Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Drops Out of Top 20 Most Trusted Companies for Privacy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No argument there. That was easily the most shocking bit of information contained in the article.
This seems like a very flawed survey. They simply ask the participants to write down 5 companies that they trust with their privacy information. It seems to be more about what companies someone can recall rather than an actual polling of trust.
So 21 versus 20 would have been such a difference in the perspective of the thousands of companies that are considered?
What's more important, IMO, is how it compares to similar companies, like Google and eBay. Comparing Apple to Nationwide, the US Postal Service and P&G is laughable. How many of us give our personal data, and credit information to P&G while buying soap at the local grocery store? No wonder Procter and Gamble has not earned consumer disdain in issues of privacy.
What's more important, IMO, is how it compares to similar companies, like Google and eBay. Comparing Apple to Nationwide, the US Postal Service and P&G is laughable. How many of us give our personal data, and credit information to P&G while buying soap at the local grocery store? No wonder Procter and Gamble has not earned consumer disdain in issues of privacy.
I'm trying to answer this question for myself, right now, and the only company I can think of that I actually trust my personal information to is my bank. And even then, my reason for trusting them is more along the lines of "well, they have to have it anyway, they already have it, and so far so good" rather than any overt statements of trust.
I'll just quote myself from an earlier post:
I have no problem with anyone trying to make money so long as they play within the rules. The problem in the reality that we live in is that there are no rules and we end up in the calamity we have going on now.
Laissez faire is only a pipe dream that intellectually lazy people buy into. When markets are left unregulated for the falsehood idea of libertarian "freedom", it quickly falls apart.
Ultimately it's not about what you or I want, though. These big companies are marketing their services to other big companies. Whether or not you prefer to see targeted ads as compared to a completely random selection is one thing, but the companies that are funding the pockets of Google and Facebook are the ones interested in having their ads targeted toward people who they think are more inclined to respond to them.
For example, on Facebook, I run a page for a charity I volunteer with. Facebook is already starting to target ME with opportunities to spam other people. "For just $5, we can promote this post or status update! It will be sent out to your page fans and to all their friends who show similar interests."
Nowhere in my "regular user" Facebook settings is there an option to allow or disallow this from showing up on my feed.
If you disapprove of the way a company pollutes the environment, don't buy their products.
If employees were being treated that badly, they'd request better treatment, and if they don't get it, they'd quit. If it turns out the employee was just a squeaky wheel, then they'll be replaced without problem. If there's an actual issue, employees will quit in groups and won't be replaceable. So long as an employer can find scabs, it's an indication that the job isn't actually as bad as the employee who quit made it out to be.
If you want to be treated better, become more valuable. Invest in yourself. Go to school and learn useful skills that are in high demand.
There are some things we need the government for - regulating buisnesses isn't one of them.
I don't know what they have on me. Maybe less than most, more than some? (However I do not 'drive' my car, I merely 'hold on' as it pierces the air.)
Can't say if Google has a separate field for this under "God of Awesome" in their database. However if my blocker isn't working with this site's forum, then I believe that "God of Awesome" is now listed in my Google file, which is also shared with the government, and I think that qualifies for official recognition of the title. Foolish mortal... what may appear to be circular logic to you, is merely a finely crafted series of tightly woven, non-intersecting loops that connect point radical with point amazing... also now in my Google file. Hope that answers part of your question.
I believe that Google does indeed know all those details you mention for some people, and that Google not only gets this information from their own products, but purchases things like credit reports and property listings from outside sources, and then matches up all this data into their databases. Like any other database, I believe they have the ability to sort this information by name with relative ease by system administrators.
Further, I believe it would be nearly impossible for them (and extremely unlikely) to find a way to erase this capability and maintain their services. Why would they sort it any other way, scumbags that they are? Are you genuinely curious about my beliefs or is my spider-sense correct in that you doubt my version of reality?
For your consideration...
Who are Google's top customers? Which advertising services do they specifically buy? Just Adwords and GoogleSense? Why do you think Google doesn't say? Do you think there are no premium products and features for bigger clients? Do you believe you'd get the same products and service options as Ford? Do you believe that the only perk for for $40 billion dollar company's ad spending would be increased ad placements? What other types of features might Google offer among their efforts and assets to attract larger clients? Do you think that University of Phoenix, a $2 billion company, gets the same services from Google as Target, a $40 billion dollar company? What kind of demographics would you offer when courting a $40 billion dollar client, vs. a $2 billion? Would you order a nicer bottle of wine for the table at the Target business lunch?
Do you believe Google sells your name to clothing stores? Do you believe that Target would be interested know the average age, income, credit history and education level of their customers? Do you believe that Target would like this information to develop future products for their customers? Do you believe that Target might like to know about competitors' customers' average age, income, credit history and education level? How about potential online customers? How about Geico? Goldman Sachs? Department of Defense? FBI? Your parents? That weird, chinless, methed-out, weak, disgusting sack of human garbage on the bus... no wait, that's just Sergey Brin... sorry!
Based on what part of Google's corporate history, would you recommend providing them the benefit of doubt? Are there any past instances where Google's practices might have given you pause? Does this clown on a bus in retard glasses, speak credibility to you? Do you believe this man has a vision for the future or is he really just a garden variety scumbag, badly in need an iShower?
Didn't you used to have burning sock for an avatar? Looks like some kinda pixelated heart now... is it a seasonal affectation?
Testy... what makes you think you 'deserve' an answer? You were the guy that lumped the ad company together with the computer soft/hardware companies and claimed they all did the same thing regarding data scamming.
When was the last time Apple or Microsoft got caught and punished for hacking browser privacy settings? That's pretty damning of Google. It's not their first offense, nor is it the first time they've gone out of their way to make a privacy infringement.
Further, Google discloses very little about their clients and services of their ad business. See my post to Renzatic, and I suggest you take some time to ponder some of those points too. Then we can debate your outlandish claims that Apple and Microsoft behave the exact same regarding privacy. I think you're going to have to do some more work before you present your theories. Secretive 'ad' company + privacy violations = well it doesn't take a rocket scientist... but I came anyway.
Uh, in this reality, Google is the company that hacks browser privacy settings. That destroys their credibility, it also kinda taints the people who keep standing up for them. What was Google done since they hacked Safari to make me forgive and want to trust them? That is a concept that is far from unreasonable. Google deliberately violated the privacy of users, for the benefit of their tracking software's results. Where do you get Poodle credibility from that? It might help their case if they made dog food and got caught scanning residential networks and storing passwords accidentally. When it's directly related to 90% of their revenue, then it tends to be a little more serious. Dig?
Apple has never been caught inappropriately acquiring additional personal details from it's iTunes Store or online store customers. You're trying to squid the privacy issue. Google is a company where a substantial part of their revenue is dependent on such 'additional information', has run into that issue, several times very publicly. Your comparison is flawed and seems like just a game to equate one with the other.
Please oh please, keep responding...
Your rebuttal is nothing more than overly simplified right-wing propagandized talking points. On top of that, Ayn Randian philosophy doesn't work, it's a pipe dream. Why? Because the individual isn't as powerful as she or a person like you would like to think. It takes a united populace to make any meaningful change in the world we live in.
So if the government is not needed to act as a referee, who should act as the referee in this game? The corporation itself? Like that ever works in favor of the consumer.
If it wasn't for government, and by government I mean WE THE PEOPLE, businesses would not stand a chance of existing. Why is that you ask? Because the free market you think of doesn't really exist. The free market you think of, the laissez faire free market, is designed to fail.
Look, you have an ideology that you stick to and don't want to let go, I get it. But how can you defend corporations that do nothing but destroy the world we live in, pay their workers low and unlivable wages, buys politicians so they can get away with crimes that you and I would go to prison for life over, and doesn't give a rat's tail about you, the very person that defends them? Corporations are NOT people my friend.
It takes a singular will to make a meaningful change in the world we live in. Most people lack one. Grouping together people gets you quite possibly less than the sum of your parts (because of their conflicting wills, however small they may be.)
So if the government is not needed to act as a referee, who should act as the referee in this game? The corporation itself? Like that ever works in favor of the consumer.
The customers should. I already stated that. If you know a company makes defected products, stop buying from it, and encourage everyone else to do the same. Leave reviews online. Have the media cover it. The government needs not be involved.
The same can be applied to anything else the company might do that you don't like (IE, if they abuse human rights.)
Do you actually have any evidence that it's designed to fail? Do you have any evidence of free markets of its own accord failing?
They absolutely are people. They don't destroy the world - if you truly believed that, you'd stop buying Apple's products - they change the world. Whether the net impact is for the better or worse is debatable - I for one think it's for the better.
What are you suggesting they're doing that's illegal?
If Apple was at #1, would you still regard it as a 'very flawed survey'? Just curious.
Of course not. Just like Consumer Reports is useless when they don't recommend the iPhone but just fine when they do.
Same thing happens when there are reports of marketshare. Or any customer feedback reports.
I find the hypocrisy funny. Well funny and sad.
Maybe because my original post was asking a question which was taken off on a tangent completely unrelated to the question, a very simple question which you still cant answer.
You were the guy that lumped the ad company together with the computer soft/hardware companies and claimed they all did the same thing regarding data scamming.
Last I checked Apple made Hardware, software and ran an add agency. The same applies to Microsoft.
Google also runs an online MP3, Video and App store - each companies other activities are irrelevant to the discussion we're supposed to be having here.
I agree that Google were in the wrong on the whole Safari thing - there's no questioning that, and it certainly damaged their reputation (and rightly so) however look at what it actually was they did. It's not 'hacking' it was exploiting a flaw that was present in Safari. Facebook were also found to be doing it. The shocking thing is, it was a glaringly obvious flaw. So we've got three culprits. Google and Facebook for exploiting it, and Apple for not patching it.
Google will be rightly sued for it, and will learn their lesson. But lets look at what the data they got out of that actually was - its the exact same data they would have got if people didn't click the 'opt-out' button, so its hardly the crime of the century.
Care to provide sources for a few more cases of such 'hacking' that Google has been involved in?
Google ads are served via the following methods:
- Adsense (using Adwords where anyone can buy adspace)
- Doubleclick (which is essentially adwords but for 'big' clients)
- Google domains (for parking pages)
- AdMob (mobile adverts)
- YouTube ads
What else would you like them to disclose? They even disclosed a big list of their biggest clients not long ago (have a look on Mashable
- User visits Google, searches for 'Golf' then sees golf ads on a website.
- User visits the iOS AppStore, downloads a free Golf score card app, and sees an iAd inside it for Golfing vacations
The same methods are used. It's called keyword profiling. They build up a database of keywords based on your interestes, activities, etc and return relevent adverts. Very simple in principle.
I think you're going to have to do some more work before you present your theories. Secretive 'ad' company + privacy violations = well it doesn't take a rocket scientist... but I came anyway.
You know, reading back through your posts I've yet to actually see anything of any relevance. You've made some pretty big claims about why Google is bad, with not a shed of evidence, and point to the only flaw (the safari incident, of which Apple is not an innocent party) in an otherwise spotless record.
As above, its unacceptable that Google did that. However by your logic the people who support Apple (The ones who failed to patch a highly known vulnrability) are also tainted. Everyone cocks up at some point. Apple is far from perfect
On the flip side, what has Apple done since failing to patch a vulndrability that was known for a long time? Why would you trust that OS X is now secure? You can throw ifs and buts around but it comes down to personal choice, and sanity.
By that logic, if Google had never been caught exploiting Apple's Safari vulnerability then they would be considered to be fantastic.
Oh and as someone else pointed out, Apple were caught being naught, arguably worse than Google as it affected a lot more people. Look at the iOS user tracking scandal
http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10?op=1
Correct. Google's income does rely (although recently to a lesser extent) on picking up users browsing habbits and using it to show related advertisements. Whats your point here though? As we already established, they would actually LOOSE money if they sold that information on. It's a much more financially viable business model to use the keyword system where advertisers pick certain keywords, and the ads are then shown to users who's browsing habbits match those keywords, thus creating a recurring income for Google. Selling the details would be a one-shot deal, once its sold the buyer buggers off until they need more info a few years down the line. The keyword model forces them to keep paying Google monthly. And yes, this is something Apple do with iAds, as does Microsoft on Bing, Viglink do it here at MacRumors, etc.
It's not some sort of conspiracy. It's the way advertising has always worked. Google are just able to make a hell of a lot more money as they own 2 of the top 3 websites in the world (Youtube and Google.com) and a good 20% of the top 100 websites in the world. Nobody else has the kind of exposure they have.
Likewise. It's almost like you're under mind control, forced to hate anything non-Apple. I bet you hate Samsung and Microsoft too dont you, and I bet you think Android is a 'blatant copy' of iOS
When it comes to Google, you really only see this blind hatred here at MacRumors. Clearly very few people share that view otherwise YouTube would be empty, Android sales would be in the pan and everyone would use Bing.
Last edited:
It's secret wall chicken, junior! And my avatar changes upon my moods, which may or may not be seasonal.
Also, I'm not gonna reply to the rest of your post because, A. I'm recovering from a very weird flu over here, and I'm still weak and noodly feeling, and B. I'm so, SO tired of these Google is good/evil arguments that come up seemingly every other week. Yeah, you can call it cowardice or whatever, but I just don't feel like going through the same old worn out spiel yet again.
Instead, I'll just cut to the usual end paragraph. What Google does is generic advertising. It's like a more indepth, wide covering Nielsen Rating setup that tracks demographics, popular websites, and the latest internet trends. In and of itself, it's fairly innocuous. But...
Could it be used for evil deeds? Sure. Quite easily, in fact. All Google would have to do is throw a few switches, add in a few lines of code to their web apps, and suddenly they're tracking everything about you.
Does that mean Google will do this? Probably not. They just got out of an extensive antitrust lawsuit with the US government. I doubt they'll be doing much to draw their ire yet again.
You don't have to like what Google does. I think that, as their setup currently exists at this point in time, it's pretty harmless. But lets not pretend they're the 5th iteration of the Illuminati, tracking every move we make so they can eventually root out the Free Thinkers, The Rebels, The Crazy Ones, so they can round them up, bring them out to the secret FEMA base under Denver International Airport, and "reeducate" them.
Cuz that's just only half true.
No if you actually stopped and read it there was an option that said I prefer not to use my full name and that exits it.
Doesnt surprise me
This doesn't surprise me. Apple needed to shore up some app security. Google of all companies should be dead last. If people only knew what they track...but again..they give you free stuff so i guess they feel they can sell info on things right down to how many times you clicked the R key.
This doesn't surprise me. Apple needed to shore up some app security. Google of all companies should be dead last. If people only knew what they track...but again..they give you free stuff so i guess they feel they can sell info on things right down to how many times you clicked the R key.