5 ms·
This is marketing folks. Apple's behavior towards Google changed dramatically after Android starting getting traction, and this sudden pivot towards pro-privacy
by 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.
- xnull2guest 11y agoThank you. Even Microsoft started to fund "Scroogle" ads - while themselves being a similar offender. The point is that Apple is compelled to hand over your data and backdoor their services just like every other company. The Third Party Doctrine, section 702 of FISA, tap and trace laws, Stored Communications Act, CALEA and numerous other provisions are requirements for Apple to follow - just like every other business. The only thing Apple can do is not voluntarily give extra information (it's true that many large companies do this). Apple's "vault" technology doesn't mean anything if the key space provided by the user is 15 bits and the rest is located in some hardware manufacturer that keeps a list of keys that are available to request. No business is your friend. Every business, by law, has to maximize the profit it can extract from you in return for handing the minimum over. A healthy market will a lot of competition can increase the minimum and lower the maximum, but the relationship stays the same. The rest is branding and marketing. That's not to say that you can't benefit from making trades - it just means that care need be your first priority, and the first part of that is understanding your and Apple's incentives.
- tremendo 11y agoIt seemed to me Mr. Cook's statements could be in reaction to Google's strategy with their Now service http://www.wired.com/2015/05/google-now-io/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/google-now-io/ I don't know that Siri can compete with that. An obvious way to counter is to raise privacy concerns, and of course downplay or negate any benefits.
- danieldk 11y agoNote: I think you should have started your post stating that you work for Google. It's relevant information in this context. 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. Having the data is only one part, the other part is what you can do with the data. Google's rights are extremely broad, although they conveniently did not put most stuff in the privacy policy: When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Source: https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ tl;dr: Google can keep your data, even if you stop using their services. Google can use your data for promoting their service and in new services. I don't think most people realize that there is no way back: once you store your data (e.g. photos) in a Google service, it's theirs to keep (how that works with Dashboard, I don't know). Please show me comparable terms for Apple Photos (Apple can keep your stuff forever and use it to promote services). If they are not there, there is clearly a difference between storing photos in iCloud or Google Photos.