151–160 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can skip it
It's disingenuous to ask for it in the first place when one touts itself as a privacy advocate. Vast majority of users will do what they are told to do by default and Apple knows and exploits that.
There's a big skip button.
Making a speech is easy, compared to actually doing the right thing. Just a month ago, I was asked by an employee of an Apple Certified Service Provider to decrypt my hard drive in order for Apple to make a "hardware test". There was an issue with my display, but they insisted that Apple's hardware test needed to have access to the data on my hard drive and send information back to Apple via the Internet. What about…
That's not even a little insane. They needed access to something, and asked you for it to complete their work. It would have been insane if the guy had just hit a button, and your data was decrypted. As it stood, you were always in complete control of your data.
Making a speech is easy, compared to actually doing the right thing. Just a month ago, I was asked by an employee of an Apple Certified Service Provider to decrypt my hard drive in order for Apple to make a "hardware test". There was an issue with my display, but they insisted that Apple's hardware test needed to have access to the data on my hard drive and send information back to Apple via the Internet. What about…
This is marketing folks. Apple's behavior towards Google changed dramatically after Android starting getting traction, and this sudden pivot towards pro-privacy is an Apple's attempt to damage the reputation of it's biggest competitor. Apple hasn't been consistently speaking with the same voice on privacy, both before or after Snowden, and Tim Cook's comments IMHO look cynically designed. Apple collects plenty of per…
3) iCloud Photo Library is not encrypted client side in a way that prevents Apple from decrypting it on the server, so like Google Photos, Apple will have your photos.
Having the data is only one part, the other part is what you can do with the data. Google's rights are extremely broad, although they conveniently did not put most stuff in the privacy policy:
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).
Source: https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
tl;dr: Google can keep your data, even if you stop using their services. Google can use your data for promoting their service and in new services.
I don't think most people realize that there is no way back: once you store your data (e.g. photos) in a Google service, it's theirs to keep (how that works with Dashboard, I don't know).
Please show me comparable terms for Apple Photos (Apple can keep your stuff forever and use it to promote services). If they are not there, there is clearly a difference between storing photos in iCloud or Google Photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re 1 - I agree that is by a mile the most problematic part of Google's business. It's not a problem that Google knows what's in the emails I store on their servers -- of course they do, I put them there -- but it is problematic if they know I go to www.controversialsite.com when they should have no reason to. But the implication there is that Google's most privacy-invasive product, by a mile, is Google Analytics, whi…
Analytics uses first-party cookies for the site's domain, not your google cookie(s). And you'll have to take them at their word, but they don't combine it with some IP address trickiness or whatever (though that would be a pretty bad idea if you want decent profiles anyway): https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/6004245?hl=en
The 'reassurances' provided in Google's Terms of Service don't mean jack shit when they have the power to change the terms in the future to whatever they want.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/google-wants-ability-to-combine-you...!
Making a speech is easy, compared to actually doing the right thing. Just a month ago, I was asked by an employee of an Apple Certified Service Provider to decrypt my hard drive in order for Apple to make a "hardware test". There was an issue with my display, but they insisted that Apple's hardware test needed to have access to the data on my hard drive and send information back to Apple via the Internet. What about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not even a little insane. They needed access to something, and asked you for it to complete their work. It would have been insane if the guy had just hit a button, and your data was decrypted. As it stood, you were always in complete control of your data.
I added a little bit to my comment above. They are asking people for administrator passwords and put them into forms in their computer system. Rule number one of computing is that you shouldn't ever tell anybody your passwords. Asking for it is ridiculous. Considering how casual they acted, I can only assume that quite a lot of people actually told them. That makes me really worried.
That's very sanctimonious of the CEO of the richest corporation in the world. Speeches are great but what would be even better is for them to deign to actually sell something to the poor, the people who cannot afford to buy into Apple's privacy respecting products.
> For years we’ve offered encryption services like iMessage and FaceTime because we believe the contents of your text messages and your video chats is none of our business. Sounds great, but take note that it's none of their business today and we know they can be compelled to spy on their users by NSLs. They control the key infrastructure with their closed-source software that runs on their closed-source hardware. If…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not even a little insane. They needed access to something, and asked you for it to complete their work. It would have been insane if the guy had just hit a button, and your data was decrypted. As it stood, you were always in complete control of your data.
I added a little bit to my comment above. They are asking people for administrator passwords and put them into forms in their computer system. Rule number one of computing is that you shouldn't ever tell anybody your passwords. Asking for it is ridiculous. Considering how casual they acted, I can only assume that quite a lot of people actually told them. That makes me really worried.
I've always found the "Geniuses" to be fairly helpful and they always explain what they were going to do to my gear.