4 ms·

Apple seems to prioritize privacy more than the competition, while for Google collecting, and combing through to monetize, your personal data is a big part of t

Apple seems to prioritize privacy more than the competition, while for Google collecting, and combing through to monetize, your personal data is a big part of their business model. Much of this criticism seems misplaced or invalid. Apple tracks your IMEI? Well, sure, unless you choose otherwise, and they've given you a convenient place to turn off. Apple chipsets track your location down to the meter? Well, yes, that's a feature most people enjoy - and they've given you a convenient place to turn off, if you don't. Apple is using third party app Siri interactions to train Siri? How is this even a privacy issue... has any real world privacy problem ever occurred because of this? If you don't want Apple to hear your voice or process your Siri requests... don't use Siri? They've given you a convenient place to turn it off. The only one I agree on is the image scanning for CSAM. The idea of a device I own acting as a state informer using AI to detect what it thinks is a crime is not my idea of a step forward.

amelius 4y ago
> Apple seems to prioritize privacy more than the competition, while for Google collecting, and combing through to monetize, your personal data is a big part of their business model. My TV also doesn't have data as its main business model, however ... it still collects data on me.
- olivierestsage 4y ago
  The cost of TVs is now heavily subsidized by the data-mining, though, whereas I don't see much evidence that's the case for Apple products, whatever their other problems (if such evidence does exist, I'd be interested to see it).
  - fsflover 4y ago
    > whereas I don't see much evidence that's the case for Apple products https://www.barrons.com/articles/apples-advertising-business-is-bigger-than-you-think-it-could-get-bigger-still-51628004419 https://www.barrons.com/articles/apples-advertising-business...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - spideymans 4y ago
      I don’t see what the issue is, unless Apple is violating my privacy to serve their ads. (I’m not a fan of ads, but don’t see how this is necessarily a privacy issue)
      - fsflover 4y ago
        Ads that rely on tracking is a problem for privacy, not all ads.
      - philjohn 4y ago
        Well there's the disingenuous way in which they present the choice, defaulted to opt in with flowery language, versus the popup third party developers have presented to their users. There's also the "app store health card" which the cynic in me would say is designed to scare people away from "competing" apps, because none of the Apple equivalents have a health card. Additionally there's no nuance - both iMessage and Twitter ask for location data - but only if you want to share your location. End result? People looking at Twitter in the App Store surmise "well, they must be tracking my location at all times!".
        danaris 4y ago
        > none of the Apple equivalents have a health card. Apple's apps on the App Store most certainly do have health cards. Not sure what you've been looking at...?
        philjohn 4y ago
        Built in apps - iMessage. And yes, that does seem to be in the app store now, however, there's a lot there that seems to be missing - access to photos for example isn't listed in the health card, neither is microphone access - both of which are core features of the app.
shadowgovt 4y ago
This is all reasoning we heard in the past to defend Google. With Google, it was all true and still is...
falcolas 4y ago
> has any real world privacy problem ever occurred because of this Yes. People who don't quite understand how Siri works will divulge a lot of personal information. There's many stories from workers at these third parties about how much intimate detail they've heard when listening to these clips. Now, that said, Google and Amazon do this too. It's truly a strike against all providers.
- spideymans 4y ago
  When you setup a new Apple device, Apple asks users whether they want to share Siri recordings with Apple.
- hardnose 4y ago
  >There's many stories from workers at these third parties about how much intimate detail they've heard when listening to these clips. Assuming those internet stories are even true - can anyone show me actual harm occurring to anyone based on Apple's use of Siri training? I've heard some Alexa stories, but frankly, Apple seems to do a really good job of protecting that information, at least so far, at least as far as the public knows.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    A lack of reported harm does not imply a lack of the ability to harm. "Siri, order medicine X and deliver to address Y" is a simple example of how a simple command - whether valid or not - can expose someone's medical history, and while an ethical reviewer (probably 99%+ of reviewers) would do nothing with it, an unethical reviewer could.
    - CharlesW 4y ago
      > "Siri, order medicine X and deliver to address Y" is a simple example of how a simple command… FWIW, Siri isn't capable of anything resembling this. For fun, ask "Siri, how many days are left in this year?"
      - 4y ago
judge2020 4y ago
> The only one I agree on is the image scanning for CSAM. The idea of a device I own acting as a state informer using AI to detect what it thinks is a crime is not my idea of a step forward. The likely reasoning behind this, although unspoken, was to (at some point in the future) enable E2EE for iCloud Photos. Currently, Apple doesn't do nearly any CSAM scanning on iCloud Photos[0], so the FBI et al. are pushing for them to change that - instead of licensing PhotoDNA, they tried to create something that would keep image data out of their hands while not further enabling CSAM distributors. 0: "According to NMEC, Apple submitted 205 reports in 2019 (a third my my reporting volume). Apple increased a little, to 265 in 2020, but then dropped in 2021 to only 160 reports. That's nearly a 22% decrease over two years!" https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/955-NCMEC-2021-Reporting.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/955-NC...
- nathancahill 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm a huge privacy advocate but the part people are missing with this fiasco is that client-side scanning before _anything_ is uploaded is objectively less invasive than every single photo being scanned on iCloud (the direction legislation is heading). Again, this is an _opt-in_ behavior when you enable iCloud Photos, for photos that you're trying to upload (currently not E2EE) anyway. The feature comes with the potential upside of allowing Apple to enable E2EE for all photos, while credibly proving to the government there's no CSAM.
  - hardnose 4y ago
    >client-side scanning before _anything_ is uploaded is objectively less invasive than every single photo being scanned on iCloud That's like saying cyanide tastes better than strychnine. It might be true, but I'd rather just not have either one.
    - nathancahill 4y ago
      I mean, iOS uses the same client-side machine learning to "scan" your photo library for tons of things. You can search "Dog" and get results, with nothing ever touching Apple's servers. We're happy with this but not happy with the other?
restore_creole_ 4y ago
> Apple ad exec wants to more than double ad revenue with new ads across iOS https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/report-apple-is-exploring-in-app-ads-for-maps-podcasts-books-and-beyond/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/report-apple-is-expl...
oreilles 4y ago
> The only one I agree on is the image scanning for CSAM. The idea of a device I own acting as a state informer using AI to detect what it thinks is a crime is not my idea of a step forward. There's also a convenient place to turn it off: CSAM scanning doesn't happen if you don't use iCloud photos/files syncing.
- philjohn 4y ago
  Yet.
rickdeckard 4y ago
> Apple seems to prioritize privacy more than the competition, while for Google collecting, and combing through to monetize, your personal data is a big part of their business model. It's puzzling to me how this keeps getting repeated without any strong foundation. This story that others sell your data while Apple holds it secure is a narrative established by Apple that keeps coming up like a mantra. The implication is that Google is gathering personal data to then then sell it to third parties. But this is not their business model. They profile their customers via their behaviors and personal data, match them to a persona and then sell services to third parties to advertise to users fitting that persona. I don't see how Apple is doing any less of customer profiling and persona generating than Google. They are both in the business of profiling their users and then monetizing them by offering services to internal/external customers who look for a certain audience. The core of this is exactly the same between Apple and Google. Neither of them is selling the user-data directly, they both process it in order to package their users into a service they can sell to others. The main thing that Apple does differently is, that they took stronger measures to ensure that the data THEY collect from their users can only be collected by THEM. So Apple took action to protect their unique market position of selling ANY kind of goods to users of Apple products, and they claim that they are more honorable to hold and process all your data for financial gain just because (so far) they failed to compete in the advertising industry.
- hardnose 4y ago
  >The implication is that Google is gathering personal data to then then sell it to third parties. No, the implication is that Google collects as much of your personal data as possible, stores it forever, and monetizes it. You can tell because that's what I actually said. What you're responding to is a red herring - you brought up third parties, not me. If I use the Apple Mail app with default settings from my iCloud account to e-mail ten lawn care services, I won't start seeing web ads for lawn care. If I use Gmail with default settings, I will. > The main thing that Apple does differently is, that they took stronger measures to ensure that the data THEY collect from their users can only be collected by THEM. No, the main thing that Apple does differently is make their money by selling hardware, software, and services directly to end users. This is in stark contrast to Google, whose typical business model offers free services that make the end users into the saleable product.
kornhole 4y ago
Because the code of IOS is closed source, we have to trust these settings actually stop transmitting data back to Apple. Given how valuable such data is to central collectors, this trust is a big leap for some of us. Comparing Apple to Google is a false dichotomy since many alternatives now exist.
philjohn 4y ago
Seems to - because it's a great marketing.

amelius 4y ago

olivierestsage 4y ago
The cost of TVs is now heavily subsidized by the data-mining, though, whereas I don't see much evidence that's the case for Apple products, whatever their other problems (if such evidence does exist, I'd be interested to see it).
- fsflover 4y ago
  > whereas I don't see much evidence that's the case for Apple products https://www.barrons.com/articles/apples-advertising-business-is-bigger-than-you-think-it-could-get-bigger-still-51628004419 https://www.barrons.com/articles/apples-advertising-business...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - spideymans 4y ago
    I don’t see what the issue is, unless Apple is violating my privacy to serve their ads. (I’m not a fan of ads, but don’t see how this is necessarily a privacy issue)
    - fsflover 4y ago
      Ads that rely on tracking is a problem for privacy, not all ads.
    - philjohn 4y ago
      Well there's the disingenuous way in which they present the choice, defaulted to opt in with flowery language, versus the popup third party developers have presented to their users. There's also the "app store health card" which the cynic in me would say is designed to scare people away from "competing" apps, because none of the Apple equivalents have a health card. Additionally there's no nuance - both iMessage and Twitter ask for location data - but only if you want to share your location. End result? People looking at Twitter in the App Store surmise "well, they must be tracking my location at all times!".
      - danaris 4y ago
        > none of the Apple equivalents have a health card. Apple's apps on the App Store most certainly do have health cards. Not sure what you've been looking at...?
        philjohn 4y ago
        Built in apps - iMessage. And yes, that does seem to be in the app store now, however, there's a lot there that seems to be missing - access to photos for example isn't listed in the health card, neither is microphone access - both of which are core features of the app.

shadowgovt 4y ago

This is all reasoning we heard in the past to defend Google. With Google, it was all true and still is...

falcolas 4y ago

> has any real world privacy problem ever occurred because of this Yes. People who don't quite understand how Siri works will divulge a lot of personal information. There's many stories from workers at these third parties about how much intimate detail they've heard when listening to these clips. Now, that said, Google and Amazon do this too. It's truly a strike against all providers.

spideymans 4y ago
When you setup a new Apple device, Apple asks users whether they want to share Siri recordings with Apple.
hardnose 4y ago
>There's many stories from workers at these third parties about how much intimate detail they've heard when listening to these clips. Assuming those internet stories are even true - can anyone show me actual harm occurring to anyone based on Apple's use of Siri training? I've heard some Alexa stories, but frankly, Apple seems to do a really good job of protecting that information, at least so far, at least as far as the public knows.
- falcolas 4y ago
  A lack of reported harm does not imply a lack of the ability to harm. "Siri, order medicine X and deliver to address Y" is a simple example of how a simple command - whether valid or not - can expose someone's medical history, and while an ethical reviewer (probably 99%+ of reviewers) would do nothing with it, an unethical reviewer could.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    > "Siri, order medicine X and deliver to address Y" is a simple example of how a simple command… FWIW, Siri isn't capable of anything resembling this. For fun, ask "Siri, how many days are left in this year?"
    - 4y ago

judge2020 4y ago

> The only one I agree on is the image scanning for CSAM. The idea of a device I own acting as a state informer using AI to detect what it thinks is a crime is not my idea of a step forward. The likely reasoning behind this, although unspoken, was to (at some point in the future) enable E2EE for iCloud Photos. Currently, Apple doesn't do nearly any CSAM scanning on iCloud Photos[0], so the FBI et al. are pushing for them to change that - instead of licensing PhotoDNA, they tried to create something that would keep image data out of their hands while not further enabling CSAM distributors. 0: "According to NMEC, Apple submitted 205 reports in 2019 (a third my my reporting volume). Apple increased a little, to 265 in 2020, but then dropped in 2021 to only 160 reports. That's nearly a 22% decrease over two years!" https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/955-NCMEC-2021-Reporting.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/955-NC...

nathancahill 4y ago
Yeah, I'm a huge privacy advocate but the part people are missing with this fiasco is that client-side scanning before _anything_ is uploaded is objectively less invasive than every single photo being scanned on iCloud (the direction legislation is heading). Again, this is an _opt-in_ behavior when you enable iCloud Photos, for photos that you're trying to upload (currently not E2EE) anyway. The feature comes with the potential upside of allowing Apple to enable E2EE for all photos, while credibly proving to the government there's no CSAM.
- hardnose 4y ago
  >client-side scanning before _anything_ is uploaded is objectively less invasive than every single photo being scanned on iCloud That's like saying cyanide tastes better than strychnine. It might be true, but I'd rather just not have either one.
  - nathancahill 4y ago
    I mean, iOS uses the same client-side machine learning to "scan" your photo library for tons of things. You can search "Dog" and get results, with nothing ever touching Apple's servers. We're happy with this but not happy with the other?

restore_creole_ 4y ago

> Apple ad exec wants to more than double ad revenue with new ads across iOS https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/report-apple-is-exploring-in-app-ads-for-maps-podcasts-books-and-beyond/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/report-apple-is-expl...

oreilles 4y ago

philjohn 4y ago
Yet.

rickdeckard 4y ago

> Apple seems to prioritize privacy more than the competition, while for Google collecting, and combing through to monetize, your personal data is a big part of their business model. It's puzzling to me how this keeps getting repeated without any strong foundation. This story that others sell your data while Apple holds it secure is a narrative established by Apple that keeps coming up like a mantra. The implication is that Google is gathering personal data to then then sell it to third parties. But this is not their business model. They profile their customers via their behaviors and personal data, match them to a persona and then sell services to third parties to advertise to users fitting that persona. I don't see how Apple is doing any less of customer profiling and persona generating than Google. They are both in the business of profiling their users and then monetizing them by offering services to internal/external customers who look for a certain audience. The core of this is exactly the same between Apple and Google. Neither of them is selling the user-data directly, they both process it in order to package their users into a service they can sell to others. The main thing that Apple does differently is, that they took stronger measures to ensure that the data THEY collect from their users can only be collected by THEM. So Apple took action to protect their unique market position of selling ANY kind of goods to users of Apple products, and they claim that they are more honorable to hold and process all your data for financial gain just because (so far) they failed to compete in the advertising industry.

hardnose 4y ago
>The implication is that Google is gathering personal data to then then sell it to third parties. No, the implication is that Google collects as much of your personal data as possible, stores it forever, and monetizes it. You can tell because that's what I actually said. What you're responding to is a red herring - you brought up third parties, not me. If I use the Apple Mail app with default settings from my iCloud account to e-mail ten lawn care services, I won't start seeing web ads for lawn care. If I use Gmail with default settings, I will. > The main thing that Apple does differently is, that they took stronger measures to ensure that the data THEY collect from their users can only be collected by THEM. No, the main thing that Apple does differently is make their money by selling hardware, software, and services directly to end users. This is in stark contrast to Google, whose typical business model offers free services that make the end users into the saleable product.

kornhole 4y ago

Because the code of IOS is closed source, we have to trust these settings actually stop transmitting data back to Apple. Given how valuable such data is to central collectors, this trust is a big leap for some of us. Comparing Apple to Google is a false dichotomy since many alternatives now exist.

philjohn 4y ago

Seems to - because it's a great marketing.