embolism

17 ms·

121.
by embolism 13y ago
Doing that wouldn't provide access to the history. Unless they always do this for every single device, there is no mountain of data to analyze. The point we are discussing is not whether iMessage provides perfect security. The point
122.
by embolism 13y ago
Re-read what I wrote, and think about what it means. I think it means you have a false belief about the limits of the system. If there were any additional barrier preventing Apple from provisioning iMessage entpoints, iPhone u
123.
by embolism 13y ago
First, when you buy a new iPhone, the way you authenticate yourself is by entering your Apple ID and password. Once entered, your new device will begin receiving iMessage data. This means that Apple is capable of provisioning a virtual devi
124.
by embolism 13y ago
That data certainly can (and likely is ) turned over by Apple in just the same way that the data Google stockpiles can be. This doesn't affect the conclusion - Apple can make services that don't compromise user privacy because th
125.
by embolism 13y ago
Google could easily create a secure email client. There's no need to, since Thunderbird already exists, but they could if they wanted to. That wouldn't help at all with the problem of email security. False. The problem i
126.
by embolism 13y ago
My OS does do it by default. It also provides me with a messaging system with end to end encryption by default. The inconveniences can be removed by engineering - that's what we do . It's a matter of priorities and Google'
127.
by embolism 13y ago
I'm not calling you idealistic for what you want . I want a trustworthy government too. I'm calling you idealistic because you are putting your hopes in an idealistic solution when Google could provide you with a technical sol
128.
by embolism 13y ago
Google was perfectly capable of creating a secure browser and propagating it through all manner of mechanisms. There is no reason they couldn't do the same with a secure mail system, for that matter they could just deliver it as a chr
129.
by embolism 13y ago
I absolutely agree that they aren't even trying, but starting there would reduce the effectiveness of their ad business and hence reduce revenue, so I don't see that happening.
130.
by embolism 13y ago
You can't separate the two. The reason why foreigners are uploading their data to the NSA when they use Google is because of the way Google makes its money and engineers its services. Compare this to Apple's iMessage or FaceTime
131.
by embolism 13y ago
But those are no more private than the unpaid ones. And they can still extract value by profiling you from your email and then displaying ads on search and other properties based on what they learn about you.
132.
by embolism 13y ago
Creating a massive behavioral profiling advertising system is hard , as is creating a self driving car. Protecting users from Government intrusion is simply a lower priority for Google.
133.
by embolism 13y ago
That is a laudable and idealistic goal, but we don't live in that world. Furthermore Google itself knows more than we do about how easily governments can access the data it accumulates. If it chose to, Google could protect users by de
134.
by embolism 13y ago
Google isn't forced to rely on stockpiling personal data as a business model. It could create the exact private service that you are looking for, but it intentionally does not.
135.
by embolism 13y ago
You're making the assumption that that proof-of-concept behavioral tracking solution is anywhere near as effective as what google already does. Google doesn't want the profile to be stored privately in your browser because then th
136.
by embolism 13y ago
Difficult to wiretap in the sense of intercepting communications to and from Google, yes. But it's also engineered to give Google itself access to your data so they can improve their behavioral profile of you. I think what people are s
137.
by embolism 13y ago
True, but Google is by far the most dangerous aggregation of personal information, and the topic of this conversation. It's also a company that spends a lot of effort telling people to trust them when that is clearly unjustified.
138.
by embolism 13y ago
Why are you trying to deflect attention away from Google?
139.
by embolism 13y ago
The web is simply not designed with privacy in mind. People should stop using webmail.
140.
by embolism 13y ago
Google's business model is to tap your communications and use the profile they create of you to target advertising. They are constantly pushing for access to more of your personal information, not less.
141.
by embolism 13y ago
That would be the antithesis of what Google does - they give away services for free in exchange for access to personal information that they use to sell more precise targeting to advertisers. Google's business relies on them being able
142.
by embolism 13y ago
Unfortunately the UK is actually worse : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-... The only thing companies like Google and Facebook can do to improve matters is to stop collecting
143.
by embolism 13y ago
No big deal. It's Silicon Valley who's to blame.
144.
by embolism 13y ago
Sadly, now isn't one of them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-...
145.
by embolism 13y ago
Good luck with that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-...
146.
by embolism 13y ago
Right since we can be certain that only the US government does anything like this. Put your data anywhere outside the US and it will be safe.
147.
by embolism 13y ago
Governments plural. The naive part of this campaign is the assumption that the US is the only government doing this, rather than the one with the leakiest operation. Asking EU governments to censure the US when they have their own programs
148.
by embolism 13y ago
No. The more 'outlandish' a theory is, the more trivial it should be to dismiss with a simple statement. Bullying is never called for.
149.
by embolism 13y ago
The truth is, Apple has made a clear statement that they can't intercept the contents. That's more than anyone else has said about their products. Saying 'nobody knows' is pure FUD. It's equivalent to saying nobo
150.
by embolism 13y ago
You are completely missing the point. None of this is about hard work. They all worked extremely hard for their whole careers, and the ones who are still alive continue to do so. The point is that they all established a tidy fortune by fo

More ›