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

171–180 of 183 posts

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#171

Post by gbear605 »

mit65 wrote: post #56
ben1040 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also seen it geotag things based upon the content of the image alone. I went to the photo store not long ago and had dozens of rolls of negatives scanned, from a vacation to Europe 20 years ago. I uploaded them into Google Photos and it geotagged many of them automatically. They have a public API that does the same, it detects landmarks in images and can give you a lat/long position for it as well as a confidenc…

apple cloud did release a lot of celeb pics over the internet...let's not forget that

That was a phishing attack, nothing to do with Apple other than that the people attacked by it were iPhone users.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#172

Post by amonavis »

petepete wrote: post #24
maxpert wrote: post #19

At least one company is "trying" keep my photos private. The other day Google Photo told my wife it had prepared an album for our trip to SFO. We were surprised because she already disabled Geo-tagging but whataya know... Google still figured it out!

If you have location enabled on your phone, Google appears to cross reference your location with your photo timestamps to work out where you were. I know this because when I import my DSLR images to Google Photos it estimates the location, usually very accurately.

I discovered the same last week. I made a trip to Amsterdam some 11 years ago, and since then uploaded my entire photo library to Google Photos. Last week I was playing around and searched "Amsterdam" in Google Photos, whaddaya know, (most of my) photos from Amsterdam showed up, at least those with discernible features/buildings/landmarks.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#173

Post by c029 »

userbinator wrote: post #158
chickenfries wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you would say that Microsoft has the most respect for privacy given Windows 10 telemetry. Is there a MacOS or iOS equivalent?

Pre-Win10, pre-telemetry Microsoft was pretty much "hands-off", i.e. you bought the software and then they mostly left you alone.

Maybe hands off compared to now, but not compared to any other OS of the same era. If it's not activation licences (it's always amused me that performing a hardware upgrade on a cracked copy of XP was less troublesome than on a legally purchased copy), it's frequent notifications "you're not running our firewall", "you don't seem to be running our preferred antivirus", etc. And worse yet, Windows Updates often sneaks in updates for new software you didn't even request and often don't want: Bing search bars, Microsoft's shitty AV, MSN Messenger (back in the 90s), Silverlight, Windows 10(!!!) etc.

Compare that to Linux, OS X, BeOS, any of the BSDs, etc and the difference is night and day. Ok, Ubuntu had a stint of including Amazon results in their search but they were relatively transparent about that and it was quickly disabled by default after the backlash they, deservingly imo, received.

Windows has always been very "hands on" because it's designed for users who are very "hands off".

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#174

Post by hmmiwonder »

greggman wrote: post #89
hmmiwonder wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they require permission to read all my photos when all I want them to be able to do is save the photo I don't think this is true though. From the code I've seen you only get returned the single UIPhoto the user chose. also remember you can revoke permissions at any time via Settings.

The apps are presenting their own UIs showing all the photos. They also have options to upload all the photos in the background. They clearly get permission to access all the photos. Going to settings doesn't help 1) Giving an app permission to access the photos and then revoke it when I'm done doesn't prevent the app from accessing as many photos as it pleases until I revoke access. In the time it would take for me…

You are correct, thanks for educating me!

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#175

Post by paulryanrogers »

alecco wrote: post #133
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…

There's only one way to fight back. First: Move out of Google and Facebook. In particular email. It's a good idea as they can lock you out for nothing without explanations. They've been doing this a lot recently. You are not famous so a twitter mob won't help you. Second: Since most pages out there have trackers from these companies, install Ad Nauseam extension to not just block tracking but click on everything in t…

Ad Nauseam is a curious recommendation. While it devalues you individually, it also consumes bandwidth locally and remotely. Feels like accelerating the arms race.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#176

Post by mercutio2 »

cyphunk wrote: post #167

Wake me up when they let one sync contacts without giving icloud cleartext access in the process

Can you say more about why this is important to you?

I mean, more stuff encrypted without provider escrow keys is a generally good thing, but are your contacts specifically more important than, say, you calendar events?

What threat model are you worried about with your personal, curated contacts?

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#177

Post by dclowd9901 »

userbinator wrote: post #36
dclowd9901 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If their technology is built such that even they themselves cannot peer into the inner workings of your content, what good is their association with PRISM?

How do you know Apple is telling the truth? One thing we're certain of, however, is that Apple has the signing keys. They also encrypt their firmware and even other apps to hide how they work.

I believe if they weren't telling the truth, _somebody_ would've caught on by now. We have lots of people in sec watching court cases involving police trying to break into iPhones. If somehow a department was able to access a phone without a user complying and no known backdoor was exposed, I'm sure we would've heard of it by now.

I hope you're not expecting them to open source the secure enclave.

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#178

Post by movedx »

markmark wrote: post #156
mirimir wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, thanks. What sorts of purchases in Australia require ID?

None (well, some medicine, firearms probably, that sort of thing, not headphones). This is entirely on Apple.

Bought my AirPods from Apple in the UK: no ID required.

Bought my iPhone 6S from Apple in Ausralia: ID required under Australian law.

Very likely the person also bought a phone with a sim/service, hence being asked for ID (under Australian law.)

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#179

Post by movedx »

adambrenecki wrote: post #159
mirimir wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, thanks. What sorts of purchases in Australia require ID?

Anything over 10,000 AUD (about 8,000 USD) purchased with cash. AirPods are expensive but not _that_ expensive. My guess is that they paid online for in-store pickup, and Apple asked for ID to confirm they're the one that made the purchase. In which case that's an Apple thing, not a government thing.

Bought my AirPods from Apple in the UK: no ID required.

Bought my iPhone 6S from Apple in Ausralia: ID required under Australian law.

Very likely the person also bought a phone with a sim/service, hence being asked for ID (under Australian law.)

Re: Our Approach to Privacy

#180

Post by dpkonofa »

rrix2 wrote: post #157
dpkonofa wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Free Scenario: I install a photo sharing app. I use it to only post photos that I take while going on hikes or of my food. Those are always in an Album called "foodpics" or similar, and every time I open their app, I select the "foodpics" folder, then the image inside of it and then go through the app's upload flow. Why should the photo app get access to the rest of my library of photos, like the ones in "business re…

Sure... but you don't have to use the app. That's the point. If that's a deal-breaker for you, then don't use the app.
Post reply on HN