Loads of responses saying so what, it happens. Wonder what the responses would have been if the headline missed one word;
I bet they would have been a lot different, and somewhere Samsung would have been brought in for a tirade along with Google.
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 and Google, Like Microsoft, Reserve Right to Read Customer Emails
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Loads of responses saying so what, it happens. Wonder what the responses would have been if the headline missed one word;
I bet they would have been a lot different, and somewhere Samsung would have been brought in for a tirade along with Google.
You don't know much about law do you? If you sign anything that's a contract and it's law abiding. Maybe you need to experience it for once.
Some examples: You cannot be pressured to sign away your rights to get a job or rent a place to live. An employer cannot dream up conditions of employment in a unionized situation - signed or not, it would be invalid. Perhaps not in the land of the free, but at least in Canada.
Glen
How to mask your email
Just type the email, highlight it and change the font to white. That way it will look like a blank email. Then the recipient can decode it by making the text black. That will learn them snoopers.
Just type the email, highlight it and change the font to white. That way it will look like a blank email. Then the recipient can decode it by making the text black. That will learn them snoopers.
No, they CANNOT legally read or open your mail unless it's undeliverable and even then only the dead letter office is authorized to open your mail. However, most "illegal" activities, no matter how minor turn into mail fraud if done through the US Mail.
The US Constitution apparently guarantees absolute gun rights to the nth degree where you can legally buy any military grade modern assault weapon you feel like owning even though the Constitution was written in the days of muzzle loaders and yet you have almost ZERO expectations of a right to privacy for modern things like email, texting, phone conversations, etc. etc., despite guarantees against unreasonable searches, seizures, self-incrimination and free speech in the Constitution because some two-bit biased judge says so. For the people and by the people. What a crock of crap.
They would need a reason first to read any messages/contacts (hints for crime, murder, etc)
You've got to be kidding posting this nonsense in response to my post.
Of course a person cannot be pressured to sign away their rights to get a job but an employer has the right not to hire you if you don't agree to the job conditions just the same. I wasn't saying anything close to that in the first place. I said if the person DOES sign then it becomes a law abiding contract.
And then you use an example of unionized employment which is a limited situation. Not many jobs are unionized. Come on man, is that all you've got?
----------
And when have you been in a court situation involving Eula's that didn't hold up?
I'm assuming all of those folks will post their home addresses and allow us in their homes to go through their stuff. Since, you know, they have nothing to hide.
----------
This Coke vs Pepsi crap has to stop. There's no difference between blue team and red team lol. Aren't the last 20 years self-explanatory?
13 years of Obushma and people still want to think there's a difference.
I understand perfectly that you answered a different person, I just took the opportunity to respond. Technically there is nothing paranoid about the idea that evolves Apple to be able to read anyone's e-mail when the given user is using Apple's e-mail system. Just like America's NSA is able to drag in a massive amount of data world wide and is using special software to filter people's e-mails in search for specific data which they might find useful.
I'm not going to debate about the ethics in all of this, if this is wrong or a good thing. For me that's a rhetorical question, it's wrong without any question and personally I do think Apple should do it's best to avoid to take any action that makes it possible to filter e-mails with the excuse that it will only occur for legal justification purposes.
Next to the fact I think it's wrong in terms of ethics it also doesn't help security that much to begin with. Now, before you might start with that Apple themselves doesn't read your or my personal e-mails, the very fact they can if for whatever reason they find this necessary is something where some people quite rightfully are worried about.
That's why it such a good thing what Snowden has done, with his actions he made it possible for a global discussion to emerge about privacy matters and look at how the phenomenon 'Big Brother is Watching you' has changed to world.
It's no paranoia, anyone can use plugins these days that enables them in a few mouse-clicks to see how much of the user behavior on the internet, while surfing the net, has been stored and used as information for many companies and in many cases without the full knowledge of the user.
That's why I think, given the context, that a question what e-mail client is secure in this matter is quite legitimate.
Nothing new here
I think the only thing happening here is that we have naive children joining the real world.
I think the only thing happening here is that we have naive children joining the real world.
I just say for peace of mind.. regardless of TOS, and privacy policies, you are using their service, therefore Microsoft has the right to anything they like..
Of course they wouldn't probably since their "policies" protect them, just like any company, but its still on their servers.
I bet you anything the reason this bought up, is Microsoft doesn't say they'll read emails...... If they did, this wouldn't be an issue..
Regardless, if its on their servers, they can do whatever they like..
We all hope Apple doesn't spy iMessages, but its proven that its stored.
All TOS, and policies are always subject to change anytime, and they don't need to to necessary tell the customer anything.
Besides, it was 'leaked' Microsoft has a right to investigate.
Regarding Apple leaks.. tell me something i don't know...... Apple will never be able to control leaks revealed, unless they stop putting 'hints' in developer releases like "OS X 10" or "The next iPhone, iOS 8" Seeing these words together IS a leak.... Just don't mention these, and problem solved..
Not very secretive if you ask me. Apple can word stuff better. There is always a hint someplace... and Apple does it. Apple is actually the 'leak' here.
Of course they wouldn't probably since their "policies" protect them, just like any company, but its still on their servers.
I bet you anything the reason this bought up, is Microsoft doesn't say they'll read emails...... If they did, this wouldn't be an issue..
Regardless, if its on their servers, they can do whatever they like..
We all hope Apple doesn't spy iMessages, but its proven that its stored.
All TOS, and policies are always subject to change anytime, and they don't need to to necessary tell the customer anything.
Besides, it was 'leaked' Microsoft has a right to investigate.
Regarding Apple leaks.. tell me something i don't know...... Apple will never be able to control leaks revealed, unless they stop putting 'hints' in developer releases like "OS X 10" or "The next iPhone, iOS 8" Seeing these words together IS a leak.... Just don't mention these, and problem solved..
Not very secretive if you ask me. Apple can word stuff better. There is always a hint someplace... and Apple does it. Apple is actually the 'leak' here.
Not just a different person, but a different question. About a different story. About a theory you have about an issue that is totally unrelated to this one.
You seem to crave a political debate. No thanks. Strange as it may sound to you, I confined my answer to the actual question. You should try it sometime.
Sorry, I was looking past the silly notion that the app matters and addressing the real issue at hand. My algebra teachers did tell me not to skip steps, but I never listened, and just give the correct answers, anyway.
That is an interesting argument. Along the same lines, I guess the USPS has the right to open your letters at will as soon as they are on USPS premises? And I have the right to to do what I want with Microsoft's software as soon as it is on my computer (like reverse engineering it and making pirate copies)?
Really? I could agree with this if they had only been looking at the email of one of their employees, but in this case they whent through the mail of a journalist.
To be fair, Microsoft has changed the policy a little in that regard after this came out:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2110...acy-policies-after-email-spying-backlash.html
But personally, I think this is not enough. We need legal protections for Internet communications, similar to the ones that exist for letters and phone calls. In the US these are derived from the constitution (4th amendment).
Just type the email, highlight it and change the font to white. That way it will look like a blank email. Then the recipient can decode it by making the text black. That will learn them snoopers.
clever
Or these leaks were set loose - we saw how well that worked with the whole "smart watch" thingy and samsung tripping over its own feet to beat apple to that market.
Talking about not reacting on the content.
Besides your misplaced contempt in your reaction, quoting: "You should try it sometime", you could consider not to react at all if you have nothing to add besides an emotional response. Since your eagerness to respond with contempt mixed with some kind of superior attitude I'll leave it for what it is.
Last edited:
This is rather silly i.m.h.o. Just because a company decides to scan and being able to read anyone his or her private e-mail any critical response is being ridiculed with these kind of silly remarks like: don't use e-mail or the person that protest against this approach of apple gets a stigma of being paranoid. That's putting labels on person and can't harpy be called a: having a fair discussion.
In this context I do think it's about other people's viewpoints about privacy, it's not a one way direction. When a firm, any, decides to scan e-mail or being able to use it's content for the so called "security" reasons it does involves other viewpoints because the content of those e-mails are not from Apple but from other users to begin with. So yes, of course people are concerned.
Yes, the alternative is legitimate to state: don't use e-mail any longer, but it's a very simplistic statement as well. Especially considering that e-mail is very important to a lot of people using the Mail client from Apple.
It's no secret that the NSA or any government, not only America, using the argument that in name of so called security firms should address any content to the government security institute whenever they ask for it, if they don't firms are faced to legal actions or in countries where there is a thin line between full blast dictatorship and no separation between law and government firm threatened with being declared illegal when they don't cooperate.
People are quite naive if they think this is a solid decision made by Apple's CEO alone, since the NSA is already able to scan most of the e-mails of their choosing one "might" address the issue to Apple that instead of corporation the company could also point out that any e-mail from any customer will be left alone.
The silly excuses about: protecting people against spam, pornography is so absurdly ridicules because anyone with a little bit of knowledge in the field of the internet methodology understands that any attempt to block spam or pornography is just a waste of time. People concerning with these kinds of things has nothing to do with writing and sending e-mails on a personal level and have plenty enough tools to continue with sending spam and working in the field of pornography.
So political or not, this discussion does evolves Apple's users and therefor a critical approach to this all is quite legitimate and can't be simplistic be described as trying to make it a political discussion because it already is for quite some time. And people criticizing Apple can't be labeled as being paranoid. That's sophism as well.
E-mail is not the same as a forum post.
Wrong.
In our country it's illegal to read anyone his or her e-mail without his or her permission. It's been considered private unless stated otherwise. And that concerns Apple as well. If I write an e-mail to a person within Holland, the state where I'm living, then Apple has no right to use the content of that e-mail based on their own policy made in the USA or on terms of the American law.
That's simplistic sophism.
Again, simplistic sophism... This has nothing to do with the discussion about privacy on e-mail.
Again, misplaced contempt with a silly superior complex, quoting: "you learned something important this week". You're wrong here as well because you're lacking nuance. It's true that a company can read the e-mails written by the employees, most often this is stated within a given contract which employees have to sign when deciding to work for the company. This is legal. So that's true, but that's something completely different then someone writing a personal e-mail from home while not in business. There is thin line here. For example if I would write that my boss is this and that with all kind of hatred in it and e-mail this to other employees I could loose my job, even if I've send it from home when not working. But the difference is that I'm choosing to share that e-mail publicly with all the consequences that comes with it, if I send it privately to one person his or her private home then no company or government has the right to read it's contents. That is, here in Holland (god thanks for living here, but that aside)
So again, a company decides to scan / read / use the content of any given e-mail in cases they 'think' is appropriate isn't legal in Holland to begin with and i.m.h.o. shouldn't be legal anyway in the word where governments should respect people's privacy in any given context unless there is proof of serious undermining the law. But also there, what's considered to be "undermining"? In Turkey the government can't stand people using Twitter to write bad stuff about it's leader so whole of Twitter has been banned. What's undermining and not is quote often misused as a excuse to bend the rules of privacy that evolves anybody using, in this case Twitter or in Apple's context, e-mail.
What do they teach kids about email and the internet these days??
Rhetorical question from which the answer doesn't mean much, this depends entirely of the given context.
----------
Well, rather scanning then reading. Reading will occur when the government would find some so called "disturbing" content which might give them a reason to actually read your e-mails. But that aside, even though American NSA is scanning a massive amount of e-mail and even though you personally are not worried about, which is of course you right entirely, this does concerns me. Because living in Holland where I normally should be protected in my privacy with the law stating that e-mails written in Holland and addressed to a person within Holland itself falls under the Dutch laws of privacy, even though the very content journeys through wires outside Holland before it arrives at the receiver.
Never the less, an interesting discussion.
----------
its really funny how this topic doesnt raise much attention and most people here are downplaying things now that apple is also involved
True.
True. It's called lack of arguments, you see that often on various forums. The given arguments being ridiculed, people using sophism a lot and using stigma's like you being paranoid in a sudden. Quite silly and I agree very patronizing.
True, Snowden has created a valuable discussion about privacy by revealing how far the American government went. But not only the American government. That's why it's only good people start asking questions about privacy matters and the discussion is been made about it.
Not only Turkey, history learns this government questionable approach towards privacy in general is nothing new. I'm not sure though how far companies can be acceptable for these kinds of interference with someone's his or her private e-mails, in many cases companies are addressed by it's government to co-operate, quite often there is not much choice. But even if that's the case for some companies, a company could at least make a stand. Snowden has proven with hard material that in many cases companies are willing to corporate to easy. That's something that should trouble people i.m.h.o.
----------
But that's your choice, what if it is word encrypting and some government or company is still being able to read it's content without your approval? That's where this is all about.
Maybe in your case, not in mine. My contract is the Dutch law which I signed when I was born here.
I will admit I rarely, if ever, read the EULA when registering for a service. I also am aware of the possibility that all my information can be accessed. I'm also okay with that. With that said, I am very careful what I use the service for and which companies contain that information.
Email, since day 1, has been available to read by anyone who happens to be on that network. Mail gets bounced around servers and anyone can read it. It's just like postal mail, except there's no federal agency protecting your e-mail. Writing an email is like passing a note around campus. Anyone along the way can read it.
The thing I dislike - and this pertains to companies more than email itself is that they pass along temporary passwords, sometimes actual passwords, or detailed information about you or your account. Companies need to stop doing this.
Instead, provide a link, we click it, it asks us some identifying questions, and we can reset our password or read a message that may require some security behind it. Or offer 2way auth so that the link is sent via email and a code is sent via text or phone call.
I also don't store any secretive personal data in dropbox or any other service. Sure my resume is there with name and address. But not my social or birth location, etc.
There's ways to protect yourself more than the "average Joe". I also don't do anything illegal to flag my accounts.
Email, since day 1, has been available to read by anyone who happens to be on that network. Mail gets bounced around servers and anyone can read it. It's just like postal mail, except there's no federal agency protecting your e-mail. Writing an email is like passing a note around campus. Anyone along the way can read it.
The thing I dislike - and this pertains to companies more than email itself is that they pass along temporary passwords, sometimes actual passwords, or detailed information about you or your account. Companies need to stop doing this.
Instead, provide a link, we click it, it asks us some identifying questions, and we can reset our password or read a message that may require some security behind it. Or offer 2way auth so that the link is sent via email and a code is sent via text or phone call.
I also don't store any secretive personal data in dropbox or any other service. Sure my resume is there with name and address. But not my social or birth location, etc.
There's ways to protect yourself more than the "average Joe". I also don't do anything illegal to flag my accounts.
S/MIME, PKI, or PGP anyone?
I wish Apple would take a more official privacy stance, but they're probably too big to do so. Their company's self preservation lawyer team is busy reserving them all the rights that they can.
Having said that, Apple has generally been very good regarding the privacy of e-mail of their customers. They reserve the right to ... but they tend to keep it reserved and don't use it. So I'm a little disappointed with Apple on this, but not hugely so. The burden falls on the user, mostly.
If you care about privacy in your e-mail, start encrypting it. Seriously. There are standards and stuff. It probably means using a real e-mail client rather than webmail, and paying for a PKI cert. Either your privacy is worth $100/year, or it's not. It doesn't make sense to me to complain about e-mail privacy, and then send plain text e-mail; that's like sending private postcards.
I wish Apple would take a more official privacy stance, but they're probably too big to do so. Their company's self preservation lawyer team is busy reserving them all the rights that they can.
Having said that, Apple has generally been very good regarding the privacy of e-mail of their customers. They reserve the right to ... but they tend to keep it reserved and don't use it. So I'm a little disappointed with Apple on this, but not hugely so. The burden falls on the user, mostly.
If you care about privacy in your e-mail, start encrypting it. Seriously. There are standards and stuff. It probably means using a real e-mail client rather than webmail, and paying for a PKI cert. Either your privacy is worth $100/year, or it's not. It doesn't make sense to me to complain about e-mail privacy, and then send plain text e-mail; that's like sending private postcards.
My response was 100% factual, and I refused to be dragged into your OT discussion. Clearly, that is the problem you have with my response.