18 ms·

Apple’s Tim Cook Delivers Blistering Speech on Encryption, Privacy

• msabalau 11y ago
  In other words, Apple is incapable of competing at delivering valuable user experiences on the basis of machine learning, so they are trashing the concept.
  • msabalau 11y ago
    Downvote if you want, but billions of people get value every day out of Facebook, Google, and Amazon knowing them. Saying scary words about advertising isn't going to keep people from abandoning Apple's premium priced lower quality photo service.
    • threeseed 11y ago
      People get value from the core service of Facebook, Google and Amazon not their machine learning driven advertising/recommendation engines. And I would argue that given that since those engines are used to drive company profit first and user experience second they are of limited value to the user. And if you are talking about Google Now style functionality well I haven't seen that changing the world same with Siri, Cortona etc. But Apple did aquire Spotsetter and Cue so Apple will be coming out with an equivalent soon enough.
      • resu_nimda 11y ago
        Personally I do get value from Facebook ads, I very often see ads for vendors and events that I am interested in and did not know of before. Regardless, what is the value of Facebook being free? Would most people rather pay with their money or with their data? Can you make a definitive argument that giving my data to Google or Facebook costs me anything?
        • threeseed 11y ago
          I am not disputing that people may get value from advertising but (a) it is not the reason people use the service and (b) it is not even close to being a popular feature of the service. And giving data costs you when something goes wrong. Dealing with identity theft, stolen credit cards etc is not fun a experience to deal with.
          • fpgeek 11y ago
            How, exactly, has Google's collection of personal information contributed to identity theft? I suppose, on paper, you're more vulnerable to Google employees or contractors using internal access to steal identities, but is that a problem in practice (if so, I'd love pointers)? Or are Google's internal security measures and controls effective in preventing it? Meanwhile, Google's done more than most companies to protect the information they have from third-party attacks (HTTPS, two-factor authentication, certificate pinning, and so on), probably partly because it is so important to their business model. Apple, on the other hand, has often been slow to implement new security features out of concerns it will compromise the user experience, leading to well-known breaches like this one: http://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/ http://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/
            • threeseed 11y ago
              I think you completely misread what I said. The downside of a company collecting data is the risk of what happens if that data leaks. There was an example of a very popular site here in Australia being hacked 3 years ago that only just notifed customers (of which I was one). Credit card numbers and other PII data was stolen. I had to dig through credit card transaction list and there is still the ongoing concern of identity theft. The risk of Google, Facebook being hacked is small but that is the risk of handing over your data. Most people including myself are happy to take that risk but not everyone is.
              • nemothekid 11y ago
                The risk of you being personally targeted and hacked is greater than Google being hacked. The only entity I'm concerned about that might access Google's data is the US government. OTOH, If you don't trust Google with your data, I don't see how you can trust anyone else - at that point you might as well be writing your own PGP implementation.
      • traek 11y ago
        I get value from Google's personalized search and Facebook's customization of my News Feed. I'm not saying those services don't exist to drive company profit, but I do think that machine learning and personalization can add value for the end user.
    • BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      So I downvoted your original comment not because people get value out of machine learning (which I agree with) but that you purport that Apple is incapable of delivering something based on machine learning. Unless you're a core Apple engineer I don't see how you could know this for sure; it sounded more like an opinion that didn't further the discussion. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they use machine learning for a few things (they do collect data after all just not as much).
      • krisgenre 11y ago
        But you can't improve your machine learning without collecting huge amounts of data right? Google Now wouldn't be possible without their data. If Apple is against collecting data then how would they be able to build a service that relies on data?
  • threatofrain 11y ago
    I think Apple may be communicating something different: I think Tim Cook is merely criticizing that those companies make money off of your information somehow, while giving you a service "for free". I don't think that precludes Apple from using machine learning techniques on mass-collected data.
  • snowwrestler 11y ago
    Right, there is probably no machine learning at all behind Siri.
• icpmacdo 11y ago
  “I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information,” “They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.” This is a great strategy to win the hearts and minds of privacy advocates like me and take shots at companies like Google at the same time.
  • mkozlows 11y ago
    It's also, more cynically, trying to cast Apple's business model as a moral issue. I mean, to be fair, Google does this too -- their emphasis on openness with Android, or "the next billion" with the low-cost, low-margin devices they enable are casting their business model as more moral than Apple's -- but advocating for the moral superiority of spending high-end money, as Cook is here, always strikes me as kind of gross. (Also, when he implies that Google sells your data, he's just wrong. Google uses the heck out of it, but they don't sell it -- why would they? It's their competitive advantage, they don't want other people having direct access to it.)
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      • pervycreeper 11y ago
        >You're arguing over semantics. Selling a product (ads) that is a direct result of having that data is basically selling that data. For some definition of "basically" that means "not whatsoever". Selling involves exchanging money for goods or services with another party (to paraphrase Homer Simpson).
        • deleted 11y ago
          [deleted]
    • damon_c 11y ago
• msoad 11y ago
  Software is eating everything, including hardware. If Apple is not capable of doing good software it's doomed. It appears to me that Apple is giving up on software. By software I mean the code that recognize things in my photos in Google Photos or the software that sort the items in my Facebook News Feed. Apple is incapable of doing software like that. At least today. So what they're doing is bashing those who actually can do things with their data. I like to believe there is a company that cares about my privacy but we all know if Apple can make a good business from my data it will(iAd). They simply can't!
  • craigyk 11y ago
    Sure...
    • msoad 11y ago
      I know people from Apple data-related teams and talk to them a lot. Trust me, they simply don't have what it takes to build good data-heavy software.
      • nemo 11y ago
        I know people from Apple data-related teams and have no idea what you're talking about. Might depend on the team...
      • threeseed 11y ago
        I know people from those teams as well. Pretty sure Siri, iTunes Match, iTunes Store, App Store, iMessages, iCloud etc use just a little bit of data so clearly they aren't idiots. And with the acquisition of the guys from FoundationDB pretty sure they will have at least some skill in high end database engineering.
        • MCRed 11y ago
          Especially given that Google has yet to catch up with most of these, including the "beleaguered" Maps App.
• joelrunyon 11y ago
  This, combined with a few reports from a couple months ago, sounds like Apple might be ramping up a search engine competitor that could be more privacy-focused.
  • mark_l_watson 11y ago
    I would like to see that happen. In an ideal world, I believe, we would be able to pay for search, cloud storage, email, etc. with strong privacy and security guarantees.
    • madeofpalk 11y ago
      Search engine and email is always going to be 'free'. The difference, what Apple claims, comes from who pays for that. Google's free services are subsidised by advertisers. Apple's free services are subsidised by hardware, the software costs are lumped in when your purchase an iPhone or a Mac.
    • jethro_tell 11y ago
      Apple has shown they aren't really into your data, but they've also got a pretty atrocious security record (poor handling of data on phones and slow OS patching among others) making it seem like that's also not as much of a concern as it should be. I don't trust google and I would love to pay for 'cloud' but I think trusting Apple is also misguided.
    • vacri 11y ago
      'Private search' already exists. If that's what you want, then use duckduckgo. As a bonus, it's outside the Apple ecosystem, so you're diversifying your risk.
    • 72deluxe 11y ago
      I had never thought about paying for Search but I think it's a really good idea. A subscription to a search engine would be really useful.
      • 11y ago
• b0sk 11y ago
  A scathing attack because their business model doesn't depend on privacy, but if Apple is in a business like Google/Facebook, would he still feel icky like this?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• johnrob 11y ago
  Tim, if we're dumb enough to join your autocratic platform, then we're certainly dumb enough to not care about our personal data.
  • gress 11y ago
    Do you use Google's autocratic platform instead?
    • 72deluxe 11y ago
      True! The only safe way is to use a dumb phone from about 15 years ago. Now where's my Siemens A50 or Sony w810i.... I know I have them somewhere...
• alaskamiller 11y ago
  Caveat being how Apple looks at privacy isn't necessary how Facebook or Google views privacy because Apple is a store while Google and Facebook are clubs. It's in a store's best interest to keep their customer records private. A club's best interest is to broadcast how much fun it is to join them. That's not to say a club doesn't and wouldn't want to keep their member records private as well. In fact, clubs work hard to do so, just ask how Meerkat is doing, or any other third parties looking to build on top of a platform they don't own. Additionally a club like Google or Facebook doesn't sell sell your information. They do the same song and dance as all mass communication companies in the past do, they merely sell hints of it. To compare a store's motive with a club's motive is interesting, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges. It might also speak to why the core DNA of Apple isn't in creating web services, why Google's core DNA isn't in creating physical products, and why I much prefer speaking to Google Now on my iPhone. They both see the world differently. -- The real interesting question is this. Apple's service agreement states they store and encrypt iMessages. There have been 300 billion messages thus far. Apple has a centralized system for managing those messages while others use a decentralized peer-to-peer system. So a positive is that the government can't hack into it. The negative being that if the government justifies in asking for it instead Apple has no recourse but to give it up. When push comes to shove, will Apple, the largest company in the world, step up to the plate and spend money to fight the United States in court? Otherwise this is just a sales pitch that Don Draper pulled when he told a fictional cigarette company to start claiming their tobacco is sun-dried so that every other cigarette company looks weaker in comparison.
• hackuser 11y ago
  I'm repeating myself (from other threads) but Mozilla should use this sales pitch. Very few users can evaluate business' privacy practices; they only can trust the business. Due to their non-profit, public good status, their mission, and their track record, nobody could compete with Mozilla on trust. EDIT: I'll add: Certainly the other two leading browser makers couldn't compete, and in mobile platforms only Apple, if they sell Cook's pitch effectively, can provide any competition.
  • byuu 11y ago
    Does Mozilla's track record include their suggested advertising tiles on your newtab page, based off your browsing history? Or their defaulting to Yahoo to send your searches because they were the highest bidder? Now yes, they say the tiles are based on your local history and not transmitted anywhere; so it's not as bad (I don't care if other people don't see it, I don't want my data mined even locally for the purpose of showing me ads); but it's pretty clear that Mozilla is a business that wants to earn money. And as the saying goes, "if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer -- you're the product." But you're right about one thing: they're probably the least bad of all the browser manufacturers on all this. Maybe what we need is a crowdfunded browser, where the company listens to their users and has no conflicts of interest.
    • riquito 11y ago
      > Maybe what we need is a crowdfunded browser, where the company listens to their users and has no conflicts of interest. Then "just" collect enough money for Mozilla so that they don't need other sources of income
    • JohnTHaller 11y ago
      The huge difference is that they are completely upfront about it, turning it off is trivial and requires no digging into settings as the switch is right on that page, what they do with your data in terms of the tiles is entirely open source, etc. Plus, the default search engine is paid everywhere. Google, Yahoo, Bing, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, etc all pay for placement in browsers. Users are free to select whatever browser they want in good browsers.
• MCRed 11y ago
  You see here, in all the apologists for those who violate privacy the real truth of the Hacker News crowd. Their hatred of Apple exceeds their desire for privacy, security, and an end to the intrusive police state we have. For years, literally since the days of the Apple //e, I've seen people online (BBSes then) attacking Apple because they couldn't afford one and got something else. This didn't stop when Apple started shipping better quality products that could also run windows for less money. It only got worse when google decided they wanted to counterfeit the iPhone and started this anti-IP ideology. (yes, it didn't exist as a movement outside of Stallman before then.) Mac users just wanted to be left alone, but the Cult of Apple Hating would use any opportunity to bash Apple. This has been going on for 40 years now, and the claims are still the same "costs more does less!" (even when both are false, as they have mostly been for the past near 40 years.) Apple has gone from a startup to the most valuable company in the world in that time period. And what do the cultists say? "Oh, people are just stupid, they like shiny things" (of course they don't say that when people were buying huge android phones with big screens-- a necessity to have a large enough battery given the terrible battery performance of android, no they simply ignored all the things that sucked about android and pretended simultaneously like it was superior to iOS, and that it was a direct ripoff was ok because there's no such thing as intellectual property") You lot are a bunch of god germans. Celebrate your USA FREEDOM ACT and your USA PATRIOT ACT that Obama extended and renewed-- how many of you voted for him, anyway? Any of you regret it? Mac users just wanted to be left along to use their macs. They weren't going around saying that windows sucked, or that microsoft was going under. They weren't claiming %100 marketshare when the truth was Apple hat %25 market share at that time. You've sold your principles, your integrity and your honor. And for what? Because the computer that worked better was too expensive when you were growing up? Well, you can afford one now. So Shame on you. I for one am disgusted at this massive endorsement of the violations of your privacy and your security, simply because you were jealous when you were 14. SHAME.
  • magicalist 11y ago
    I'm tempted to flag your comment for the baseless and distracting claims it makes, but I'm going to hold off since it is essentially self-parodying. I am curious about the "You lot are a bunch of god germans" thing, though.
• hackuser 11y ago
  Apple's statements about privacy, combined poor end-user control and openness (transparency), are an interesting dichotomy. Usually I associate privacy with the latter two. What does it mean without them? 1) To what degree can you trust the systems without openness? Maybe what Cook thinks is valuable data, adequate confidentiality, or acceptable risk, is not what you think. On the other hand, few people actually review the security of FOSS systems. 2) To what degree can you have confidentiality without controlling the system and data? Maybe tomorrow an update will expose your data because you're doing something Apple didn't anticipate or approve. On the other hand, from a system administrator's perspective, it's much easier to secure systems that the sysadmin manages and controls than systems controlled by the users.
• magicalist 11y ago
  > Cook went on to state, as he has before when talking about products like Apple Pay, that Apple ‘doesn’t want your data.’ I was actually somewhat disappointed by the Apple Pay approach (and that Android Pay is going to follow suit). I'd actually much rather have Apple or Google as an intermediary and give the credit card issuer no information about my transaction. It may seem nice to say that your phone OS sees no data about it, but of course the tradeoff is that the issuer does, and they are notorious sellers to data brokers. I'd much rather have one time tokens for both the seller and the bank, and only my phone knows what actually happened in between.
  • Sophistifunk 11y ago
    You, me, and Apple. But no payment company would ever agree, so it's pretty much a non-starter for another 5 or 10 years.
  • wvenable 11y ago
    > credit card issuer no information about my transaction Since the credit card issuer is actually the one paying (and you, in turn, pay them) this doesn't at all seem reasonable. Apple Pay is the middle man.
    • magicalist 11y ago
      Think PayPal. The bank pays Apple Pay, Apple Pay pays the vendor. Google Wallet worked sort of like this through the dummy MasterCard card (MasterCard knew about the payment and the vendor, but not sure if it knew who you were). But as Sophistifunk says, this would be an incredibly hard sell for an industry already extremely reluctant to team up with anyone or anything new.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  • mcintyre1994 11y ago
    Yea, that'd seem preferable but who would be on the hook for fraud/chargebacks etc? I don't see Apple or Google wanting to be in that game and I don't see consumers wanting to lose those protections.
• hackuser 11y ago
  Can Apple really deliver the security it promises? Hundreds of millions of systems being used and configured in every way imaginable, and a very attractive target for attackers -- I don't know what promises I would make publicly.
• krisgenre 11y ago
  I find taking pot shots at competing companies really cheap. Its 2015 and by now I think most people are aware that Facebook and Google collect all the information they can so that they can offer their services for 'free'. How many would really pay for email, cloud storage, search, social network, browser..? what guarantees do I have that the government will NOT have access to my data if I pay for it?
  • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I do pay for email, cloud storage and browser. There's a strong argument my personal information should not be harvested by the folks I paid. But paying for things is entirely unrelated to the government having access to your data. The govt can require a company to collect personal information that passes through their hands, even if they weren't collecting it for business purposes.
    • krisgenre 11y ago
      Honestly, do you really think majority of the users would pay for these services?
      • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        People pay when they have to. People buy antivirus software and get no new features at all - just to avoid losing ground. As these other services become fragile (cost-cutting, competition driving dev costs up) folks will flock to anyone that doesn't suck, and pay for it.
    • 72deluxe 11y ago
      How do you pay for the browser? Are you talking about Safari and the fact that buying Apple hardware has subsidised the Safari development to some extent?
      • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Comes with the OS installations which I pay for.
• callil 11y ago
  They are setting the stage for announcing the launch of their google now compete which they will sell as more secure and private (no selling your info for ads!) [0] This is all part of their marketing campaign. [0] http://9to5mac.com/2015/05/27/apples-proactive-to-take-on-google-now-with-deep-ios-9-search-augmented-reality-maps-siri-api/ http://9to5mac.com/2015/05/27/apples-proactive-to-take-on-go...
  • dba7dba 11y ago
    I agree. Don't mean to be cynical but every public speech given by Tim Cook (and everyone else of high profile) is about setting the stage for something. Aka posturing. They have too much money, control, brand, power at stake. And this isn't much different from Google blasting Apple for selling products assembled in sweatshops (not that google does that)...
    • Tloewald 11y ago
      Another way of looking at it is that they've built their business model this way and they're making the case why it's better for their customers and the right thing to do. Volvo likes to advertise the safety engineering of its cars. Is that cynical?
    • danieldk 11y ago
      I agree. Don't mean to be cynical but every public speech given by Tim Cook (and everyone else of high profile) is about setting the stage for something. Apple is in the fortunate position that most of their profits come from hardware. With Snowden's publications, the security/privacy advantage is practically thrown in their lap. So, why not run with it? We customers only benefit (not only Apple customers, because this will put pressure on others). As a side node, given Cook's sexual orientation, I am sure that this is an important issue for him personally as well. There are many countries where you can't be gay openly (yet), and digital privacy is a tiny part of the puzzle of protecting people in countries with less liberal laws.
  • onion2k 11y ago
    I'm not sure it'd be possible to make a good competitor to Now without tracking what someone does all around the web. That's sort of the point of it - the more it knows the better it works.
• CurtMonash 11y ago
  I'm beyond thrilled at this, because the chilling effects point hasn't been made nearly often enough. My version is at http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/very-chilling-effects/ http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/very-chilling-effects/ That it happens to be commercially advantageous for him to say that his business model is more virtuous than Google's or Facebook's doesn't bother me. In fact, I think there are fixes that could preserve their business models yet reduce the threat. Great. In the mean time, we need people to understand that unfettered surveillance and data use, taken together, are a drastic threat to human freedom.
  • jkestner 11y ago
    I like the idea that doing the right thing can be profitable, and don't see why a business should be criticized for aligning interests with its customers. It's a better way to enforce privacy than laws.
• maqr 11y ago
  > For years we’ve offered encryption services like iMessage and FaceTime because we believe the contents of your text messages and your video chats is none of our business. Sounds great, but take note that it's none of their business today and we know they can be compelled to spy on their users by NSLs. They control the key infrastructure with their closed-source software that runs on their closed-source hardware. If they wanted to go into the business of sucking up all of your private messages and parsing them to sell advertising or if the government wants to read some messages, they wouldn't need to do anything besides issue you a different key. iMessage won't even let you look at the fingerprints of your friends, and it won't warn you if they've changed. [1] [1] http://blog.quarkslab.com/imessage-privacy.html http://blog.quarkslab.com/imessage-privacy.html
  • Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
    TBH, the only app that does this correctly is Threema, with a clear indicator that you have verified the contact. Not even TextSecure does it correctly, and TS is supposed to be the gold standard (you can verify fingerprints, though)
  • MichaelGG 11y ago
    If anyone manages to make a messaging app that both has strong security and is user friendly and supports features users expect, they will become very rich. Seeing as no one has even proposed a solution in theory, it's most likely unsolvable. I'll bet if you can formulate it clearly enough, you can even prove it so. Look at say, Dark Mail. After all that hype, their design is "uh basically SMTP+TLS, or PGP if you're paranoid". The only thing that comes close is PGPfone and similar things (ZRTP). And that's because when you call someone, there's an obvious and built-in verification system, voice. (Note: doesn't work as well with deaf people or async comm). So pointing out Apple fails here? Yes, sure. Expecting anything different? Seems very unlikely. Either they'd break all user expectations, or they'd get an NSL/court order to break the whole system in order to comply with a wiretap.
    • lmm 11y ago
      > If anyone manages to make a messaging app that both has strong security and is user friendly and supports features users expect, they will become very rich. How so? Who's going to pay for it? I reckon I could do it, you know. Use PGP for the backend (duh) but take some time off work, hire actual designers for the UI, make the identity verification step make sense for the user. But 98% of users don't care about security, and 98% of the remainder can't tell the difference between good and bad security.
• cromwellian 11y ago
  This is marketing folks. Apple's behavior towards Google changed dramatically after Android starting getting traction, and this sudden pivot towards pro-privacy is an Apple's attempt to damage the reputation of it's biggest competitor. Apple hasn't been consistently speaking with the same voice on privacy, both before or after Snowden, and Tim Cook's comments IMHO look cynically designed. Apple collects plenty of personal data in their cloud services: 1) iTunes and App Stores can track your browsing and purchase data. This is likely used to model and create profiles of your app store behavior so as to revenue maximize what's offered or displayed to you as alternate suggestions for what you might like. 2) Their streaming media services will have data on music preferences. Beats Audio will know whether you like Classic Rock or Jazz, or Beyonce. 3) iCloud Photo Library is not encrypted client side in a way that prevents Apple from decrypting it on the server, so like Google Photos, Apple will have your photos. Apple is not good with cloud services, it's their weak point, so naturally their incentives are to argue against better competing services. 4) iOS ecosystem is freemium based and there are tons of iOS apps in the store that show apps or collect analytic data. You can't claim to value privacy, run a walled garden, and then let third parties collect data to make your ecosystem monetizable and viable. It's benefitting from data collection indirectly, but looking like you're clean. Now, you can make an argument that you trust Apple more, and make the usual arguments about business model motives, but that's just arguing that Privacy doesn't matter as long as the person violating your privacy isn't monetizing it. Just because Apple isn't monetizing it now doesn't mean they won't later, especially if hardware revenue tops out. If your want total protection, you can't rely on "trust", you have to rely on not sending plaintext in the first place. That rules out iCloud as well. Overall, Apple may be painting themselves into a corner like Google's "Don't be evil" phrase, where they go all-in on privacy claims so much, that people will over scrutinize any exceptions or violations of principle. When you cloak yourself in piety, people start looking for hypocrisy. As an example of boxing ones self in, certain kinds of services simply are impractical to run completely client side right now, and homomorphic encryption/computation isn't there yet to make server side computations on ciphertext feasible for many types of services you'd want to offer. Take for example, organizational assistance, image search, voice recognition. Apple can't improve it's Siri quality without getting actual voice samples from tons of users and storing them so they can use machine learning algorithms to improve accuracy. That's not really feasible to do completely client side. Likewise, if you're trying to train up an image clustering service, you could try running them on publicly published Flickr professional photos, but it won't give you a good sample of real world photos that people take. Apple may be working on a Google Now service that runs locally, but this might be fundamentally limited in how good it, or Siri can get, and so Apple's ambitions of an intelligent assistant could be limited. Apple also may be working on a search engine, but fundamentally, the iPhone can't store the index for 40 billion documents, which means any search service they offer will have to send your queries to the server, which again, creates an audit trail. My point is, you may agree with Apple's arguments, but other individuals have been making those philosophical arguments for ages -- those without $180 billion in cash and a huge empire of phones under assault from competitors -- so when Apple execs parade around talking about privacy, you should have the same skepticism you have for any other executive with a vested interest in hawking their products.
• snowwrestler 11y ago
  While there is obviously plenty of eye-rolling at the obvious digs at Google, I'm pleased to see such strong push-back against the government arguments for weakening or punching holes in encryption. I think that in the long run, this will matter way more than which giant tech company makes a bit more money than the other.
• brazzledazzle 11y ago
  Apple collects data deceptively don't they[0]? Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. [0]https://github.com/fix-macosx/yosemite-phone-home/ https://github.com/fix-macosx/yosemite-phone-home/
• alan_cx 11y ago
  Am I to take from this that are we getting excited that privacy is a premium item that you have to pay for?
• SG- 11y ago
  It's too bad the debate here has turned into a huge Apple vs Google thing when it's really a story about not letting the government strip away people's privacy and ability to properly encrypt their data. Like really, we get it you might not like iOS or OSX, but it's not about that right now.
  • danieldk 11y ago
    It's too bad the debate here has turned into a huge Apple vs Google thing when it's really a story about not letting the government strip away people's privacy and ability to properly encrypt their data. But these issues are not independent. Full end-to-end encryption is not acceptable to Google in the short term, since it would mean that they have to store or transmit data that they cannot profile. This has two consequences: 1. end-to-end encryption is less important to Google and they'll be less inclined to fight governments' attempts to strip away the right to do end-to-end encryption; 2. having data unencrypted data at rest[1] makes it easier for government agencies to request and use that data. [1] The whole 'data encrypted at rest' thing seems to be doublespeak to me. Their storage backends may only see encrypted data, so it may protect against storage server theft, but as long as they also hold the encryption keys it's only marginal security against hacks and the government, and no protection against the cloud providers themselves.
• randomsearch 11y ago
  Everyone seems to be Apple-bashing, and ignoring the fact that Apple really don't make money out of your private information. They make cash out of selling devices. So their interests are more aligned with yours. You may have noticed that Google don't make their money out of selling hardware. So they make it through other means. This is really inarguable, regardless of whether you think Apple are using that for marketing or whatever. Personally, I'm happy to pay a company with a sound business model that doesn't rely on advertising (and by proxy your private information). How on earth some of the other commenters arrived at their worldview, I have no idea. Unusually close-minded for HN. A lot of Google employees, perhaps?
  • davidcgl 11y ago
    > So their interests are more aligned with yours. Exactly how does a company that makes money through selling you products have its interests more aligned to yours?
    • Ensorceled 11y ago
      Apple is "more aligned" as in more aligned than Google, not "more aligned" as in perfectly aligned. Stop viewing the world in black and white.
    • etchalon 11y ago
      Because that company makes its from me, directly. It has to cater its products to ME, and not to advertisers, or enterprises, or anyone else.
      • fpgeek 11y ago
        Comcast also makes most of its money from users directly. Yet, somehow, the incentives are not aligned. Why is that? How might that apply to Apple?
        • pg314 11y ago
          Comcast has considerable monopoly power: in certain areas there are no good alternatives or your apartment complex might have the cables from Comcast installed but not others. Apple has less monopoly power because of Android competition.
• QuantumRoar 11y ago
  Making a speech is easy, compared to actually doing the right thing. Just a month ago, I was asked by an employee of an Apple Certified Service Provider to decrypt my hard drive in order for Apple to make a "hardware test". There was an issue with my display, but they insisted that Apple's hardware test needed to have access to the data on my hard drive and send information back to Apple via the Internet. What about privacy, now? So, don't believe anything they tell you. If you want to be secure, you need to take care of it yourself. Edit: Just to make it clear, the employees were asking me, to hand over my administrator password, which should be added to their database, in order for the technician to successfully run Apple's hardware tests. This is literally the most insane thing that ever happened to me...
  • etchalon 11y ago
    That's not even a little insane. They needed access to something, and asked you for it to complete their work. It would have been insane if the guy had just hit a button, and your data was decrypted. As it stood, you were always in complete control of your data.
    • QuantumRoar 11y ago
      I added a little bit to my comment above. They are asking people for administrator passwords and put them into forms in their computer system. Rule number one of computing is that you shouldn't ever tell anybody your passwords. Asking for it is ridiculous. Considering how casual they acted, I can only assume that quite a lot of people actually told them. That makes me really worried.
      • CHY872 11y ago
        If you have a software problem, how are they supposed to check that they fixed it without being able to boot the computer?
        • Dylan16807 11y ago
          Why do they need the password to boot? Especially why do they need to write it down?
• terminus 11y ago
  > We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they’re worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose. That's very sanctimonious of the CEO of the richest corporation in the world. Speeches are great but what would be even better is for them to deign to actually sell something to the poor, the people who cannot afford to buy into Apple's privacy respecting products.
• threatofrain 11y ago
  Apple collects tons of user data, and I'm sure they use some of it to provide machine-learning backed services, and I'm sure they'll come out with much nicer products to compete with Google in the future, also enhanced by machine learning techniques. The difference that Tim Cook wants you to believe in is that Apple doesn't directly make money from your data, they just use it to improve their product; alternatively, Google makes money from your data by providing advertises with guided access to your eyeball. But the danger isn't in the fact that Google lulls you into complacency with free services. The danger isn't in the fact that Google sells guided access to your attention. The danger is just in the collection of data, and the fact that one day the government or somebody could find a way. There's only one way to be safe. And that's to collect only minimal amounts of data for minimal apps. That means gimped Siri. No Apple competitor to Google Photos. And I don't think Apple will do that. I think they'll continue to amass all the data they use to improve customer experience. The fact that Apple makes money differently off the data doesn't change the fact that it's collection that's inherently dangerous.
  • makeitsuckless 11y ago
    This is just a another way of saying "business good, government bad". The fact that Google abuses the data and Apple doesn't is already a major difference. Just because government can use its monopoly on violence and imprisonment to go one step beyond doesn't make what businesses do harmless. Yes, the collection is already inherently dangerous, and what Apple does is certainly not harmless. And yes, they will use that data to their advantage. But the unscrupulous abuse of that data, the blatant disregard for privacy, a business model that depends on abuse of that data, and the obvious hunger for social and economic power by Google and co is not a minor difference.
  • amirmc 11y ago
    > "There's only one way to be safe. And that's to collect only minimal amounts of data for minimal apps." No. The only way to be really safe is to go live in a cave, not to have any friends and never go anywhere near any tech ever again. I'm sure you can tell that I don't consider that to be much of an option. It's unhelpful to label 'data collection' as the source of the problem as 'collection' happens everywhere in our interactions with the world. There are valid arguments and discussions to be had about who really owns that data. It may well be about me, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's mine. I'd say the majority of people are only just beginning to understand that a discussion needs to take place even though technical folks have known this for a long time. One solution to the 'ownership' problem is to make it possible for everyone to run their own infrastructure. i.e. have their own 'backend' that apps/services can be installed into, which their end-devices can then connect to. This is already possible for the technically savvy but a lot of work is needed before I feel we can trust such systems (I'm working on approaches to this [1,2], based on unikernels). In the meantime, I applaud business models that are not built around profiling (which is the crux of the issue cf. advertising). They're the only ones where the incentives have any hope of aligning. [1] http://nymote.org/blog/2013/introducing-nymote/ http://nymote.org/blog/2013/introducing-nymote/ [2] http://amirchaudhry.com/brewing-miso-to-serve-nymote/ http://amirchaudhry.com/brewing-miso-to-serve-nymote/
• hkailahi 11y ago
  At the moment, this thread seems more like a YouTube comment section than a HN one. Though it's not exactly surprising given that Tim Cook's speech is obviously aimed at Google/FB. Let's start with the facts. Apple makes its major money in hardware. Google makes its major money in search. Obviously, iOS has to be able to compete with Android in order for iPhones to sell well. Google offers services like Google Now and Google Photos that can be tailored in a more personal and effective way. How? They collect as much data as they can get away with. Consumers get to have services that should be better suited to them because of this. If Apple wants to compete, it seems that there are two options: 1. Start mass collection and become a better Google. 2. Reject Google's model, and build iOS around privacy and non-invasiveness. That's what this is. I do think Apple will either make a search engine focused on privacy or buy one (e.g., DuckDuckGo). Personally, I am happy that Apple and Google are competing in this way.
  • collyw 11y ago
    The problem is that Duck Duck go doesn't provide as good results, because it lacks the personalized data. Google knows that when I search for Django I want the web framework. Duck duck go gives me that as well as many links to the film. I think option 1 is more likely for Apple.
    • hkailahi 11y ago
      I've been using DuckDuckGo as my main search engine for about a year now. It is good enough for me in most cases. For the times it isn't, I use Google. I think there is a large amount of value in both of options 1 and 2. To me, the idea of Now on Tap and Google Photos is absolutely horrifying. On the other hand, my roommate told me that the Google Photos app was perfect. I suspect that my views will hold, but it is possible that personalization becomes too important to opt out of. I tried to delete my Facebook for similar reasons recently. I missed out on enough party invites and messages from classmates that I ended up going back.
    • stephenr 11y ago
      > Google knows that when I search for Django I want the web framework That isn't a good thing. http://dontbubble.us http://dontbubble.us Unless Jamie Fox someday starts giving speeches about Django framework, this sounds like a pretty weak excuse to use a google-style (i.e. 'personalised') search engine. > I think option 1 is more likely for Apple. Google's business model is basically selling aggregated user data - not in the form of raw data but in the form of targeted ads - for $0 (note, they aren't "free") services. Apple's business model is about selling hardware and software, and providing a fairly complete ecosystem to use those products in/with. Given that Apple's iOS+ecosystem accounts for close to 90% of the profits in the smartphone market, I don't understand this claim by people "Apple will have to adopt google's strategy to remain competitive". If anything people are becoming more sensitive and more aware about the "creepy" factor of having all your personal information in the hands of some corporation that uses it for profit.
• pmontra 11y ago
  "It could be argued that it [(Apple)] doesn’t gather enough, as Google Now, Google on Tap and other holistic offerings have the potential to give users much more lateral movement and ‘delight’ moments on Android specifically due to how much data Google gathers on its users." Many years ago, thinking about the future, I imagined to have a device that would give me more or less what Google Now can give me. What I didn't imagine is that it would be a central server to collect all of that information (about everybody) and send me only a feed. This is very mainframe-like and that was the time we were starting to use Personal Computers (IBM/Apple/any) so you could forgive my naivety. Still I think that's possible to build a Google Now without a server owned by a single central organization and there are things like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9204954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9204954 to prove it (and also prove how hard it is). So I'm left with not using Google Now and most Google services (no Gmail) because I feel that letting a company access to all those information is creepy and a transitive distrust for every company in similar markets. Recap: what I want is my data only in my hands and clients that query servers and collect the information I need. No clouds thanks, those are good only for encrypted backups. If I want sync and continuity, that should go through a server I control.
• pasta_2 11y ago
  If what Tim Cook said could be easily discounted as puffery, it would be largely ignored by the Google fanboys. But the fact that you don't even have to believe what Tim Cook says or even trust him, because Apple's business model doesn't benefit from the perverse incentive that Google's does, is driving them crazy. And no iAd doesn't count, that's a service for third party developers to monetize their own apps. There are no ads in Apple's first party apps. It's also been criticized by advertisers because of Apple's protection of customer privacy. http://adage.com/article/digital/amazon-apple-catch-a-break-madison-ave/291724/ http://adage.com/article/digital/amazon-apple-catch-a-break-... It's an interesting twist for HN, which is normally ready to take strong pro-privacy positions in the wake of the Snowden leaks under the premise of potential abuse by governments.
• surferbayarea 11y ago
  The internet was built on open peer-to-peer protocols. Email was designed to be p2p, not client-server like gmail is. In the near future, the fundamental structure of the internet as we know it today will change. All of a user's data, activity log etc generated by all the 100 sensors + services that a user uses will be centralized in a repository that will be owned by the user. Different services and tools and devices will just get on-demand access to the data as and when they need it to provide a service to the user. It will also require them to contribute any activity data back to this repository. This will lead not just to solving privacy, but way better user experience and services that are not possible today due to data silos. It is sad how corporations with an objective to make money(which it should be) have misguided internet to become a siloed structure designed to benefit different corporations. This incorrect structure needs to and will be broken...
• erikb 11y ago
  I've read many highly rated comments that state something on the lines of "Apple sells hardware not ads, so they don't want to collect your data". If we shorten this to "<somebody> sells <whatever>" then you already have the foundation of what requires data. Sales and marketing probably eat the biggest amount of money in any company. And they get better and cheaper with more data. That's why Google ads works so well. They can connect the right customers with the right products, because they have the data. Therefore I'd say everybody wants all data about you they can get, including Apple, because everybody sells. I would guess they'll collect your data and call it privacy because they protect it against third parties, but they themselves wouldn't protect your data from Apple. It also doesn't make much sense to really protect data. The supermarket in front of my office sells so called "Extra Cards" which advertise to not care about your data because you don't have to enter your name or something. That they still collect what you buy, when you buy, and where you buy they simply don't say and many people are fine with that. Even software developers have this card because they think their data is safe. It's hip to sell privacy, it's not hip to really offer privacy.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• plg 11y ago
  In addition to the comments already here, I think this comes down to trust. Which companies do you trust? Which CEOs do you trust? Eric Schmidt: "If You Have Something You Don't Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn't Be Doing It." [1] Mark Zuckerburg: "They trust me — dumb fucks." [2] Tim Cook: "I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information,” said Cook. “They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be." [3] Tim Cook: "Our business is based on selling products, not on having information about you. You are not our product." [4] Tim Cook: "We take a very different view of this than a lot of other companies have. Our view is, when we design a new service, we try not to collect data" [5] [1] https://youtu.be/A6e7wfDHzew https://youtu.be/A6e7wfDHzew [2] http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-use... [3] http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/#.vzsjmx:6p7v http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-bl... [4] http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/15/tim-cook-on-privacy/ http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/15/tim-cook-on-privacy/ [5] http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/15/tim-cook-holds-firm-on-imessage-security-its-encrypted-we-dont-have-a-key/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/15/tim-cook-holds-firm-on-imes...
  • sp332 11y ago
    Currently Mozilla is the only Internet company that I trust not to sell me out. And I'm keeping an eye on them as they develop the new New Tab, which will feature advertising.
    • htormey 11y ago
      I know Mozilla are a non profit but doesn't most of their funding come from google (I.e advertising) for promoting their search product?
      • sp332 11y ago
        They switched to Yahoo (over HTTPS, honoring "Do Not Track" if you enable it) last year. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-and-innovation-on-the-web/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-an... And yes, as far as I know, most of their income is royalties from these deals.
• RattCatcher 11y ago
  This faggot delivers a blistering speech? More like a high-pitched whine, like a woman.
• nemik 11y ago
  I'm unsure of how to reconcile the conflicting things Cook says, then does: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-china-security-checks-obama-criticism-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-china-security-checks-o... China will ask for keys and Apple will give them up. I guess because China's a much bigger market than the US.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• jgalt212 11y ago
  I don't want to hear anything Tim Cook has to say on Public Policy matters until Apple stops dodging taxes.