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

Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#101

Post by whytaka »

darawk wrote: post #7
turboturbo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company’s business model is aligned with statements by its CEO, I would consider those statements more valid, not less. Apple is putting its money where Tim Cook’s mouth is. That’s a good thing.

They didn't align their business model in order to further privacy, though. It just happened to shake out that way. If Apple cared in the slightest about issues like this, they wouldn't make it impossible to control your own hardware when you buy an iPhone.

What disincentives are implicit in Apple's business model that discourages collecting more data from their users?

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#102

Post by gkya »

zwily wrote: post #92
gkya wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly but WhatsApp is rather privacy-friendly.

What makes you say this? How do you know what Facebook is doing with the whatsapp data?

If WhatsApp is not lying about end-to-end encryption, FB don't have the data.

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#103

Post by IBM »

tony101 wrote: post #52

It is worth noting that Tim Cook said this in China, where Apple happily hands over all user data to the Chinese government. http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/28/technology/apple-icloud-data...

There's a lot of comments here that superficially try to paint Apple as hypocrites but it falls apart the moment you actually think about it.

Apple will hand over all user data in iCloud to any law enforcement agency with a warrant [1]. That doesn't conflict at all with calling for privacy regulation. China has enacted a data localization law, and they aren't the only ones that are doing it [2]. The CLOUD Act is related to this issue.

Apple retains control of the keys for iCloud. The iCloud services that are end-to-end encrypted remain so. Apple also informed all their Chinese customers prior to this change happening.

You could argue that Apple should leave the Chinese market but that isn't realistic because it's a large market to sell to and where all of Apple's production takes place. Shutting down iCloud in China will have no practical benefit to Chinese customers (and likely make them worse off).

The common retort is to point to Google taking a big stand on principle in leaving China. But if that's the case why haven't they also left Russia and Turkey? In fact they've complied with Russia's data localization law [3] and Turkey's censorship [4] to avoid being blocked. And they're attempting to re-enter the Chinese market [5].

Apple is not a state actor and can't do anything about China's laws other than lobby against it, which they did [6]:

>“While we advocated against iCloud being subject to these laws, we were ultimately unsuccessful,” it said.

Fortunately the rule of law prevails in the US, and it is certainly well within Apple's rights to lobby for privacy legislation. And I hope they do.

[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-request...

[2] https://www.servers.global/meeting-the-challenge-of-data-loc...

[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-moves-some-servers-to-ru...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/world/europe/google-turke...

[5] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/207...

[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#104

Post by kerng »

woweeeee wrote: post #80
kerng wrote: post #49

It makes a difference having a CEO that is so vocal about this, it changes what everyone in the org does and sees as "right". It's a good thing. At Facebook the understanding seems to be more Orwellian community like, spearheaded by Mark Zuckerberg. They envision and build a future where everyone is under surveillance at all times - so collecting a bit more doesn't matter, more to the contrary. Last week there was a…

operating devices owned by an employer is strike one. It’s not your personal property. You didn’t buy it from the store, you give it back when you quit or get fired, right?

BYOD and things like that are common at modern companies. Lines are blurry. You could say, oh when you join the device to the domain it's not yours anymore - still pretty odd. Even if they are legally okay, its unethical (especially when done covertly).

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#105

Post by cm2187 »

kerng wrote: post #49

It makes a difference having a CEO that is so vocal about this, it changes what everyone in the org does and sees as "right". It's a good thing. At Facebook the understanding seems to be more Orwellian community like, spearheaded by Mark Zuckerberg. They envision and build a future where everyone is under surveillance at all times - so collecting a bit more doesn't matter, more to the contrary. Last week there was a…

Apple isn’t the privacy white knight either. By default every iPhone logs and sends to the mothership your gps locations. They designed iMessage in a way that ensured they could access the conversation. IOS comes with an advertising ID, etc. They are certainly not as bad as a Google or Facebook but they are not good either.

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#106

Post by qwaitwhat »

kendallpark wrote: post #77

I think there have been some valid points made in this thread about business models. Facebook is the least diversified company out of the big five when it comes to how much of their business model depends on collecting user data (and how personal that data is). At the same time, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, and Microsoft weren't just handed their business models. Each company decided to what (and what not) to pur…

>> TBH what disturbs me the most is how much data Facebook >> has on people's children. There's going to be an entire >> generation of people whose conception to high school >> graduation has been archived in Facebook servers, >> without their consent.

I find it unsettling that Facebook has built profiles on kids who can not, legally, _give_ consent, I mean, at all. Facebook probably has a profile on me (although I have never visited them) because I am active in a community of heavy smartphone users; but at least I am an adult and you could argue that people/institutions/organizations that I interact with have kinda given consent on my behalf (without asking me) by agreeing to these websites' Terms & Conditions. So for adults, you could say it is "Indirectly Implied Consent".

But how can you apply this argument to kids' profiles collected/built/scraped without consent?

We have a lot of work to do, as a society. A combination of laws, co-ordinated across countries, and social shaming perhaps?

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#107

Post by walterbell »

my123 wrote: post #96
walterbell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples of the types of cases/precedents they were trying to avoid?

Microsoft v United States of America about access to data in Ireland for US authorities

EFF has outlined several problems with the CLOUD act. Will US tech giants lobby for improvements?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-ex...

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#109

Post by kendallpark »

qwaitwhat wrote: post #106
kendallpark wrote: post #77

I think there have been some valid points made in this thread about business models. Facebook is the least diversified company out of the big five when it comes to how much of their business model depends on collecting user data (and how personal that data is). At the same time, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, and Microsoft weren't just handed their business models. Each company decided to what (and what not) to pur…

>> TBH what disturbs me the most is how much data Facebook >> has on people's children. There's going to be an entire >> generation of people whose conception to high school >> graduation has been archived in Facebook servers, >> without their consent . I find it unsettling that Facebook has built profiles on kids who can not, legally, _give_ consent, I mean, at all . Facebook probably has a profile on me (although I…

> I find it unsettling that Facebook has built profiles on kids who can not, legally, _give_ consent, I mean, at all. Facebook probably has a profile on me (although I have never visited them) because I am active in a community of heavy smartphone users; but at least I am an adult and you could argue that people/institutions/organizations that I interact with have kinda given consent on my behalf (without asking me) by agreeing to these websites' Terms & Conditions. So for adults, you could say it is "Indirectly Implied Consent".

Yeah, this would line up with privacy laws about photography/videography, at least in the US. Say I'm not a Facebook user, but I go to a party with my Facebook-using friends. My photo is taken spilling food all over my shirt and that gets posted to Facebook. My participation in an event that had no reasonable expectation of privacy means that any photos of me can be legally taken and posted to Facebook.

> But how can you apply this argument to kids' profiles collected/built/scraped without consent?

Well, one of the problems is that as it stands right now, parents/guardians control that consent. And parents are largely the ones posting pics and FB statuses about their kids. I think there would have to some kind of laws that give children rights to a certain degree of privacy outside of their parents' control.

There was a case in 2016 where an 18 year-old sued her parents to remove 500 of her baby photos from Facebook:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/16/18...

It seems unfortunate to me that she had to wait until she was eighteen in order to address the issue. A lot of social damage can be done before eighteen.

Re: Tim Cook says Facebook's collection of user data 'shouldn't exist'

#110

Post by innagadadavida »

darawk wrote: post #84
glhaynes wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your stance seems unfalsifiable. If a company did exist that cared more about their values than profit, how would you recognize it? But more importantly: who cares? We’re not judging whether Tim Cook oughta get into heaven. People seem highly driven by the profit motive, arguably more than by most other motives. If Apple’s goals are aligned with mine and motivated by profit so they’re likely to be careful to keep fro…

It is falsifiable, i've explained elsewhere my reasoning, but i'll repeat it here: The same basic moral orientation that would motivate one to care about privacy would also motivate them to care about freedom. Apple's policy of not giving you sovereignty over your device is anti-freedom. However, the thing that explains both behaviors is self-interest. It's to Apple's strategic interest to focus on privacy, it's not…

so in summary you are saying 1. Apple is selfish (like any other company). 2. Their self interest is coupled to user privacy (but not freedom or moral values).
Post reply on HN