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

Our Approach to Privacy

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#161

Post by thelibrarian »

mirimir wrote: post #152
lxmcneill wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time I went to pick up a product (AirPods) it required government issued photo ID (Australian driver's license), even though I had the Apple Store app which made the purchase installed on my phone.

Well, that sucks. So much for privacy, in Australia anyway. In Australia, do you need to show ID when you buy random electronics for cash? If you pay cash in an Apple Store, do you need to show ID? Buying Apple hardware used, at swap meets etc, seems the best option. As long as it's not been stolen, anyway. But you can test for that, before paying.

No, there is not requirement to show ID when buying electronics in Australia. I suspect that GP's experience was due to them collecting a pre-purchase, and Apple stores having some sort of policy around verifying the purchaser in order to prevent theft.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#162

Post by whathaschanged »

tptacek wrote: post #34
whathaschanged wrote: post #23

Apple's approach to privacy also includes being a partner in PRISM, a fact which they chose to vigorously deny as false allegations until it was proven to be true. Every story about Apple and privacy chooses to omit thus huge piece of info. Why should anybody trust them now? What has changed to make anybody believe they aren't still lying about privacy?

PRISM is a system for dispatching FISA 702 directives, which are the documents containing "selectors" (search queries) pursuant to a court-approved FISA 702 certification. It is to search warrants what Stripe is to credit card authorizations. "Not" being a partner in PRISM doesn't mean much; it just means you're legally obligated to handle that paperwork by hand. Like every other company in the country, you're still…

That has nothing to do with the questions that I posed. Apple being part of PRISM is what I referred to. Not the nature of the program. The intentional lying about it. Why should anybody trust them?

“We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order,” stated Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/is-apple-lying-about-it...

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#164

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

wyc wrote: post #107

Apple sells hardware differentiated by integrated software for premium pricing. They want to build better and more expensive products through superior design and quality control. Collecting and analyzing personal data isn't the most important thing for their business. They might see more benefit by eschewing personal data collection and marketing a privacy-focused message, which they seem to be doing. In contrast, Go…

I am not sure if one can trust any 'don't be evil' pledges. With Apple products one is often required to use the appleid - and this can be used for tracking purposes. Also Apple is also a media company (iTunes among other things) so it's not just a pure hardware vendor. They too sit on a big heap of user data - beware. Also they are required to comply with local regulations - and these may not be compatible with your high expectations on matters of privacy and confidentiality.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#165

Post by tptacek »

whathaschanged wrote: post #162
tptacek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PRISM is a system for dispatching FISA 702 directives, which are the documents containing "selectors" (search queries) pursuant to a court-approved FISA 702 certification. It is to search warrants what Stripe is to credit card authorizations. "Not" being a partner in PRISM doesn't mean much; it just means you're legally obligated to handle that paperwork by hand. Like every other company in the country, you're still…

That has nothing to do with the questions that I posed. Apple being part of PRISM is what I referred to. Not the nature of the program. The intentional lying about it. Why should anybody trust them? “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order,” stated Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling…

This article doesn't say anything at all, other than that all the major tech companies denied the original Greenwald claim that the NSA had direct access to servers (claims that every major outlet who published them have subsequently walked back), and that they had anything to do with "PRISM".

Other investigative reporters have worked out what PRISM was. Now we're all pretty sure we know. But that doesn't mean the tech companies at the time had any clue. It is somewhat unlikely that the thing that sent them 702 directives was, to them, referred to as "PRISM".

Generally, I find, when PRISM gets introduced into a discussion about Internet privacy, the discussion gets rapidly dumber. I'm not saying that's happening here, but it's a risk. If you're going to talk about it, you should have better sourcing than whatever the hell "The Cheat Sheet" is.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#166

Post by StanislavPetrov »

dpkonofa wrote: post #145
greggman wrote: post #74

I'm happy Apple is at least trying hard to deal with privacy but honestly I don't think they are doing enough, at least for me. For example, I don't really want to give most apps constant access to my photos, my camera, or my mic but I really don't have a whole lot of choice if I still want to use popular apps and services like Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Hangouts, Line, WhatsApp etc.. I really wish that every ti…

I don't really follow how that's something that Apple needs to change. You either want to use the apps or you don't. If you don't, just don't download them or don't give them access. If your friends absolutely have to use the apps, then they clearly don't care about the same things you do and you need to convince them to use something else that you are ok with using. I guess I just don't understand why Apple needs to…

>I guess I just don't understand why Apple needs to put things in place to allow you to work with companies you don't want to work with.

What's not to understand? Apple is selling you the phone. Its in Apple's interest to put as many features on the phone as potential buyers might be interested in. Allowing the owner's of a device to control access to different parts of a device rather than 3rd party software is not just good business practice, its common sense.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#168

Post by quadrangle »

nnutter wrote: post #47
quadrangle wrote: post #21

Apple does so many things well, actually. I would return to them for some things and even recommend them (versus exclusively GNU/Linux and LineageOS) if they'd only change the stupid iOS terms that prohibit GPL software.

Isn't the issue that the App Store doesn't have a mechanism to redistribute the source in a way that is compliant with the GPL? Is it fair to say Apple prohibits the GPL? Anyway that tried to sell GPL licensed software on the App Store is "breaking the law" so Apple prohibits it? Or is there more to it?

As others clarified, this is not about source. I don't even care about that really, I mean I do in principle — but I just want to use and recommend to others and have GPL software within the iOS ecosystem, on these devices. I'm fine if the source were available through just a link in the software to a website where you separately download it.

No, here's the deal:

GPL: You CAN modify and share this software, and if you share, you have to keep these terms for others so they have freedoms too.

iOS terms: You MAY NOT modify or share ANY software you get as a normal consumer through the app store OR install any software from outside the app store.

The problem is that Apple's unwillingness to ALLOW a user to exercise these basic freedoms means that there's no way to distribute in the App Store any software that requires these freedoms be maintained. It's incompatible terms. And the fault for the incompatibility lies 100% on Apple for their terms that are the ones that demand that freedoms not be allowed.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#169

Post by quadrangle »

captn3m0 wrote: post #46
craftyguy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they just block the GPLs or any FLOSS license?

Just GPLv3

I'm pretty sure all copyleft terms of any sort are prohibited, including GPLv2; Apple requires that all software fit their terms, so only sublicensable free-software licenses are compatible.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#170

Post by wyc »

newscracker wrote: post #128
wyc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your first point, it's difficult to implement some security schemes at the operating system level alone. With full vertical control of the product, you can have nice things like secure enclaves and de-facto hardware cryptography acceleration. See here for details: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf A lot of the features would be very difficult to implement in Android without cooperat…

Thanks for the explanation on the Android side. It still seems weird that nobody wants to take this up as a USP for their devices (referring to non-Google entities). > On a broader note, people are spending more and more time in data-hungry apps anyway, which can send almost anything they want to the network. This is sure to chip at any device-level security, pushing it towards irrelevance. I wish I had a log entry e…

I know that Samsung is trying to push its Knox product to enterprises. I'm unsure about their technical or financial success. I don't know of anyone trying this in the consumer space either, but I'd definitely love to see more activity in this long-neglected sector.

Knox: https://www.samsungknox.com/en

Post reply on HN