7 ms·

A message from Tim Cook about Apple’s commitment to your privacy

135 points by dombili 12y ago

llamataboot 12y ago
"On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8." But law enforcement can still brute force the encrypted image right?
- TTPrograms 12y ago
  I was also under the impression that some of the Snowden slides contradict this point.
- yzzxy 12y ago
  From a Feb. 2014 Apple Security whitepaper[0]: "The passcode is “tangled” with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be per-formed on the device under attack. A large iteration count is used to make each attempt slower. The iteration count is calibrated so that one attempt takes approximately 80 milliseconds. This means it would take more than 5½ years to try all combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers." There's more info on the file encryption in the paper, around page 8. [0] http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.p...
  - readerrrr 12y ago
    How were the iCloud accounts then attacked if they didn't have physical access to the device? The passcode is “tangled” with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be per-formed on the device under attack Even with the password you need the device, which they didn't.
    - yzzxy 12y ago
      I think the "Cloud" may have been involved.
    - penprog 12y ago
      I think a lot of it was social engineering and bad passwords. If you are using multiple services and one is compromised you can pretty much give up access to everything if you use the same password all around.
    - cpr 12y ago
      Guesses based on known properties of the (well-known, high-exposure) targets.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      iCloud backups aren't encrypted with the same key as on device storage.
    - gress 12y ago
      Social engineering was used to get the answers to the users security questions.
    - dmishe 12y ago
      You can restore from iCloud backup to any device (which is presumably how elcomsoft software works). The only thing that you need original device for is the keychain, but I am not sure if this has changed since keychain in the cloud
  - BCM43 12y ago
    That's assuming you can't clone it, and try on 1000 devices at the same time, correct?
  - blake8086 12y ago
    Isn't that 5.5 years of sequential trying? This is a parallelizable problem. There's also no restriction on how fast a cracking machine is allowed to be, so I doubt 80ms is the lower limit.
    - xenadu02 12y ago
      Did you not RTFA? The file system keys are stored in the SoC secure storage area and there are no facilities for retrieving them, meaning you must perform the decryption attempts with the phone's own SoC. Of course an iCloud backup file is another matter... At least they are turning on two factor auth for that, but it's a difficult problem if someone has your password and the keys are on a phone that you no longer have.
linguafranca 12y ago
Sorry, am I missing something here? What's the context? Is Apple accused of some recent scam? Is this because of them forcing U2 into our accounts?
- vermontdevil 12y ago
  The celebrity pic hack.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- barrecan 12y ago
  In light of the recent "iCloud hacking" as well as the launch of health monitoring with iOS8, questions about security arose.
- morenoh149 12y ago
  * celebrity leak * health integrations * google has the opposite strategy
- sergiotapia 12y ago
  Context is The Fappening incident.
thisisdallas 12y ago
>We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will. That's good to read but, technically, it's not their choice, correct?
- isomorphic 12y ago
  They can hand over copies of data (after being presented with a warrant) without giving "access to our servers."
  - thisisdallas 12y ago
    Ahh I see, thanks for the comment.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Maybe I'm just really cynical, but now I'm imagining scenarios like mirroring their disks to copies someone like the NSA is allowed full access to. Would that be "access" to their "servers"? Maybe they don't include Apple's own private keys, so at least the NSA can't impersonate them, just read every byte of data they have? Then again, it's sort of moot because they can probably be legally forced to provide full "access to [their] servers". Some comments here are pointing out they have the choice whether to obey the law, so is Cook actually saying they will disobey it?
- grecy 12y ago
  > technically, it's not their choice, correct? Technically, it very much is their choice to comply or not, if they are ever put in a position to do so. The consequences of not complying are not up to them, but they can still not comply if they choose. (The consequences might be massive fines and/or jail time for execs, but it's still a choice)
- xexers 12y ago
  He talked to Charlie Rose about this 2 days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmm5faI_mLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmm5faI_mLo
isomorphic 12y ago
"Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make our devices better. Plain and simple." Shots fired. (At Google, obviously.)
- cargo8 12y ago
  Tim Cook has been uncharacteristically (well, for Apple, not for himself) direct in stating that Google is their top competitor and making implicit jabs at their business model. On the other hand, what this also says (to people who like awesome cloud services) is :: "Unfortunately this also means that our predictive keyboard, Siri, and other predictive services will never be that good."
  - jonahx 12y ago
    well, seeing that every time i enter my own address into google maps, i am first given a result in another state and have to manually type the zip code (and i do have cookies enabled) i don't think they have much to worry about yet....
    - markmark 12y ago
      If you were "in" the Google ecosystem you would just need to type "Home".
  - jameswilsterman 12y ago
    "We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you." I don't think this precludes Apple from ever building better predictive services. Tim Cook is specifically saying that Apple does not sell or give away your data to third-parties for advertising purposes. He is NOT saying that Apple would never ask permission to read your e-mail if it meant that they could offer a compelling Apple-created product and user experience as a result. For example, with Apple Pay, Apple is technically using and storing my private information (my credit card data) to offer me a compelling service. They are not going to then figure out which credit card I own and/or how much I spend, and sell that info to banks so that they can target me with specific credit offers.
Schweigi 12y ago
I think more interesting is the section about what Law Enforcement can access and what not - which is explained in detail on this page: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests... The page also contains three PDFs with more details for US/EMEA/APAC. I always thought with the iOS7 encryption everything is encrypted but it looks like this is only the case with iOS8.
- Geee 12y ago
  iPhone's full-disk hardware encryption is not active after the device has booted and has been unlocked for the first time. There's second layer of software encryption for important data, which includes now much more (but not everything) in iOS8.
  - astrange 12y ago
    That's not quite true; iOS doesn't use "full-disk encryption", but only file encryption. You can read about it under File Data Protection in http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Sept_2014.pdf http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Sept....
    - comex 12y ago
      Actually, the parent is correct - the PDF you linked suggests otherwise: > (NSFileProtectionNone): This class key is protected only with the UID, and is kept in Effaceable Storage. Since all the keys needed to decrypt files in this class are stored on the device, the encryption only affords the benefit of fast remote wipe. If a file is not assigned a Data Protection class, it is still stored in encrypted form (as is all data on an iOS device). but AFAIK, the way this is actually implemented is that the non-None file protection settings are an additional layer on top of full disk encryption. On my jailbroken iPhone 5s on iOS 7.1, the /var partition is mounted from /dev/disk0s1s2 - where the double partition is due to a CoreStorage block layer between the filesystem and the actual disk. If you dump some data /dev/rdisk0s1s2, you'll find a HFS+ filesystem with plenty of strings, but if you look at /dev/rdisk0 itself, they're nowhere to be found, i.e. the CoreStorage volume is encrypted. (There's probably a more direct way to determine this, but CoreStorage is closed source and undocumented, so meh...)
yellowcake 12y ago
I find it amusing that this is being served on an unencrypted unauthenticated page. There is no HTTPS redirect or HSTS header.
- rsl7 12y ago
  Fortunately, it's not a secret message.
  - blinkingled 12y ago
    But how do I know a MITM is not modifying this message to claim things Apple hadn't intended to say? :)
    - Geee 12y ago
      That's some next-gen shit.. Also, using HTTP gives Apple plausible deniability. "No, we didn't actually say that, it was MITM..."
  - harry8 12y ago
    The broadcast isn't secret. Maybe the fact that you received the broadcast should be. Slowing down anyone who wants to build a massive database about you to identify your weaknesses, this is a good thing to do. Edit: I love being modded down by people who don't reply with evidence based argument, it's better than fake internet points to let you know you're onto something. /me waves to our visitors from the NSA.
    - schoen 12y ago
      For example, a network adversary can make a list of everyone who was interested in Apple's government data access policy. They can also tell which of those people accessed that policy from an Apple device, thanks to unencrypted user-agents. One practical use of that might be in planning future investigations. More generally, there was the report of an XKeyScore rule to identify people who were interested in Tails. It's hard to know what a particular network adversary uses that information for, but it's disquieting to think that, partly because information about OSes, privacy policies, and communications security measures is served up unencrypted, it's possible to profile people based on their platforms (or intended future platforms), interest in particular aspects of privacy and security, and technical sophistication. Because of TCP fingerprinting and unique file sizes, as well as sites that have information only or mainly about a single topic, it may be hard to fix this problem with HTTPS alone. But it's important to think of the fact that someone read something as privacy-sensitive even when the thing they read is available to the public. If you don't care for the communications security examples or they just strike you as too meta, try browsing around WebMD for a bit. Nothing there is secret or even customized for any particular user!
llamataboot 12y ago
I think what strikes me the most about the new privacy policy* (and the associated mini-site) is just how /readable/ it is. No legalese. No 50 pages of undecipherable jargon. It's plain text an Apple clearly /wants/ you to read it and understand what their privacy policy is and privacy practices are. Yes, there's still the questions about PRISM etc and the NSA, but in terms of everyday use of their products, what they share with 3rd parties, and their law enforcement policies - I find the language very refreshing. *https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/
- aiiane 12y ago
  Google actually takes a similar approach: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
- Elepsis 12y ago
  This is actually part of a broader and encouraging trend of non-shitty terms of use and privacy policies. Microsoft and Google actually also write in relatively readable, plain English. Microsoft - http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/windowsservices/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/windowsservi... (unfortunately the page itself is a bit of an eyesore, though.) Google - http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
pc 12y ago
I couldn't find anything that describes whether Apple can access your iCloud data in response to a law enforcement request. (I.e., whether it's encrypted in situ.) Does anyone know?
- patio11 12y ago
  Apple will provide iCloud data in response to search warrants. Horse's mouth: https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/ https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- stdgy 12y ago
  All your iCloud content is encrypted in transit and, in most cases, when stored (see below). If we use third-party vendors to store your data, we encrypt it and never give them the keys. Apple retains the encryption keys in our own data centers, so you can back up, sync, and share your iCloud data. If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like most things are encrypted while on iCloud. Namely: - Photost - Documents - Calendars - Contacts - iCloud Keychain - Backup - Bookmarks - Reminders - Find My iPhone - Find My Friends But these aren't encrypted on iCloud: - Mail and Notes (Though they are encrypted in transit) I would think this means that Apple is able to hand over Mail and Notes data sans encryption? On another page it reads: On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. I read this to apply only to items stored on the device itself. Not on iCloud. But I hope I'm reading this wrong, and Mail storage is indeed encrypted on iCloud.
  - pc 12y ago
    > If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like most things are encrypted while on iCloud. [...] If that list is accurate, that's great.
sergiotapia 12y ago
"Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will." The way this was worded is so plain and to the point, it's refreshing. I sincerely hope it's true! Great job on Apple and Tim Cook for laying it all out there.
- jellicle 12y ago
  So when the NSA's internal Top Secret slides say that Apple was added to the PRISM program as a "provider" in October 2012, that provides "Email, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VOIP, file transfers, video conferencing, logins, online social networking details" to the NSA, how then should we reconcile these statements? Is the NSA lying in its internal slides to itself? Is Tim Cook lying in his statement to the external world? Is Tim Cook splitting hairs in some fashion? For instance, is he defining "backdoor" to mean "illegal backdoor", which therefore excludes everything done with the FBI/NSA under a veneer of legality?
  - wfunction 12y ago
    Maybe it was a frontdoor to their products/services instead of a backdoor. (Only half joking.)
  - sigzero 12y ago
    I think you are way over thinking it. The NSA's internal slides said nothing about Apple helping the NSA at all. I read these statements just a Mr. Cook laid them out.
  - xenadu02 12y ago
    People really want to make something out of this, but it's very simple: the NSA found the "goto fail" bug and exploited it. (We know they also exploited heartbleed.) We know they have active programs looking for holes in open source code and fuzzing commercial services looking for vulnerabilities. How is that so hard to believe?
RoboTeddy 12y ago
> In the first six months of 2014, we received 250 or fewer [national security requests from the US government]. Though we would like to be more specific, by law this is the most precise information we are currently allowed to disclose. http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...
droopyEyelids 12y ago
This is getting weird. (Background interview with Charlie Rose http://youtu.be/Bmm5faI_mLo?t=35s http://youtu.be/Bmm5faI_mLo?t=35s) I dont understand: > Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will Either he's hiding the fact that they'll provide what data they have (timings, ip addresses, contact metadata) when the warrant comes, he doesn't think it's valuable to publicize the ways they cooperate with the government legally, or he is actually thinks Apple will break the law when the lawful requests come in. Second, he doesn't address exactly how everyone lost their data in the nude celebrity thing. A straigtforward answer would address the elephant in the room, and give us facts to think about, what we need to look out for, and how their recent moves address the vulnerabilities. Right now all we have is informed guess work and inferences from (admittedly great) detectives like https://twitter.com/nikcub https://twitter.com/nikcub Still different than hearing it from people with the facts.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I doubt he's hiding it; there is a whole page about their responses to government requests: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests... He seems to be drawing a distinction between providing some information to the government in response to a request, vs. providing "access to our servers."
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
tonysuper 12y ago
Really great to see a company acknowledging that privacy is a major concern. It's also a great business decision, because privacy is one thing that Google will never be able to beat Apple on. They pretty much have no way to for them to respond if Apple starts running ads about privacy.
apaprocki 12y ago
So does the last statement about never sharing data with a government agency serve as a sort of warrant canary? If they were served with a national security letter to hand over encryption keys for an entire service, wouldn't they have to remove that line?
Tangokat 12y ago
As much as I like this message. I just don't believe him. We KNOW the US government will issue a gag order and not allow him or anyone else to speak about what they recieve. The only way to be sure is to provide the source and allow people to complile it themselves, which is just never happening.
- dmishe 12y ago
  http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests3.pdf http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests... has warrant canary "Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act."
  - skuhn 12y ago
    It is gone from the 2014 report: https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/government-information-requests-20140630.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/government-information-re...
    - dmishe 12y ago
      Yeah the timing is crazy
squid_ca 12y ago
And yet, they had the gall to force an album down our throats during their reveal last week. When I saw that U2 album in iTunes, I had to stop and ask myself why I was so pissed off about it. In theory, it was simply a nice gesture. But in reality, it was just a reminder that Apple is in control of my software, not me. It was a reminder that, ultimately, this company (and, in fairness, most companies) is going to fuck me over if it means more money for them. So, sorry Tim Cook! but you are full of shit. You will totally roll over and fuck me when money is on the line, either as a business opportunity or to avoid a fine. And guess what? I am screwed no matter what I do, because the choice is between convenience and Richard Stallman-esque software self-cripling, and the Dead Kennedys already know how that plays out.
hellbanTHIS 12y ago
How long until Apple buys DuckDuckGo, minutes or seconds?
- lmedinas 12y ago
  Hope they don't buy it but at least donate! :)
tszming 12y ago
Commitment and capability are two things. I am not saying Apple does not have the capability to protect user privacy, but I trust Google more in term of their capabilities.
- gress 12y ago
  But Google doesn't protect user privacy from itself.
drderidder 12y ago
The way user data fits into Apple's business model (ie. to make the product better vs. generating ad revenue) is appealing, but unfortunately it's gotten to the point where pledges of privacy from US companies have a hollow ring to them. I expect a gradual migration away from US-based SaaS/PaaS and OS offerings to open source alternatives and self-hosted utility computing, particularly for business and government applications.
- jqm 12y ago
  Exactly. Once trust is broken, it's hard to regain. An entity changing behavior after being caught doesn't really inspire confidence in what it might do when it believes no one is watching. Trust is a fragile thing. Hard to build, easy to destroy. I don't necessarily blame these companies though. They are profit oriented and they almost certainly have to play by certain rules to grow to any size. But the surveillance crew certainly has certainly shot themselves (and us) in the foot to some degree. I just hope what they got out of it was worth it, but I'm doubtful. If they had just played a little more by the rules and vetted important matters rather than being lazy, their jobs (and everyone in the Western tech industry) might be a lot easier going forward. Unfounded hubris and lack of foresight seem to be very common pitfalls for military, security and policing services. At least in the U.S. And probably everywhere throughout history.
  - drderidder 12y ago
    It's Celine's First Law.
baddox 12y ago
Well, that might be the most impressive official comment I've ever seen from a large business. It wasn't too technical (from a legal or technological perspective), but also wasn't too dumbed down. It was clear and frank, and not once did my "BS alarm" go off. But I'm generally a fan of Apple, and a frequent user of iOS devices, and I've always liked Tim Cook. Maybe I'm biased.
holri 12y ago
The interesting thing is that they obviously think that there is now a market and selling point for privacy.
nikiiv 12y ago
So in general, to be read as: "Please continue to upload nude selfies, they are more secure then ever" :)
hellbanner 12y ago
So what about this vanishing of the warrant canary? https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappears-suggesting-new-patriot-act-demands/ https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappea...

135 points by dombili 12y ago

"On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8." But law enforcement can still brute force the encrypted image right?

TTPrograms 12y ago
I was also under the impression that some of the Snowden slides contradict this point.
yzzxy 12y ago
From a Feb. 2014 Apple Security whitepaper[0]: "The passcode is “tangled” with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be per-formed on the device under attack. A large iteration count is used to make each attempt slower. The iteration count is calibrated so that one attempt takes approximately 80 milliseconds. This means it would take more than 5½ years to try all combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers." There's more info on the file encryption in the paper, around page 8. [0] http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.p...
- readerrrr 12y ago
  How were the iCloud accounts then attacked if they didn't have physical access to the device? The passcode is “tangled” with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be per-formed on the device under attack Even with the password you need the device, which they didn't.
  - yzzxy 12y ago
    I think the "Cloud" may have been involved.
  - penprog 12y ago
    I think a lot of it was social engineering and bad passwords. If you are using multiple services and one is compromised you can pretty much give up access to everything if you use the same password all around.
  - cpr 12y ago
    Guesses based on known properties of the (well-known, high-exposure) targets.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    iCloud backups aren't encrypted with the same key as on device storage.
  - gress 12y ago
    Social engineering was used to get the answers to the users security questions.
  - dmishe 12y ago
    You can restore from iCloud backup to any device (which is presumably how elcomsoft software works). The only thing that you need original device for is the keychain, but I am not sure if this has changed since keychain in the cloud
- BCM43 12y ago
  That's assuming you can't clone it, and try on 1000 devices at the same time, correct?
- blake8086 12y ago
  Isn't that 5.5 years of sequential trying? This is a parallelizable problem. There's also no restriction on how fast a cracking machine is allowed to be, so I doubt 80ms is the lower limit.
  - xenadu02 12y ago
    Did you not RTFA? The file system keys are stored in the SoC secure storage area and there are no facilities for retrieving them, meaning you must perform the decryption attempts with the phone's own SoC. Of course an iCloud backup file is another matter... At least they are turning on two factor auth for that, but it's a difficult problem if someone has your password and the keys are on a phone that you no longer have.

linguafranca 12y ago

Sorry, am I missing something here? What's the context? Is Apple accused of some recent scam? Is this because of them forcing U2 into our accounts?

vermontdevil 12y ago
The celebrity pic hack.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
barrecan 12y ago
In light of the recent "iCloud hacking" as well as the launch of health monitoring with iOS8, questions about security arose.
morenoh149 12y ago
* celebrity leak * health integrations * google has the opposite strategy
sergiotapia 12y ago
Context is The Fappening incident.

thisisdallas 12y ago

>We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will. That's good to read but, technically, it's not their choice, correct?

isomorphic 12y ago
They can hand over copies of data (after being presented with a warrant) without giving "access to our servers."
- thisisdallas 12y ago
  Ahh I see, thanks for the comment.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Maybe I'm just really cynical, but now I'm imagining scenarios like mirroring their disks to copies someone like the NSA is allowed full access to. Would that be "access" to their "servers"? Maybe they don't include Apple's own private keys, so at least the NSA can't impersonate them, just read every byte of data they have? Then again, it's sort of moot because they can probably be legally forced to provide full "access to [their] servers". Some comments here are pointing out they have the choice whether to obey the law, so is Cook actually saying they will disobey it?
grecy 12y ago
> technically, it's not their choice, correct? Technically, it very much is their choice to comply or not, if they are ever put in a position to do so. The consequences of not complying are not up to them, but they can still not comply if they choose. (The consequences might be massive fines and/or jail time for execs, but it's still a choice)
xexers 12y ago
He talked to Charlie Rose about this 2 days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmm5faI_mLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmm5faI_mLo

isomorphic 12y ago

"Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make our devices better. Plain and simple." Shots fired. (At Google, obviously.)

cargo8 12y ago
Tim Cook has been uncharacteristically (well, for Apple, not for himself) direct in stating that Google is their top competitor and making implicit jabs at their business model. On the other hand, what this also says (to people who like awesome cloud services) is :: "Unfortunately this also means that our predictive keyboard, Siri, and other predictive services will never be that good."
- jonahx 12y ago
  well, seeing that every time i enter my own address into google maps, i am first given a result in another state and have to manually type the zip code (and i do have cookies enabled) i don't think they have much to worry about yet....
  - markmark 12y ago
    If you were "in" the Google ecosystem you would just need to type "Home".
- jameswilsterman 12y ago
  "We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you." I don't think this precludes Apple from ever building better predictive services. Tim Cook is specifically saying that Apple does not sell or give away your data to third-parties for advertising purposes. He is NOT saying that Apple would never ask permission to read your e-mail if it meant that they could offer a compelling Apple-created product and user experience as a result. For example, with Apple Pay, Apple is technically using and storing my private information (my credit card data) to offer me a compelling service. They are not going to then figure out which credit card I own and/or how much I spend, and sell that info to banks so that they can target me with specific credit offers.

Schweigi 12y ago

I think more interesting is the section about what Law Enforcement can access and what not - which is explained in detail on this page: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests... The page also contains three PDFs with more details for US/EMEA/APAC. I always thought with the iOS7 encryption everything is encrypted but it looks like this is only the case with iOS8.

Geee 12y ago
iPhone's full-disk hardware encryption is not active after the device has booted and has been unlocked for the first time. There's second layer of software encryption for important data, which includes now much more (but not everything) in iOS8.
- astrange 12y ago
  That's not quite true; iOS doesn't use "full-disk encryption", but only file encryption. You can read about it under File Data Protection in http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Sept_2014.pdf http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Sept....
  - comex 12y ago
    Actually, the parent is correct - the PDF you linked suggests otherwise: > (NSFileProtectionNone): This class key is protected only with the UID, and is kept in Effaceable Storage. Since all the keys needed to decrypt files in this class are stored on the device, the encryption only affords the benefit of fast remote wipe. If a file is not assigned a Data Protection class, it is still stored in encrypted form (as is all data on an iOS device). but AFAIK, the way this is actually implemented is that the non-None file protection settings are an additional layer on top of full disk encryption. On my jailbroken iPhone 5s on iOS 7.1, the /var partition is mounted from /dev/disk0s1s2 - where the double partition is due to a CoreStorage block layer between the filesystem and the actual disk. If you dump some data /dev/rdisk0s1s2, you'll find a HFS+ filesystem with plenty of strings, but if you look at /dev/rdisk0 itself, they're nowhere to be found, i.e. the CoreStorage volume is encrypted. (There's probably a more direct way to determine this, but CoreStorage is closed source and undocumented, so meh...)

yellowcake 12y ago

I find it amusing that this is being served on an unencrypted unauthenticated page. There is no HTTPS redirect or HSTS header.

rsl7 12y ago
Fortunately, it's not a secret message.
- blinkingled 12y ago
  But how do I know a MITM is not modifying this message to claim things Apple hadn't intended to say? :)
  - Geee 12y ago
    That's some next-gen shit.. Also, using HTTP gives Apple plausible deniability. "No, we didn't actually say that, it was MITM..."
- harry8 12y ago
  The broadcast isn't secret. Maybe the fact that you received the broadcast should be. Slowing down anyone who wants to build a massive database about you to identify your weaknesses, this is a good thing to do. Edit: I love being modded down by people who don't reply with evidence based argument, it's better than fake internet points to let you know you're onto something. /me waves to our visitors from the NSA.
  - schoen 12y ago
    For example, a network adversary can make a list of everyone who was interested in Apple's government data access policy. They can also tell which of those people accessed that policy from an Apple device, thanks to unencrypted user-agents. One practical use of that might be in planning future investigations. More generally, there was the report of an XKeyScore rule to identify people who were interested in Tails. It's hard to know what a particular network adversary uses that information for, but it's disquieting to think that, partly because information about OSes, privacy policies, and communications security measures is served up unencrypted, it's possible to profile people based on their platforms (or intended future platforms), interest in particular aspects of privacy and security, and technical sophistication. Because of TCP fingerprinting and unique file sizes, as well as sites that have information only or mainly about a single topic, it may be hard to fix this problem with HTTPS alone. But it's important to think of the fact that someone read something as privacy-sensitive even when the thing they read is available to the public. If you don't care for the communications security examples or they just strike you as too meta, try browsing around WebMD for a bit. Nothing there is secret or even customized for any particular user!

llamataboot 12y ago

I think what strikes me the most about the new privacy policy* (and the associated mini-site) is just how /readable/ it is. No legalese. No 50 pages of undecipherable jargon. It's plain text an Apple clearly /wants/ you to read it and understand what their privacy policy is and privacy practices are. Yes, there's still the questions about PRISM etc and the NSA, but in terms of everyday use of their products, what they share with 3rd parties, and their law enforcement policies - I find the language very refreshing. *https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/

aiiane 12y ago
Google actually takes a similar approach: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
Elepsis 12y ago
This is actually part of a broader and encouraging trend of non-shitty terms of use and privacy policies. Microsoft and Google actually also write in relatively readable, plain English. Microsoft - http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/windowsservices/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/windowsservi... (unfortunately the page itself is a bit of an eyesore, though.) Google - http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/

pc 12y ago

I couldn't find anything that describes whether Apple can access your iCloud data in response to a law enforcement request. (I.e., whether it's encrypted in situ.) Does anyone know?

patio11 12y ago
Apple will provide iCloud data in response to search warrants. Horse's mouth: https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/ https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
stdgy 12y ago
All your iCloud content is encrypted in transit and, in most cases, when stored (see below). If we use third-party vendors to store your data, we encrypt it and never give them the keys. Apple retains the encryption keys in our own data centers, so you can back up, sync, and share your iCloud data. If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like most things are encrypted while on iCloud. Namely: - Photost - Documents - Calendars - Contacts - iCloud Keychain - Backup - Bookmarks - Reminders - Find My iPhone - Find My Friends But these aren't encrypted on iCloud: - Mail and Notes (Though they are encrypted in transit) I would think this means that Apple is able to hand over Mail and Notes data sans encryption? On another page it reads: On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. I read this to apply only to items stored on the device itself. Not on iCloud. But I hope I'm reading this wrong, and Mail storage is indeed encrypted on iCloud.
- pc 12y ago
  > If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like most things are encrypted while on iCloud. [...] If that list is accurate, that's great.

sergiotapia 12y ago

"Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will." The way this was worded is so plain and to the point, it's refreshing. I sincerely hope it's true! Great job on Apple and Tim Cook for laying it all out there.

jellicle 12y ago
So when the NSA's internal Top Secret slides say that Apple was added to the PRISM program as a "provider" in October 2012, that provides "Email, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VOIP, file transfers, video conferencing, logins, online social networking details" to the NSA, how then should we reconcile these statements? Is the NSA lying in its internal slides to itself? Is Tim Cook lying in his statement to the external world? Is Tim Cook splitting hairs in some fashion? For instance, is he defining "backdoor" to mean "illegal backdoor", which therefore excludes everything done with the FBI/NSA under a veneer of legality?
- wfunction 12y ago
  Maybe it was a frontdoor to their products/services instead of a backdoor. (Only half joking.)
- sigzero 12y ago
  I think you are way over thinking it. The NSA's internal slides said nothing about Apple helping the NSA at all. I read these statements just a Mr. Cook laid them out.
- xenadu02 12y ago
  People really want to make something out of this, but it's very simple: the NSA found the "goto fail" bug and exploited it. (We know they also exploited heartbleed.) We know they have active programs looking for holes in open source code and fuzzing commercial services looking for vulnerabilities. How is that so hard to believe?

RoboTeddy 12y ago

> In the first six months of 2014, we received 250 or fewer [national security requests from the US government]. Though we would like to be more specific, by law this is the most precise information we are currently allowed to disclose. http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...

droopyEyelids 12y ago

This is getting weird. (Background interview with Charlie Rose http://youtu.be/Bmm5faI_mLo?t=35s http://youtu.be/Bmm5faI_mLo?t=35s) I dont understand: > Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will Either he's hiding the fact that they'll provide what data they have (timings, ip addresses, contact metadata) when the warrant comes, he doesn't think it's valuable to publicize the ways they cooperate with the government legally, or he is actually thinks Apple will break the law when the lawful requests come in. Second, he doesn't address exactly how everyone lost their data in the nude celebrity thing. A straigtforward answer would address the elephant in the room, and give us facts to think about, what we need to look out for, and how their recent moves address the vulnerabilities. Right now all we have is informed guess work and inferences from (admittedly great) detectives like https://twitter.com/nikcub https://twitter.com/nikcub Still different than hearing it from people with the facts.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 12y ago
I doubt he's hiding it; there is a whole page about their responses to government requests: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests... He seems to be drawing a distinction between providing some information to the government in response to a request, vs. providing "access to our servers."
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

tonysuper 12y ago

Really great to see a company acknowledging that privacy is a major concern. It's also a great business decision, because privacy is one thing that Google will never be able to beat Apple on. They pretty much have no way to for them to respond if Apple starts running ads about privacy.

apaprocki 12y ago

So does the last statement about never sharing data with a government agency serve as a sort of warrant canary? If they were served with a national security letter to hand over encryption keys for an entire service, wouldn't they have to remove that line?

Tangokat 12y ago

As much as I like this message. I just don't believe him. We KNOW the US government will issue a gag order and not allow him or anyone else to speak about what they recieve. The only way to be sure is to provide the source and allow people to complile it themselves, which is just never happening.

dmishe 12y ago
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests3.pdf http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests... has warrant canary "Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act."
- skuhn 12y ago
  It is gone from the 2014 report: https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/government-information-requests-20140630.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/government-information-re...
  - dmishe 12y ago
    Yeah the timing is crazy

squid_ca 12y ago

And yet, they had the gall to force an album down our throats during their reveal last week. When I saw that U2 album in iTunes, I had to stop and ask myself why I was so pissed off about it. In theory, it was simply a nice gesture. But in reality, it was just a reminder that Apple is in control of my software, not me. It was a reminder that, ultimately, this company (and, in fairness, most companies) is going to fuck me over if it means more money for them. So, sorry Tim Cook! but you are full of shit. You will totally roll over and fuck me when money is on the line, either as a business opportunity or to avoid a fine. And guess what? I am screwed no matter what I do, because the choice is between convenience and Richard Stallman-esque software self-cripling, and the Dead Kennedys already know how that plays out.

hellbanTHIS 12y ago

How long until Apple buys DuckDuckGo, minutes or seconds?

lmedinas 12y ago
Hope they don't buy it but at least donate! :)

tszming 12y ago

Commitment and capability are two things. I am not saying Apple does not have the capability to protect user privacy, but I trust Google more in term of their capabilities.

gress 12y ago
But Google doesn't protect user privacy from itself.

drderidder 12y ago

The way user data fits into Apple's business model (ie. to make the product better vs. generating ad revenue) is appealing, but unfortunately it's gotten to the point where pledges of privacy from US companies have a hollow ring to them. I expect a gradual migration away from US-based SaaS/PaaS and OS offerings to open source alternatives and self-hosted utility computing, particularly for business and government applications.

jqm 12y ago
Exactly. Once trust is broken, it's hard to regain. An entity changing behavior after being caught doesn't really inspire confidence in what it might do when it believes no one is watching. Trust is a fragile thing. Hard to build, easy to destroy. I don't necessarily blame these companies though. They are profit oriented and they almost certainly have to play by certain rules to grow to any size. But the surveillance crew certainly has certainly shot themselves (and us) in the foot to some degree. I just hope what they got out of it was worth it, but I'm doubtful. If they had just played a little more by the rules and vetted important matters rather than being lazy, their jobs (and everyone in the Western tech industry) might be a lot easier going forward. Unfounded hubris and lack of foresight seem to be very common pitfalls for military, security and policing services. At least in the U.S. And probably everywhere throughout history.
- drderidder 12y ago
  It's Celine's First Law.

baddox 12y ago

Well, that might be the most impressive official comment I've ever seen from a large business. It wasn't too technical (from a legal or technological perspective), but also wasn't too dumbed down. It was clear and frank, and not once did my "BS alarm" go off. But I'm generally a fan of Apple, and a frequent user of iOS devices, and I've always liked Tim Cook. Maybe I'm biased.

holri 12y ago

The interesting thing is that they obviously think that there is now a market and selling point for privacy.

nikiiv 12y ago

So in general, to be read as: "Please continue to upload nude selfies, they are more secure then ever" :)

hellbanner 12y ago

So what about this vanishing of the warrant canary? https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappears-suggesting-new-patriot-act-demands/ https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappea...