11–20 of 23 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple on the other hand is collecting far more invasive data about keystrokes Wait what?! Do you have any evidence of this or you just pulling this out of your butt?
"Improving quicktype predictions" => "sending keystrokes with randomized response" https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/14/apple-differential-priva...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Improving quicktype predictions" => "sending keystrokes with randomized response" https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/14/apple-differential-priva...
The article contradicts your statement.
Hell given the amount of information people store on cloud, It might not even be a big deal.
But its not wrong to seek verification via peer review since they are making bold claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article contradicts your statement.
If you assume that the Apple implementation is perfect then sure it does contradict. Hell given the amount of information people store on cloud, It might not even be a big deal. But its not wrong to seek verification via peer review since they are making bold claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple on the other hand is collecting far more invasive data about keystrokes Wait what?! Do you have any evidence of this or you just pulling this out of your butt?
"Improving quicktype predictions" => "sending keystrokes with randomized response" https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/14/apple-differential-priva...
Good!
I am offended by this kind of headlines. In the field of software, Apple uses open source and provides a lot of open source of their doing to the community. So, if there is an imbalance in the field of science, it should be discussed for sure. But if I am offended by Apple's Photos, it is for other reasons. Edit: my comment refers to the top headline of the article, also used in the link from Hacker News when I wrote…
It'd be nice if HackerNews put a star or something by headlines that have changed. I was really confused about what you were saying until I read your edit.
It is frustrating to make a comment then get a response, "ugh, didn't you even read the article?" Uh, yes, I did, but it was a different article!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Improving quicktype predictions" => "sending keystrokes with randomized response" https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/14/apple-differential-priva...
So you're citing crap bloggers that don't have a clue about what they are talking about, and don't present any evidence for what they write? Good!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assume that the Apple implementation is perfect then sure it does contradict. Hell given the amount of information people store on cloud, It might not even be a big deal. But its not wrong to seek verification via peer review since they are making bold claims.
Your claim that they are collecting 'invasive' data is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and yet you falsely stated it as fact, while comparing Apple with Theranos.
Can you imagine Apple claiming to implement a non NIST crypto and refusing to divulge details claiming security by obscurity. Everyone would cry bloody murder.
Apples behavior couldn't be further from theranos in this case. Apple is essentially selling kool-aid and you are drinking it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim that they are collecting 'invasive' data is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and yet you falsely stated it as fact, while comparing Apple with Theranos.
Just look at official Apple keynote video at 1 Hour 40 Minute mark. They clearly show Differential Privacy next to contextual typing suggestions and mention it. There is no magic its software and if Apple claims to have made some Differentially Private method to provide contextual typing suggestions they ought to open up the system for inspections so that users can verify amount of information being transferred. And…
Do you have any idea what kind of data google collects from Android users and stores as part of their profile?
I thought not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look at official Apple keynote video at 1 Hour 40 Minute mark. They clearly show Differential Privacy next to contextual typing suggestions and mention it. There is no magic its software and if Apple claims to have made some Differentially Private method to provide contextual typing suggestions they ought to open up the system for inspections so that users can verify amount of information being transferred. And…
Google did nothing of the sort. They opened only a single feature of chrome to this kind of inspection. Do you have any idea what kind of data google collects from Android users and stores as part of their profile? I thought not.