Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s approach to privacy

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#161

Post by sangnoir »

johnsea wrote: post #104
Tangokat wrote: post #22

Apple is in a good position in the market to do this, but it is just really hard to trust any US company. They say they will never give anyone access to their servers but how can they make that promise when they don't make the laws? As an aside I am finding it really difficult to delete my iCloud account, in fact it seems that is impossible.

Very well written text. I like the simple and comprehensible language. Other companies should take this as an example. (Only problem: many other companies likely wouldn't want to tell in plain words how broad they are gathering and aggregating your (my) data)

I don't think I'm being overly cynical, but I'm seeing qualifiers[1] all over the place. The phrases seem carefully constructed to suggest more privacy than what is actually offered. For example:

"We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers" but we do build profiles (bonus points for insinuating competition sells your information)

"we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you." - but we do read and index your emails and messages, only to make our services and devices 'better' - by our definition

The sentences are built to sound like the italicized parts are not there, yet they totally change (negate) the meaning.

If I were a murderer, I could say "I do not kill men to eat their livers" and it would be 100% true, but it sounds like I'm not into killing at all.

1. Is that the word? Not a native speaker

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#162

Post by muddi900 »

josso wrote: post #82
muddi900 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Most of my google has netted the blame on Apple and a conspiracy throy of this beng a PR scandal.

Really? It seems to me that most articles conclude that it wasn’t iCloud that was hacked but the celebrities. Apple also released a press release[1] saying that they “have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted fr…

What most articles? You are giving me Apple's press release...

The news on it has died down over the past year, with a recent items search bringing up only links to pron sites hosting the content. This is the best summary I could find: https://www.nikcub.com/posts/notes-on-the-celebrity-data-the...

It clearly shows that iCloud was very susceptible to basic social engineered attacks. Their statement on the subject is vague and misleading. There was no breach of iCloud passwords database, but if somebody just "guessed" the answers to the security questions, that counts as a breach for everybody else.

FBI has made one arrest and the investigation is still on going. We probably would not know until it's over, but at least one celebrity, Kirsten Dunst suggested her images were taken from the iCloud: https://twitter.com/kirstendunst/status/506553772114317312

Again, what most articles you have besides Apple's hand waving?

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#163

Post by chmaynard »

I'd like to see Apple commit to making Apple Pay available for online commerce. That would allow Apple to get rid of the hundreds of millions of credit and debit card numbers they retain in their private servers. If Apple's card number information ever got hacked, it would be a disaster for Apple and their customers.

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#164

Post by happywolf »

devcpp wrote: post #134
happywolf wrote: post #40

I use Apple products, including the MBP on which I am typing this post. I paid big bucks and my expectation is Apple should respect my privacy. Services like Google I use them for free, and as such, monetization is fair. Not for Apple, and I hope it won't let me down.

Or you could use free software, and stop hoping for people around you to be honest.

Guess what. I used to be a Linux zealot for over ten years, my hobby was to custom-build my kernel and rewrite device drivers for some of my devices. But Linux had some minor issues that I couldn't quite put up with, while Apple so far just works for me. Apple is far from perfect, but it covers most of my needs and I am happy to use it.

I know strong advocate of freedom and transparency will say Apple is closed-source, for-profit company yadi yada. The truth is most of things in our lives are: the cars we drive, the fridge, the TV, the watch we wear, and hardware we use (Intel or ARM chips aren't open source, right?) So years ago i decide this free software thingie isn't for me.

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#165

Post by coldtea »

acqq wrote: post #146
coldtea wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's half a google away. https://www.google.com/search?q=disable+spotlight+queries+se...

You know you can Google it but I believe you haven't tried it yourself to do exactly what the goal of the question is, otherwise you would not answer with a plain Google query. I know as I've actually spent the time to experiment. And I'm still not at the point where I can answer it exactly. I don't want "disable everything" I don't want "disable this what's written but I'm not sure if what I type is still transferre…

>You know you can Google it but I believe you haven't tried it yourself to do exactly what the goal of the question is, otherwise you would not answer with a plain Google query.

And you'd be wrong. In fact when I did it, I did it with a similar Google query, checked the first 2-3 results, settled on one site with instructions (it's a very simple setting anyway, it's not like you're hacking anything) and went on with my life.

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#166

Post by coldtea »

0x0 wrote: post #46
coldtea wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's half a google away. https://www.google.com/search?q=disable+spotlight+queries+se...

Doesn't really address iOS 9 which changed things around a bit, and to even find anything about iOS at all you have to start looking at the 4th or 5th result on some random domain. And - even then - there are multiple odd places in the settings you need to check and verify, some of which are hidden in a long list of other apps.

>and to even find anything about iOS at all you have to start looking at the 4th or 5th result on some random domain

Add "iOS 9" to the query if you're running that, and obviously prefer well known domains, like MacWorld, Zdnet, etc.

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#167

Post by DavideNL »

cvwright wrote: post #131
DavideNL wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but how can they make that promise when they don't make the laws? I agree, like Lavabit... Lavabit had all the best intentions but in the end the law screwed them over anyway. Of course Apple has a lot more power than Lavabit, so it's nice they are taking this standpoint and being resistant. Hopefully they can contribute to a positive change.. Anyways at least they are trying, something i haven't seen from other bi…

Lavabit got into trouble because they made promises that they were technically unable to keep. Moxie Marlinspike takes them to task here: http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/

i didn't know, thanks great article

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#168

Post by gambiter »

devcpp wrote: post #133
Jerry2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does this mean they are capable of intercepting iMessage? You know what the best way is to see who cooperates with law enforcement and to what level? Court documents! I've been trawling court documents for the past few months (I'm writing a blog article on this) and I'm yet to find iMessage being used in court (unless the access to the conversation was given by one of the parties). iMessage really does seem secure f…

Secret courts.

Ok... So, why would Apple receive the benefit of only exposing iMessage data in secret courts when Google, Facebook, and Microsoft all have to do it in open court documents?

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#169

Post by dippyskoodlez »

tomschlick wrote: post #126
polysome wrote: post #125

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Det...

Does anyone else have the suspicion that Prism was named prism because instead of getting companies to co-operate with the program they were siphoning off data like they did to google by tapping their fiber lines? That would fit more in line with what we have heard about the tapping stations/rooms at AT&T/Verizon over the years. I mean if they were really involved with back dooring the individual servers of google/ap…

One does not simply tap fiber. Especially at the composite level of transport links. The systems don't work that way.

Re: Apple’s approach to privacy

#170

Post by olifante »

nemoniac wrote: post #118
rufugee wrote: post #116

As a long time Linux user and a long time Google product user, I'd be willing to go all in on Apple if: * They were truly, actively committed to defending a user's privacy. * They allowed using your own domains (I currently have around 30 domains pointed to the same GMail account). If both of the above were true, I'd ditch my Cyanogenmod-running HTC One M8 and buy an iPhone today. My privacy is worth more to me than…

Nope. Just nope. I'll stick with choice and privacy over promises of privacy by a for-profit.

It doesn't matter whether it's open source or closed source, non-profit or for-profit. If it's made by a company headquartered in the US, there's no escaping a national security letter with a gag order. Anything within Five Eyes (AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US) jurisdiction (such as Ubuntu) is probably not much safer. We really need a new Linux distribution headquartered in a safe jurisdiction.
Post reply on HN