some people will do literally anything to maximize the $$$ and your society is fucked. It has nothing to do with technology. Go look at the salary threads here or discords full of new grads gaming out total compensations in excruciating detail instead of even considering for a second what impact the company has on the world. They have been taught nothing but capitalism, they know nothing but chase money. Some of them will not flinch in doing the same shit again at some other company 10 years down the line. Even speaking about morality is preaching, old-fashioned, religious, uncool, and dumb now so what do you expect. The best answer the media converged on last time was "hire more humanities students/ teach engineers more literature" as if anyone needs a college course to be taught that lying is wrong.
- azangru 5y ago
  > When you build a society where people worship money & fame instead of kindness or sincerity or any moral virtue at all, some people will do literally anything to maximize the $$$ and your society is fucked Some people will maximize the $$$ in any society. It's how to make the strive for the $$$ the most beneficial and the least destructive that is the challenge.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Simple solution - make being rich a crime punishable by death. It worked pretty well for 18th century France.
- fundad 5y ago
  Warby Parker normalizes surveillance and who makes pencils? Them too.
bsedlm 5y ago
I recall some articles about schools doing this too.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bni 5y ago
You have two choices: 1. Trust one of the Big-Tech platforms. Use all the conveniences that it provides, such as Cloud storage, integration between devices, etc. Trust them with not leaking/selling your data (or maybe you are ok with this?). You can be damn sure they will analyze your data, for yours and theirs benefit. OR: 2. Local computing with Debian (or preferred alternative). Participate in reviewing the source code that runs on your machine. Store data locally in your computer or NAS at home network. Do the boring work yourself. You cant really have "no surveillance" and cloud services at the same time.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  what about encrypting your data before backing it up to a cloud service?
  - bni 5y ago
    Sure, but I would categorize that as under option 2.
  - gaius_baltar 5y ago
    That's my approach: cloud is just a dumb storage for backups, these services should not have access to the plaintext data.
    - xanaxagoras 5y ago
      shout out to duplicati, makes this super easy
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    That's really just #2 because you are not really taking advantage of any of the cloud services besides storage - which is the cheapest and least innovative cloud service.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  Agreed, I chose (1) because after introspection I genuinely prefer the convenience given the tradeoffs. But I have the knowledge to pursue (2) at any point (right now my home linux server just acts as a pi-hole -- but it can do so much more if ever needed). Unfortunately, most people aren't aware they even have a choice, or what the tradeoffs are. I would love to see option (2) more accessible to the average Joe, but I know better than to expect that will ever happen.
3grdlurker 5y ago
Not a US citizen, but what’s noticeably lacking in discussions about surveillance (such as this one) is faulting the very government that’s pressuring companies to comply with state surveillance programs. Doesn’t matter how big you are or how much you’re worth—if your interests do not align with the state you’re not above its power.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  No kidding. The US government has been involved in domestic mass surveillance for about a quarter century now (see Carnivore), predating the pretext given by the terror attacks of 2001. When this was getting off the ground in the 90s, my recollection is that the criticism (if any) one found in the media was oblique. Any surprise that we now have surveillance capitalism?
yboris 5y ago
The author of the article, Carissa Véliz, also wrote a great book Privacy is Power: https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/1787634043 https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/...
Winsaucerer 5y ago
This article might lead a reader to think that surveillance is in itself a problem, using terms like ‘invasive’, and ‘normalising’ (as though the thing being ‘normalised’ is undesirable). While it does appear to distinguish between surveillance and breach of privacy, it doesn’t do so carefully enough. What I actually want are devices that let me surveil MORE of my life, but in ways that respect my privacy, that leave me in control of that data. There are so many benefits that we can receive if companies/software/products were to offer us greater insights(/‘invasive surveillance’) into our lives without breaching our privacy or trust. When I am surveilling my own life, with devices that only share my data in ways I happily consent to, there is no problem. I can reap great benefits through this. I can take photos of myself and my family. I can monitor my heart through a device on my wrist. I can write personal notes in a journal (whether on paper or digitised) for later reflection. I can keep a history of sites I’ve visited in my browser. What a company like Apple claims to be doing is to try and bring us the benefits of surveillance without the breaches of privacy — without the forced and reluctant consent to share our data with everyone. Surveillance isn’t the enemy, it’s companies trying to make a product out of that data that really we’d prefer not to share at all.
simonh 5y ago
It's odd Wired calls out Apple in particular. For almost every technology Apple works on, like the ones the article discusses that that in theory they _could_ use for surveillance, Google or Facebook is already ten steps ahead _actually_ using it for surveillance.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
In terms of normizing surveillance, Apple is late to the party. The truth is "personalization" is a euphemism for surveillance. This language slight of hand has been popular with Google, Amazon, etc. Per "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism", it's not the surveillance to fear per se, it's how our own meta data and such is being used against us. Now. This info isn't simply predicting behaviour, it's being used to alter and modify our behaviour. I'm not giving Apple a free pass. But to call out Apple and not the others gives the masses a false sense of truth. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-under-surveillance-capitalism-on-the-media https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...
throwawayswede 5y ago
What's ironic is that the first thing you see when you hit wired.co.uk: > Wired > We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as unique IDs in cookies to process personal data. You may accept or manage your choices by clicking below or at any time in the privacy policy page. These choices will be signaled to our partners and will not affect browsing data.View Cookie Notice We and our partners process data to provide: > Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Create a personalised content profile. Select personalised content. Measure ad performance. Measure content performance. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Develop and improve products. It really irks me that they blind to how majorly hypocritical they seem when write stuff like that on a crappy journal like this. Technology journalism died in early 2010s and never came back.
lilactown 5y ago
I think the article comes off to many here as anti-technology because it doesn't continue past the thesis: Apple's vast amount of unilateral control over devices and software gives it the ability to surveil the population in ways that were not possible before. It then goes on to suggest a very consumer-centric way of addressing this, through a special iPhone that's more privacy-centric. This ignores two big things we have to address when thinking about mass data collection. 1. The ability to collect data at scale unlocks capabilities that simply weren't possible before. There are lots of positive outcomes that can come out of this. Focusing on only the negative can lead one to a sort of primitivist mindset, and it convinces no one who feels the positive effects of it. 2. Apple could very well offer a phone with no facial recognition, rock solid encryption, an easily coverable camera, and it would affect close to nothing. The entire point of mass data collection is the "mass" part of it, and as long as people observe the benefits of being tracked (i.e. using maps, social media, finding their lost things, getting notified when their heart rate is up, counting their steps, tracking their sleep, getting notifications, seamlessly backing up their contacts and photos, dictating messages, etc.) then they will continue to be able to collect mass amounts of information regardless if some individuals choose to abdicate completely. Other people are pointing these things out in the comments because it's the natural antithesis to what the article offers. Salome Viljoen[0] talks about this thesis/antithesis in her research on data privacy and ways to treat data from a legal perspective. She explores an alternative to the "I'll just take my data elsewhere" and "I'll just not let my data be collected at all" approaches: democratic data governance[1]. > One path forward reconceives data about people as a democratic resource. Such proposals view data not as an expression of an inner self subject to private ordering and the individual will, but as a collective resource subject to democratic ordering. Democratic data governance schemes consider the relational nature of data: information about one individual is useful (or harmful) precisely because it can be used to infer features about—and thus make decisions affecting—others. The problem is not necessarily that Apple (or Google, or anyone else) is collecting data. The problem is that we have very little say in what data they collect, or what they do with it afterwards, because the data is captured by corporations that act as data fiefdoms without any sort of democratic control. Unfortunately, the massive valuations of these companies are essentially based on the amount of control they have over the data they collected, because it gives them incredible abilities to extract more value out of it. Any loss of unilateral control would be seen as a threat to the value of the companies, which in America makes it very politically distasteful right now. Perhaps that can change. 0: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rH63p3sAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rH63p3sAAAAJ&hl=en 1: https://phenomenalworld.org/analysis/data-as-property https://phenomenalworld.org/analysis/data-as-property
duxup 5y ago
I feel like it is more telling about tech media outrage hits here when Apple does a thing. But not for websites... Google... etc.
readonthegoapp 5y ago
It seems like most of the top-level comments here are some version, "zomg, I hate wired" -- no reason, just passionate fury. That surprises me, and makes me think that this simple article showing up in Wired UK is potentially very impactful -- so it is being attacked very forcefully, with lots of handwaving. Apple's new Citizen Surveillance and Management (CSAM) technology is serious -- the article refers to it specifically -- the privacy concerns are not new. The tech is a legalized version of terrorist technology provider NSO Group's Pegasus software. We already have a group of people, QAnon, terrorizing the world in order to 'save the children' -- we don't need to add another group in the form of a global $2.5T company.
ksec 5y ago
May be instead of arguing Apple is normalising Surveillance, they are normalising Data collection where only Apple can connect Data and everyone else who want Data will have to ask and pay Apple. Likely in the future for Ads on Apple user and Apple taking a 30% cut. This is not some sort of joke I wouldn't be surprised if there are internal plan somewhere. Which would also turn Apple into possibly the largest Ads platform. I was actually expecting Apple to be doing something like this in 2018 timeframe the moment they dip their toe into App Store Ads. But then the whole privacy thing blow up. Probably worth linking to Benedict Evans blog post again. https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads-music https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads... https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/8/27/understanding-privacy https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/8/27/understand...
Kafkish 5y ago
I think Google beat Apple to that by at least a decade. If you're not using an Apple product or service, Apple likely knows very little about you. Google, OTOH, knows a lot about you, whether you use a Google service or products.
karaterobot 5y ago
People normalized surveillance by willingly accepting it, or laughing it away because it didn't bother them at the time. As noted already, Wired tracks its users, and participates in tracking networks. "Oh, but that's a whole different thing, that's... normal."
Havoc 5y ago
This should really read FAANG. They all seem to have embraced methods and techniques that seem questionable at best. Netflix maybe getting a bit of a pass by virtue of not truely being in the personal info game
Grustaf 5y ago
> But that doesn’t give Apple permission to track our lived experience at all times with its microphones, cameras and sensors. They also aren't doing that. > Thanks to Apple, physical shops can track us through our phones Is this referring to Wifi or even 3/4g? I can't see how they can call this "Thanks to Apple", maybe it's something else? > What is left unsaid by Apple and others is that digitising the world entails surveilling it: recording everything, making it taggable, trackable, searchable – and hackable. I don't think many people would call something "surveillance" if it never leaves the phone, which is the case for almost everything Apple does in this regard. Yes, your phone known where you are at all times, but as long as Apple doesn't, is that an issue?
privat 5y ago
Brilliant and a timely piece stating how things really are. After paying $1000 iPads & iPhone plus Apple pooh poohing privacy it still slurps away serious amount of user clickstream without permission. Sure it is less than Google but it is serious enough. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703983704576277101723453610 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703983704576277... In iOS Books all your interaction and content meta data gets sent to Apple and there is no way to turn it off. They just say “we do it while safeguarding user privacy and to create better user experience”. Now that is surely Normalising Surveillance not to mention 24x7 connection between iDevices & Apple servers.

307 points by freddyym 5y ago

(This thread seems hijacked already. The top comments are all missing the point to the degree I have to wonder if people are thick or it’s a PR hit team for Apple.) Conflating tracking cookies with surveillance instruments such as phone/device scanning at all times is absolute gibbonry.

willseth 5y ago

Clickbait

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dopamean 5y ago

I'd argue that CCTV everywhere in the UK has done more to normalize surveillance than what Apple is currently doing. I still don't love the trend I'm seeing in tech though.

raxxorrax 5y ago

To be honest, I think this is better for Apple users at this point.

threatofrain 5y ago

This is just a collection of generic arguments against technology, as opposed to an article offering insight about Apple. Then they stuck Apple's name on it and there's the article.

coldtea 5y ago
The article is full of particular example of what Apple is doing, and explains how Apple is doing it (collecting more info) while touting "more pricacy".
- drexlspivey 5y ago
  The digitization of text from photos happens on device and not sent to any remote server afaik. However the article dismisses it and equates it to surveillance because > All of these features increase the amount of data collected. This looks like a cheap attempt to FUD, I don’t see how this feature has anything to do with surveillance.
  - m4rtink 5y ago
    All the locally running software doing this is proprietary, how do we can be so sure what it really does withou inspecting its source code (and making sure it corresponds to the on device binaries) ?
    - drexlspivey 5y ago
      This can be said for all software, even open source. Nothing about that is specific to Apple.
    - quenix 5y ago
      You own the network your device is on and you can see what it sends over the wire. Inspect network traffic if you wish. With the billions of iOS devices running around the planet and with the fact that it just takes one person to blow the whistle on this sort of data collection, I just don't buy the argument that it might have been happening this whole time... purely on the basis that things happen sometimes.
      - krageon 5y ago
        You cannot practically do this in the age of certificate pinning. All you can say is that a smartphone communicates, which should be obvious. What it is communicating is frequently unknown.
    - masswerk 5y ago
      You can just disable any network connections and see, if the service still works. Text recognition in images (Live text/Vision framework) does. Now you could obviously say, "Who knows about any logs, and whether they are secretly transferring them as soon as there is any network connection or not?" Well, this is another topic, namely this of basic trust, and applies to any application and any vendor. (And, if your business is operating systems, living up to this trust may be a vital business decision. In contrast to some vendor of a random app, there's a strong incentive to do so.)
fundad 5y ago
Anything a digital camera can do is the fault of the first company to sell them: Apple or the company that sells the most: Apple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbBqbONm1_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbBqbONm1_Q

arthur6667 5y ago

What a terrible article. The premise is 'they offer features that use data & say they keep it secure. but what if they actually don't' Seriously?

dx034 5y ago
Especially as iPhones tend to do more calculations and AI on the device compared to competitors.
coldtea 5y ago
Yes, seriously. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" is a very legitimate and serious question. Not to mention, it doesn't matter if they actually "do" keep it secure, themselves, as a company, would still have access to all this information.
- masswerk 5y ago
  The problem with this article is that is poorly researched. Most of the services listed are running locally and storage is also local. (Things might change with automatic remote backups, but this is not what's addressed in the article.) E.g., the Vision frameworks subjects any images to a local (built-in) neural network and returns the scanned text, which is then most probably put into the system clipboard. How is this surveillance, but copy-and-paste in MS Word was not?
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >The problem with this article is that is poorly researched. Most of the services listed are running locally and storage is also local. It's also part of the backup to iCloud, which is not encrypted, no?
    - masswerk 5y ago
      > "iCloud secures your information by encrypting it when it's in transit and storing it in iCloud in an encrypted format. Many Apple services use end-to-end encryption, which means that only you can access your information, and only on trusted devices where you’re signed in with your Apple ID." https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 Edit: Mind that this would still apply much the same to copy-and-paste in MS Word and any (encrypted) remote backups of the resulting documents. Where is the significant difference? Also mind that iCloud backups are not mandatory, but yet another (optional) service.

tchalla 5y ago

> The new iPhone operating system, iOS 15, can digitise text in photos, enabling users to copy and paste text from an image, or call a phone number that appears in a picture. Scanning nearby buildings with an iPhone will make Maps recognise them and generate walking directions. Algorithms will identify objects in real-time video, and it will be possible to turn photos into 3D models for augmented reality. And users will now be able to carry their IDs in their phone. All of these features increase the amount of data collected. The basic premise of the article is that : more data -> more surveillance. Certainly, this could be possible. However, is there a way to collect more data and yet not increase surveillance? > Apple created the Bluetooth beacons tracking people in shops, gyms, hotels, airports and more by connecting to their phones. I think, this is where the author lost me. The contact tracing protocol for Covid was anything but more surveillance. This is what happens when you buy into simplistic narratives.

version_five 5y ago
I don't understand how people can doublethink so easily about contact tracing. Of course it's surveillance, and it's extremely invasive. You can argue that it's worth it, but to pretend surveillance that you like isn't surveillance is intellectually dishonest.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > how people can doublethink so easily It is really fascinating. It is nothing but surveillance of course. This time it actually may increase security in contrast to most programs government implemented. The difference is that the user has to consent to it, it is transparent and there is the possibility to just shut it off again. That will never happen with hidden data collection by third parties of any kind.
nixpulvis 5y ago
I think contact tracing is by definition more surveillence (even when reasonably private). It's just a question of how much value it actually adds during times of crisis like COVID. Then it's a matter of precedence.

beermonster 5y ago

“ If Apple is serious about privacy, it should offer an iPhone model for the privacy-conscious: one without facial recognition and without encryption-breaking tools, one in which it is easy to cover the camera, and in which the microphone can be mechanically turned off, among other features. If we want to keep our democracies in the digital age, we need to set limits on what gets tracked. “ So they want Apple to manufacture the Librem 5?[1] [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

richardwhiuk 5y ago
You can't easily cover the camera in the Librem 5. The lack of coherent vulnerability tracking makes me suspect you'll be compromised by whoever anyway.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > You can't easily cover the camera in the Librem 5 Librem 5 has a microphone/camera hardware kill switch.
dx034 5y ago
I'm even sure Apple would offer it if there was demand. But for the few thousands a year you can sell, it's easier to have 3rd party companies modify existing iPhones/Androids.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fsflover 5y ago
  You can't modify an iPhone/Android such that it runs 100% free software.
- fundad 5y ago
  Yeah if there was enough of a market that Apple sold them, it would be much cheaper than the current cost to make these low-volume Librem devices, not to mention the domestically assembled one for $2000

schleck8 5y ago

Some highlights from the Wired cookie popup: Audience Measurement Targeting Cookies Social Media Cookies Store and/or access information on a device Create a personalised ads profile Select personalised ads Create a personalised content profile Select personalised content Measure ad performance Measure content performance Apply market research to generate audience insights Use precise geolocation data Actively scan device characteristics for identification Link different devices Receive and use automatically-sent device characteristics for identification

webmobdev 5y ago
This seems like a deflection - every media platform on the internet relies on the advertising platforms of BigTech in some way. Ultimately, all your data end up there somehow.
- medstrom 5y ago
  Yes, it's not very relevant for an opinion piece how and where it's published. I could make a video that criticises YouTube and it still makes sense to put it on YouTube.
- krageon 5y ago
  This is fatalistic and wrong. There are plenty of platforms that do not sell you out in this manner (personal blogs run by ethical people exist, for one) and the platforms that do not deserve to be called out for their bad behaviour.
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    Ok, I get that some of you think it is hypocritical. Now that has been exposed - Does that mean the article is irrelevant? Do the facts change that Apple has been shifting and redefining its stance on user privacy and data collection to suit its business at the expense of its users privacy?
    - krageon 5y ago

xyz11 5y ago

https://www.crewscale.com/ https://www.crewscale.com/

lewisflude 5y ago

I think this is clickbait. The future of tech is really scary and I fully empathise with that. These new societal problems around data tracking, and the ability to process that data do need to be solved, but trying to skirt around problematic technologies when solving user problems is not sustainable. I think at least articles like this are good because they create a conversation. Many people who read HN are software engineers, and we all collectively bear at least a little responsibility to make good ethical choices around the tech we use and develop.

Otek 5y ago

Users normalised surveillance by buying cheap Android phones from brands like Xiaomi, Huawei and others without thinking about real price of such device - data. Also by buying "smart" devices from these brands. Xiaomi Vacuum can gather tons of informations about home. Air Purifier also. But try to find products of similar quality for an equally low price and you will be faced with the choice of either overpaying or being added to the millions of people who are being tracked anyway. You will become a statistic. No wonder most people don't see any danger in this. Dilution of responsibility.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Xiaomi Vacuum can gather tons of informations about home. Air Purifier also" Google ads know your age, location, and tons of personal information. Thats enough info for identify fraud. What does the Air purifier send, level of dust? It does not even know where it is.
- d3nj4l 5y ago
  > It does not even know where it is. How difficult would it be to add a GPS to one of those? At any rate, "smart" purifiers like the one GP is talking about connect to WiFi etc and are definitely able to find out your location.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    GPS doesn't work indoors, and even if it did, what then? What are you gonna do with indoor dust levels?
    - detaro 5y ago
      air quality sensors are not a bad proxy of activity patterns. (now does that have any value? good question, and probably very much "depends". Probably does in the sense of things like law enforcement requesting data from siri etc for criminal cases, to feed into advertising targeting it's only a tiny datapoint)
5y ago

nbzso 5y ago

Apple lost me as a customer completely with CSAM this year. But I am thankful because I dramatically reduced my smartphone usage to incidental and mandatory use-cases. For me this is a strictly personal stance. People will continue to fall into deep surveillance state not just because only “Nothing to hide” false assumptions. Governments love access to citizens data and partnership with corporations is guaranteed. On a professional level I “trust” only FOSS software with network access, the others will be air-gaped as much as possible.

sbacic 5y ago
I agree. I've been meaning to buy an Apple laptop to develop on for years now and constantly kept putting it off; first because of quality concerns that have no place in a device with such a price tag and now because of this. If only there was a Linux-compatible laptop with specs similar to the M1. The only thing that comes to mind are Thinkpads and those things are ugly as hell.
- fsflover 5y ago
  Not really similar specs to M1, but: https://puri.sm/products/librem-14 https://puri.sm/products/librem-14.
  - nbzso 5y ago
    I use PureOS on old Macbook Air for casual browsing with Hardened Firefox and Emacs for RSS/Org-mode and it runs very smoothly. Moved office to Arch/Manjaro, Win VM’s in isolation for design tasks. M advancements of Apple are not so critical when considering cost per performance. There is no denying their advancements, but who knows what’s going on inside this architecture. Some will say that I am overeating, but since reading Trusting trust (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...) I shifted my mind towards Raptor Computers direction. The prices are high but paying for open hardware is smart investment in the current climate.
    - 5y ago

camillomiller 5y ago

Let me explain to you as a journalist how this works. - Facebook is under fire for its leaked papers. - Google is a hot topic because of the lawsuit that reveals collusion with Facebook. - Apple is relatively free of controversy recently after the CSAM blunder. Then let’s cook up a controversial piece on the other behemoth to cater the big chunk of readers that thinks and wants to see that Apple is evil too, “because of course they are and here is why”. Is this based on facts or on a simplistic interpretation of tech? Who cares!

h2odragon 5y ago
We're due for some more "Microsoft is Evil" stories soon, too.

mcphage 5y ago

> Apple’s usage of Face ID as a way to unlock the iPhone has contributed to normalising facial recognition. I do t know what their definition of “surveillance” is, but if it includes Face ID, then it’s not a very useful one.

28999357 5y ago
I think the logic goes something like this: Apple is a trusted brand for privacy. Even if FaceID is harmless in terms of surveillance potential, it still associates positively in the minds of users, such that when other vendors — or even the government - decide that they want to use it to, and not with the same on-device protection, etc - people will accept it willingly because it was safe when they did it with Apple. I agree with other commenters here that these arguments lead to a sort of infinite regression. All of the things Apple has implemented is rather old tech by now. If we accept those as surveillance, we practically can’t have anything. Which sucks. Apple is trusted now. But they might not always be. They could go the way of their competitors. Then where would we be?

zaptheimpaler 5y ago

By this definition, making anything that CAN be used for surveillance is normalizing surveillance. I'm tired of this stupid debate and the way its framed. Over the last decade we have made absolutely incredible leaps in technology by any standard. By nature all new technology comes with the potential to do both good and bad, and usually it does a bit of both. But making technology on its own is not a bad thing. Lying about it and/or actively ignoring the impact it has on society the way Google and Facebook did is. Conflating technology itself with shitty morals is dumb. When you build a society where people worship money & fame instead of kindness or sincerity or any moral virtue at all, some people will do literally anything to maximize the $$$ and your society is fucked. It has nothing to do with technology. Go look at the salary threads here or discords full of new grads gaming out total compensations in excruciating detail instead of even considering for a second what impact the company has on the world. They have been taught nothing but capitalism, they know nothing but chase money. Some of them will not flinch in doing the same shit again at some other company 10 years down the line. Even speaking about morality is preaching, old-fashioned, religious, uncool, and dumb now so what do you expect. The best answer the media converged on last time was "hire more humanities students/ teach engineers more literature" as if anyone needs a college course to be taught that lying is wrong.

azangru 5y ago
> When you build a society where people worship money & fame instead of kindness or sincerity or any moral virtue at all, some people will do literally anything to maximize the $$$ and your society is fucked Some people will maximize the $$$ in any society. It's how to make the strive for the $$$ the most beneficial and the least destructive that is the challenge.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Simple solution - make being rich a crime punishable by death. It worked pretty well for 18th century France.
fundad 5y ago
Warby Parker normalizes surveillance and who makes pencils? Them too.

bsedlm 5y ago

I recall some articles about schools doing this too.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bni 5y ago

You have two choices: 1. Trust one of the Big-Tech platforms. Use all the conveniences that it provides, such as Cloud storage, integration between devices, etc. Trust them with not leaking/selling your data (or maybe you are ok with this?). You can be damn sure they will analyze your data, for yours and theirs benefit. OR: 2. Local computing with Debian (or preferred alternative). Participate in reviewing the source code that runs on your machine. Store data locally in your computer or NAS at home network. Do the boring work yourself. You cant really have "no surveillance" and cloud services at the same time.

silicon2401 5y ago
what about encrypting your data before backing it up to a cloud service?
- bni 5y ago
  Sure, but I would categorize that as under option 2.
- gaius_baltar 5y ago
  That's my approach: cloud is just a dumb storage for backups, these services should not have access to the plaintext data.
  - xanaxagoras 5y ago
    shout out to duplicati, makes this super easy
- koheripbal 5y ago
  That's really just #2 because you are not really taking advantage of any of the cloud services besides storage - which is the cheapest and least innovative cloud service.
helen___keller 5y ago
Agreed, I chose (1) because after introspection I genuinely prefer the convenience given the tradeoffs. But I have the knowledge to pursue (2) at any point (right now my home linux server just acts as a pi-hole -- but it can do so much more if ever needed). Unfortunately, most people aren't aware they even have a choice, or what the tradeoffs are. I would love to see option (2) more accessible to the average Joe, but I know better than to expect that will ever happen.

3grdlurker 5y ago

Not a US citizen, but what’s noticeably lacking in discussions about surveillance (such as this one) is faulting the very government that’s pressuring companies to comply with state surveillance programs. Doesn’t matter how big you are or how much you’re worth—if your interests do not align with the state you’re not above its power.

nescioquid 5y ago
No kidding. The US government has been involved in domestic mass surveillance for about a quarter century now (see Carnivore), predating the pretext given by the terror attacks of 2001. When this was getting off the ground in the 90s, my recollection is that the criticism (if any) one found in the media was oblique. Any surprise that we now have surveillance capitalism?

yboris 5y ago

The author of the article, Carissa Véliz, also wrote a great book Privacy is Power: https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/1787634043 https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/...

Winsaucerer 5y ago

This article might lead a reader to think that surveillance is in itself a problem, using terms like ‘invasive’, and ‘normalising’ (as though the thing being ‘normalised’ is undesirable). While it does appear to distinguish between surveillance and breach of privacy, it doesn’t do so carefully enough. What I actually want are devices that let me surveil MORE of my life, but in ways that respect my privacy, that leave me in control of that data. There are so many benefits that we can receive if companies/software/products were to offer us greater insights(/‘invasive surveillance’) into our lives without breaching our privacy or trust. When I am surveilling my own life, with devices that only share my data in ways I happily consent to, there is no problem. I can reap great benefits through this. I can take photos of myself and my family. I can monitor my heart through a device on my wrist. I can write personal notes in a journal (whether on paper or digitised) for later reflection. I can keep a history of sites I’ve visited in my browser. What a company like Apple claims to be doing is to try and bring us the benefits of surveillance without the breaches of privacy — without the forced and reluctant consent to share our data with everyone. Surveillance isn’t the enemy, it’s companies trying to make a product out of that data that really we’d prefer not to share at all.

simonh 5y ago

It's odd Wired calls out Apple in particular. For almost every technology Apple works on, like the ones the article discusses that that in theory they _could_ use for surveillance, Google or Facebook is already ten steps ahead _actually_ using it for surveillance.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

In terms of normizing surveillance, Apple is late to the party. The truth is "personalization" is a euphemism for surveillance. This language slight of hand has been popular with Google, Amazon, etc. Per "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism", it's not the surveillance to fear per se, it's how our own meta data and such is being used against us. Now. This info isn't simply predicting behaviour, it's being used to alter and modify our behaviour. I'm not giving Apple a free pass. But to call out Apple and not the others gives the masses a false sense of truth. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-under-surveillance-capitalism-on-the-media https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...

throwawayswede 5y ago

What's ironic is that the first thing you see when you hit wired.co.uk: > Wired > We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as unique IDs in cookies to process personal data. You may accept or manage your choices by clicking below or at any time in the privacy policy page. These choices will be signaled to our partners and will not affect browsing data.View Cookie Notice We and our partners process data to provide: > Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Create a personalised content profile. Select personalised content. Measure ad performance. Measure content performance. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Develop and improve products. It really irks me that they blind to how majorly hypocritical they seem when write stuff like that on a crappy journal like this. Technology journalism died in early 2010s and never came back.

lilactown 5y ago

I think the article comes off to many here as anti-technology because it doesn't continue past the thesis: Apple's vast amount of unilateral control over devices and software gives it the ability to surveil the population in ways that were not possible before. It then goes on to suggest a very consumer-centric way of addressing this, through a special iPhone that's more privacy-centric. This ignores two big things we have to address when thinking about mass data collection. 1. The ability to collect data at scale unlocks capabilities that simply weren't possible before. There are lots of positive outcomes that can come out of this. Focusing on only the negative can lead one to a sort of primitivist mindset, and it convinces no one who feels the positive effects of it. 2. Apple could very well offer a phone with no facial recognition, rock solid encryption, an easily coverable camera, and it would affect close to nothing. The entire point of mass data collection is the "mass" part of it, and as long as people observe the benefits of being tracked (i.e. using maps, social media, finding their lost things, getting notified when their heart rate is up, counting their steps, tracking their sleep, getting notifications, seamlessly backing up their contacts and photos, dictating messages, etc.) then they will continue to be able to collect mass amounts of information regardless if some individuals choose to abdicate completely. Other people are pointing these things out in the comments because it's the natural antithesis to what the article offers. Salome Viljoen[0] talks about this thesis/antithesis in her research on data privacy and ways to treat data from a legal perspective. She explores an alternative to the "I'll just take my data elsewhere" and "I'll just not let my data be collected at all" approaches: democratic data governance[1]. > One path forward reconceives data about people as a democratic resource. Such proposals view data not as an expression of an inner self subject to private ordering and the individual will, but as a collective resource subject to democratic ordering. Democratic data governance schemes consider the relational nature of data: information about one individual is useful (or harmful) precisely because it can be used to infer features about—and thus make decisions affecting—others. The problem is not necessarily that Apple (or Google, or anyone else) is collecting data. The problem is that we have very little say in what data they collect, or what they do with it afterwards, because the data is captured by corporations that act as data fiefdoms without any sort of democratic control. Unfortunately, the massive valuations of these companies are essentially based on the amount of control they have over the data they collected, because it gives them incredible abilities to extract more value out of it. Any loss of unilateral control would be seen as a threat to the value of the companies, which in America makes it very politically distasteful right now. Perhaps that can change. 0: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rH63p3sAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rH63p3sAAAAJ&hl=en 1: https://phenomenalworld.org/analysis/data-as-property https://phenomenalworld.org/analysis/data-as-property

duxup 5y ago

I feel like it is more telling about tech media outrage hits here when Apple does a thing. But not for websites... Google... etc.

readonthegoapp 5y ago

It seems like most of the top-level comments here are some version, "zomg, I hate wired" -- no reason, just passionate fury. That surprises me, and makes me think that this simple article showing up in Wired UK is potentially very impactful -- so it is being attacked very forcefully, with lots of handwaving. Apple's new Citizen Surveillance and Management (CSAM) technology is serious -- the article refers to it specifically -- the privacy concerns are not new. The tech is a legalized version of terrorist technology provider NSO Group's Pegasus software. We already have a group of people, QAnon, terrorizing the world in order to 'save the children' -- we don't need to add another group in the form of a global $2.5T company.

ksec 5y ago

May be instead of arguing Apple is normalising Surveillance, they are normalising Data collection where only Apple can connect Data and everyone else who want Data will have to ask and pay Apple. Likely in the future for Ads on Apple user and Apple taking a 30% cut. This is not some sort of joke I wouldn't be surprised if there are internal plan somewhere. Which would also turn Apple into possibly the largest Ads platform. I was actually expecting Apple to be doing something like this in 2018 timeframe the moment they dip their toe into App Store Ads. But then the whole privacy thing blow up. Probably worth linking to Benedict Evans blog post again. https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads-music https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads... https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/8/27/understanding-privacy https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/8/27/understand...

Kafkish 5y ago

I think Google beat Apple to that by at least a decade. If you're not using an Apple product or service, Apple likely knows very little about you. Google, OTOH, knows a lot about you, whether you use a Google service or products.

karaterobot 5y ago

People normalized surveillance by willingly accepting it, or laughing it away because it didn't bother them at the time. As noted already, Wired tracks its users, and participates in tracking networks. "Oh, but that's a whole different thing, that's... normal."

Havoc 5y ago

This should really read FAANG. They all seem to have embraced methods and techniques that seem questionable at best. Netflix maybe getting a bit of a pass by virtue of not truely being in the personal info game

Grustaf 5y ago

> But that doesn’t give Apple permission to track our lived experience at all times with its microphones, cameras and sensors. They also aren't doing that. > Thanks to Apple, physical shops can track us through our phones Is this referring to Wifi or even 3/4g? I can't see how they can call this "Thanks to Apple", maybe it's something else? > What is left unsaid by Apple and others is that digitising the world entails surveilling it: recording everything, making it taggable, trackable, searchable – and hackable. I don't think many people would call something "surveillance" if it never leaves the phone, which is the case for almost everything Apple does in this regard. Yes, your phone known where you are at all times, but as long as Apple doesn't, is that an issue?

privat 5y ago

Brilliant and a timely piece stating how things really are. After paying $1000 iPads & iPhone plus Apple pooh poohing privacy it still slurps away serious amount of user clickstream without permission. Sure it is less than Google but it is serious enough. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703983704576277101723453610 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703983704576277... In iOS Books all your interaction and content meta data gets sent to Apple and there is no way to turn it off. They just say “we do it while safeguarding user privacy and to create better user experience”. Now that is surely Normalising Surveillance not to mention 24x7 connection between iDevices & Apple servers.