Apple CEO Tim Cook on Privacy: 'We Very Much Are on Your Side'

[Abazigal]

They get your data via tracking pixels. The same method how other ad providers do it. They probably have better intentions, but the more you know about the mechanisms the better.

When I get to a computer, I’ll post some info that give DDG a different angle. I’m not saying DDG is bad, but I am saying to just understand that the technical approach that they are doing is not much different than other companies.

And I use an iPhone X with Safari as my default browser.

So you are saying that there is no upside to having my data spread amongst multiple providers?

For example, I am using Apple Maps, gmail, google drive, and DDG. My photos are saved to iCloud over google photos, and I use safari with a content blocker. I haven’t yet been able to complete wean myself off Google’s services altogether, but I like to think that not being all-in with Google means that at least they don’t get all my data.

I am resigned to the fact that I will never be 100% successful in preventing my data from leaking out, but in the same vein, does this mean that we just surrender all our data to Google without a fight?

Or am I deluding myself and this is just some petty little rebellion which makes zero difference in the end?

 

[Marekul]

It’s great that google pays Apple for something a user browsing on any platform will give up for free. Isn’t it? I wish google would pay Apple more.

However as I explained google doesn’t get anything of value unless a user gives it up voluntarily. Standard web traffic has nothing in it.

Wether something is "standard web traffic" or "given up voluntarily" has nothing to do with the point i made - that apple is cashing 9 bill for a default setting that facilitate data exchange with google, while booking giant billboards with the message "What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone", and CEO statements like this:

"We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don't think they're worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose. And we think some day, customers will see this for what it is."
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/02/tim-cook-privacy-encryption-speech/

Interestingly in the same interview he makes this statement, further highlighting their hypocrisy.
"According to Cook, weakening encryption with a "master key" for the government has a "chilling effect on our First Amendment rights and undermines our country's founding principles." He says Apple will continue moving forward with encryption and will focus on building products "that keep people's information safe."

That was 2015. 2017 they merged Chinese cloud with government and gave them all the data and the master keys.

 

[ipponrg]

So you are claiming ddg is and ad provider?

They serve ads to keep the business running but they are not an ad provider like google is.

This is their privacy policy.
“DuckDuckGo does not collect or share personal information. That is our privacy policy in a nutshell."

It’s pretty simple and straight forward.

Would like to see something to back up your

ddg isn’t buying users bank information and transaction history.


https://gizmodo.com/google-reportedly-secretly-bought-your-banking-data-an-1828341605

I think you are missing my point entirely.

My point is not questioning what you *think* DDG does or what others *think* DDG does, but rather the mechanisms for them collecting data is almost identical to other providers. I have worked for different tech companies that spout the same privacy policy lingo. I am not saying DDG is buying or not buying information. Repeat... I am simply saying the mechanisms for how they collect data is the same. As an engineer, it is possible to reverse trace pixels if you really wanted to even though it's not deemed in layman's terms as "collecting". Trust is relative.

I wrote this a while ago from some research into DDG:

"Not saying DuckDuckGo is not a viable alternative, but the DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg used to own this website which was a questionable site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_Database. In addition, they got caught with a tracking cookie 5 years ago, https://archive.is/qntuk. I believe instead of tracking cookies, they are now sending tracking pixels. They claim it's for user behavior and contains no confidential data."

Lastly and for the n-th time, I am not saying they have malicious intent. I am saying they are collecting data (even if it wasn't personal) in similar ways as other companies.
[doublepost=1557327030][/doublepost]

Or am I deluding myself and this is just some petty little rebellion which makes zero difference in the end?

At the end of the day, if it makes you feel better and happier then go for it. But just know that you are on the internet.

Some people are paranoid enough where they will VPN into a VPN into a VPN etc to make it more difficult to track their habits.

 

[FFR]

I think you are missing my point entirely.

My point is not questioning what you *think* DDG does or what others *think* DDG does, but rather the mechanisms for them collecting data is almost identical to other providers. I have worked for different tech companies that spout the same privacy policy lingo. I am not saying DDG is buying or not buying information. Repeat... I am simply saying the mechanisms for how they collect data is the same. As an engineer, it is possible to reverse trace pixels if you really wanted to even though it's not deemed in layman's terms as "collecting". Trust is relative.

I wrote this a while ago from some research into DDG:

"Not saying DuckDuckGo is not a viable alternative, but the DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg used to own this website which was a questionable site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_Database. In addition, they got caught with a tracking cookie 5 years ago, https://archive.is/qntuk. I believe instead of tracking cookies, they are now sending tracking pixels. They claim it's for user behavior and contains no confidential data."

Lastly and for the n-th time, I am not saying they have malicious intent. I am saying they are collecting data (even if it wasn't personal) in similar ways as other companies.
[doublepost=1557327030][/doublepost]

At the end of the day, if it makes you feel better and happier then go for it. But just know that you are on the internet.

Some people are paranoid enough where they will VPN into a VPN into a VPN etc to make it more difficult to track their habits.

Goggle was caught data mining users personal information.

Ddg doesn’t, according to them.

Whatever data they want to collect that isn’t personal is up to them for offering the service.


But claiming ddg is a 3rd party that will data mine my personal information just like google does it. That is completely inaccurate.

 

[Marekul]

So you are saying that there is no upside to having my data spread amongst multiple providers?

For example, I am using Apple Maps, gmail, google drive, and DDG. My photos are saved to iCloud over google photos, and I use safari with a content blocker. I haven’t yet been able to complete wean myself off Google’s services altogether, but I like to think that not being all-in with Google means that at least they don’t get all my data.

I am resigned to the fact that I will never be 100% successful in preventing my data from leaking out, but in the same vein, does this mean that we just surrender all our data to Google without a fight?

Or am I deluding myself and this is just some petty little rebellion which makes zero difference in the end?

Of course fragmentation makes it a bit harder for them but the worst enemy are the large data aggregators, especially state actors. Just look up the PRISM program.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
"The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian."
It is almost trivial for them to merge the data into one profile.

Commercial aggregators will have it a bit harder - but it won't make much difference unless you move to very exotic providers that fall under the radar, or providers that implement end to end encryption like mega.nz.

 

[hermes16]

To be fair, he is one of the best known CEOs in the country largely because he makes himself available to do these type of interviews. Also, as a well known CEO, he has become the face of Apple. I usually don't agree with his politics but I respect him as a person, a spokesperson, and leader. He and his leadership team have been generous to numerous disaster relief efforts and I truly appreciate his stance on privacy. Could Apple do more on privacy? Of course, but I trust them 1000 times more than any other big tech company.

But the lack of real innovation on the computer side of the company, it appears he enjoys the media limelight like when he flew to Europe to pick out furniture for the new spaceship office. Really, no one else could do that...
Steve didn't give that many interviews... same company and more innovative than little Timmy.

 

[I7guy]

Wether something is "standard web traffic" or "given up voluntarily" has nothing to do with the point i made - that apple is cashing 9 bill for a default setting that facilitate data exchange with google, while booking giant billboards with the message "What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone", and CEO statements like this:

"We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don't think they're worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose. And we think some day, customers will see this for what it is."
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/02/tim-cook-privacy-encryption-speech/

Interestingly in the same interview he makes this statement, further highlighting their hypocrisy.
"According to Cook, weakening encryption with a "master key" for the government has a "chilling effect on our First Amendment rights and undermines our country's founding principles." He says Apple will continue moving forward with encryption and will focus on building products "that keep people's information safe."

That was 2015. 2017 they merged Chinese cloud with government and gave them all the data and the master keys.

You are conflating two separate events and spreading misinformation, and using that as a basis for a criticism against Apple. Saying there is data exchange with google is a straw-man argument as that is how the web works.

The 9b is irrelevant to anything having to do with privacy. The web standards are irrelevant to anything having to do with privacy.

You can cite and bold and much as you want. Straw-man arguments, conflation and misinformation all form a biased conclusion.

What ever you provide to google you are doing it on googles turf. Apple has nothing to do with this.

 

[Marekul]

You are conflating two separate events and spreading misinformation, and using that as a basis for a criticism against Apple. Saying there is data exchange with google is a straw-man argument as that is how the web works.

The 9b is irrelevant to anything having to do with privacy. The web standards are irrelevant to anything having to do with privacy.

You can cite and bold and much as you want. Straw-man arguments, conflation and misinformation all form a biased conclusion.

What ever you provide to google you are doing it on googles turf. Apple has nothing to do with this.

No i am not conflating anything, i just brought up another example where apples marketing message concerning privacy contradicts their actions - which is the main point i am making.

You just accuse me of a lot of things, but couldn't bring up a single factual argument against the point i was making.
In contrary, it is you who brought up straw and false arguments during the whole debate.

"Data exchange with google" is not "how the web works". The web works fine with zero data exchange to google.

The web standards are irrelevant to the whole debate we had, i never brought them up. You just introduced the term to form a straw argument.

Please point out where i spread misinformation.

in this case, what ever you provide to google you are are not doing it "on googles turf". You never have to visit google to use safari search field. You are doing it on apples turf form consumer perspective. And apple is sending the information you entered in one of their apps to google.

And the 9 billion google pays apple to get all iOS web searches by default has everything to do with privacy, unless you believe google is not monetising on the gathered data - wich contradicts the fact they paid 9 billion USD(!) for it.

 

[BootsWalking]

You, the user, can easily change your browser search engine for Safari in the settings menu. So what’s your point? If you use Google, that’s on you. Apple isn’t giving them the data, YOU are.

My point is Apple knows most users wont even know they can change their default search engine let alone go through the trouble to do so. So for Apple to claim they're privacy minded while at the same time handing their customers over to Google to be harvested for $9B/year in return is the height of self-interested hypocrisy.

 

[I7guy]

No i am not conflating anything, i just brought up another example where apples marketing message concerning privacy contradicts their actions - which is the main point i am making.

You just accuse me of a lot of things, but couldn't bring up a single factual argument against the point i was making.
In contrary, it is you who brought up straw and false arguments during the whole debate.

"Data exchange with google" is not "how the web works". The web works fine with zero data exchange to google.

The web standards are irrelevant to the whole debate we had, i never brought them up. You just introduced the term to form a straw argument.

Please point out where i spread misinformation.

in this case, what ever you provide to google you are are not doing it "on googles turf". You never have to visit google to use safari search field. You are doing it on apples turf form consumer perspective. And apple is sending the information you entered in one of their apps to google.

And the 9 billion google pays apple to get all iOS web searches by default has everything to do with privacy, unless you believe google is not monetising on the gathered data - wich contradicts the fact they paid 9 billion USD(!) for it.

Well it looks like we will have to disagree to disagree because there is still misinformation about how the web works as well as conflating payments and piracy.
- 9b has nothing to do with privacy
- safari on a man iPhone is a gateway to google the same way the search field works. I can explain further if needed.
- when one initiates a web session data is interchanged with the host based on the w3 web consortium standards. Note the keywords data is exchanged. Data that can’t identify you personally.
- it’s hyperbole about google monetizing your data unless you can say with authority what they are actually monetizing.

This is the main point, a bunch of thoughts were strung together in an illogical fashion to create a straw-man argument.
[doublepost=1557339739][/doublepost]

My point is Apple knows most users wont even know they can change their default search engine let alone go through the trouble to do so. So for Apple to claim they're privacy minded while at the same time handing their customers over to Google to be harvested for $9B/year in return is the height of self-interested hypocrisy.

See above response.

 

[macfacts]

That’s some nice spin. Do yo believe Apple sends pii to google for being in compliance with web standards? At any rate you are entitled to your hyperbolic criticism of Apple.

Bravo to Apple for collecting $9B a year for doing what some users would probably do anyway.

Apple can't claim ignorance about what google does. Bravo to apple for fooling people into believing they don't sell user data.

 

[Marekul]

Well it looks like we will have to disagree to disagree because there is still misinformation about how the web works as well as conflating payments and piracy.
- 9b has nothing to do with privacy

- Yes 9 billion random dollars out of context have nothing to do with privacy, i give you that. That seems to be the point your are making here.

- safari on a man iPhone is a gateway to google the same way the search field works. I can explain further if needed.

Yes, entering a search in the field provided by the safari browser bar works the same as using the HTML input field on googles website, if that is what you were trying to say. Doesn't change the fact that the first is provided by apple and the latter is provided by google.

- when one initiates a web session data is interchanged with the host based on the w3 web consortium standards. Note the keywords data is exchanged. Data that can’t identify you personally.

Aggregated non PII can become PII, especially with the very powerful tools google is using. This is even considered in EUGDPR. I also understand how browser search engine are implemented, and the kind of data and meta-data that is revealed to google. I also know the power of statistics and ML based pattern recognition. It won't take many searches and google will have you identified with high accuracy, trust me on that.

- it’s hyperbole about google monetizing your data unless you can say with authority what they are actually monetizing.

No, its common sense. You think they pay 9 bill for ***** and giggles? give me a break.

This is the main point, a bunch of thoughts were strung together in an illogical fashion to create a straw-man argument.

There is no straw arguments, you just refuse to draw logical conclusions from the facts i present to you, dissect the points i make and take them out of context and make non sensical statements like "9b has nothing to do with privacy"...
yeah, lets agree to disagree.

 

[I7guy]

- Yes 9 billion random dollars out of context have nothing to do with privacy, i give you that. That seems to be the point your are making here.

You’re making the 9b a talking point about privacy. IMO, this is about 9b, not privacy. The two are being conflated.

Yes, entering a search in the field provided by the safari browser bar works the same as using the HTML input field on googles website, if that is what you were trying to say. Doesn't change the fact that the first is provided by apple and the latter is provided by google.

No, they are both on the iPhone, just different looks. It’s a specious argument.

Aggregated non PII can become PII, especially with the very powerful tools google is using. This is even considered in EUGDPR. I also understand how browser search engine are implemented, and the kind of data and meta-data that is revealed to google. I also know the power of statistics and ML based pattern recognition. It won't take many searches and google will have you identified with high accuracy, trust me on that.

If aggregated non pii can become pii, dont blame Apple. Blame the w3 consortium. But let’s play semantics here and say Apple is two-faced because they allow www.google.com.

No, its common sense. You think they pay 9 bill for ***** and giggles? give me a break.

Common sense? Where?

There is no straw arguments, you just refuse to draw logical conclusions from the facts i present to you, dissect the points i make and take them out of context and make non sensical statements like "9b has nothing to do with privacy"...
yeah, lets agree to disagree.

There are no logical conclusions only a seeming agenda to attempt to connect some rather obtuse dots.
[doublepost=1557344457][/doublepost]

Apple can't claim ignorance about what google does. Bravo to apple for fooling people into believing they don't sell user data.

Apple never claimed ignorance about what google does. They called them out for it.

Where is your citation Apple is selling user data?

 

[FFR]

Apple can't claim ignorance about what google does. Bravo to apple for fooling people into believing they don't sell user data.

My search engine is ddg.
That shouldn’t be possible because apple has fooled me, according to you.

 

[Marekul]

You’re making the 9b a talking point about privacy. IMO, this is about 9b, not privacy. The two are being conflated.


No, they are both on the iPhone, just different looks. It’s a specious argument.


If aggregated non pii can become pii, dont blame Apple. Blame the w3 consortium. But let’s play semantics here and say Apple is two-faced because they allow www.google.com.


Common sense? Where?


There are no logical conclusions only a seeming agenda to attempt to connect some rather obtuse dots.
[doublepost=1557344457][/doublepost]
Apple never claimed ignorance about what google does. They called them out for it.

Where is your citation Apple is selling user data?

You refuse to make the logical conclusion that google is paying 9 billion to apple because it is valuable to them to have their search engine as default setting.

You refuse to accept the fact that the browser bar search field is implemented by apple, not by google. Then you bring up again and again web standards and even the w3 consortium - that have absolutely ZERO to do with the subject at matter.

Then you insinuate that i said apple is to blame that aggregated non PII can become PII. I did never write that anywhere. Also i never said apple is two-faced for "allowing www.google.com". You just made that up, these are straw man arguments.

I really wonder, what do you think google is paying apple 9 billion$ for?
[doublepost=1557346007][/doublepost]

My search engine is ddg.
That shouldn’t be possible because apple has fooled me, according to you.

I would like to ask you the same question.
What do you think google is paying apple 9 billion$ for?

 

[I7guy]

You refuse to make the logical conclusion that google is paying 9 billion to apple because it is valuable to them to have their search engine as default setting.

No, I absolutely agree google wants top billing they pay for it. What I don’t agree is this has anything to do with privacy.

You refuse to accept the fact that the browser bar search field is implemented by apple, not by google. Then you bring up again and again web standards and even the w3 consortium - that have absolutely ZERO to do with the subject at matter.

I believe we see things working differently. Now that we are I the weeds and parsing words both the search bar and safari are gateways to the internet. That is how the internets work.

Then you insinuate that i said apple is to blame that aggregated non PII can become PII. I did never write that anywhere. Also i never said apple is two-faced for "allowing www.google.com". You just made that up, these are straw man arguments.

No, I flat out said Apple is not to blame for the w3 consortium standards that allow this (hypothetical) situation to occur as the web wouldn’t function if these standards were not adhered to.

 

[macfacts]

Where is your citation Apple is selling user data?

Apple is receiving money from google and apple has programmed safari to by default send all search requests (aka user data/personal info) to Google. That is selling user data. You may not want to acknowledge it but apple is selling something and they are getting paid big time.

Apple is the biggest hypocrite. They loudly imply that google sells user data when google does no such thing. Google sells ad space.

Google collects user data but does not sell it. If google sold user data, people wanting to advertise would have no reason to do repeat business with google. If someone can buy email addresses from google, why not directly send email ads, why pay google to show you ads?

 

[I7guy]

Apple is receiving money from google and apple has programmed safari to by default send all search requests (aka user data/personal info) to Google. That is selling user data. You may not want to acknowledge it but apple is selling something and they are getting paid big time.

Apple is the biggest hypocrite. They loudly imply that google sells user data when google does no such thing. Google sells ad space.

Google collects user data but does not sell it. If google sold user data, people wanting to advertise would have no reason to do repeat business with google. If someone can buy email addresses from google, why not directly send email ads, why pay google to show you ads?

Let's deconstruct this a bit:
- selling: they are selling a shortcut to a search engine, no more, no less.
- user data: what user data that apple collected is leaving apples' servers involuntarily?

You probably won't be able to answer the second question, as you alleged that Apple is in fact doing it. Because you can't prove it, you entire post is nothing more than an opinion (maybe a bad opinion at that). And being that it is an opinion, you are welcome to it.

I do acknowledge apple is selling a shortcut to google and google is willing to pay apple for the privilege of being the default, out of the box, shortcut. But that is where it stops and ends.

 

[macfacts]

Let's deconstruct this a bit:
- selling: they are selling a shortcut to a search engine, no more, no less.
- user data: what user data that apple collected is leaving apples' servers involuntarily?

You probably won't be able to answer the second question, as you alleged that Apple is in fact doing it. Because you can't prove it, you entire post is nothing more than an opinion (maybe a bad opinion at that). And being that it is an opinion, you are welcome to it.

I do acknowledge apple is selling a shortcut to google and google is willing to pay apple for the privilege of being the default, out of the box, shortcut. But that is where it stops and ends.

I never said apple collects search inquires from safari.

Do you deny the following is taking place:
1) apple is getting paid by google
2) google is collecting search inquires from mobile safari users when they perform a search with the default settings

 

[I7guy]

I never said apple collects search inquires from safari.

Do you deny the following is taking place:
1) apple is getting paid by google
2) google is collecting search inquires from mobile safari users when they perform a search with the defualts

Do you deny that any user information you claim apple sending is being voluntarily surrendered by users? If you don't deny this, then it's clear that apple isn't being hypocritical as you allege, regardless of any other business transactions between these two entities.

 

[torana355]

Your privacy is gone the second you start using the internet regardless of what device or software you are using. Short of pulling the plug and going back to the dark ages your information is being tracked and used in multiple ways. What is funny are the people who believe their information isn't being sold because they use an iPhone or a Mac.

 

[ipponrg]

Goggle was caught data mining users personal information.

Ddg doesn’t, according to them.

Whatever data they want to collect that isn’t personal is up to them for offering the service.


But claiming ddg is a 3rd party that will data mine my personal information just like google does it. That is completely inaccurate.

Just want to re-clarify I never said that they mine your personal information either. Please read again what I wrote.

"I am simply saying the mechanisms for how they collect data is the same".

I am simply saying you're trusting them in good faith that they won't harvest data in a malicious manner. They already collect data (albeit very unlikely your personal data) from your browsing sessions in the same manner as everyone else.

Perhaps if you still don't know what tracking pixels are, then there's no point in explaining further

 

[DoctorTech]

But the lack of real innovation on the computer side of the company, it appears he enjoys the media limelight like when he flew to Europe to pick out furniture for the new spaceship office. Really, no one else could do that...
Steve didn't give that many interviews... same company and more innovative than little Timmy.

You make a very legitimate point about the innovation level. I don't know that it is really related to a lack of focus by Tim Cook himself but it certainly could be.

I have been impressed with what Apple has done with Apple Watch and their move toward become a medical device manufacturer (a lot of people don't really grasp the significance of playing in an FDA regulated industry). I am also hopeful about what Apple is going to do with Apple Glasses but that remains to be seen. My biggest disappointment has been the lack of (useful) innovation on laptops. I am still running a 2013 MacBook Pro because 1) it still works fine and 2) Apple hasn't really given me a good reason to upgrade

 

[FFR]

You refuse to make the logical conclusion that google is paying 9 billion to apple because it is valuable to them to have their search engine as default setting.

You refuse to accept the fact that the browser bar search field is implemented by apple, not by google. Then you bring up again and again web standards and even the w3 consortium - that have absolutely ZERO to do with the subject at matter.

Then you insinuate that i said apple is to blame that aggregated non PII can become PII. I did never write that anywhere. Also i never said apple is two-faced for "allowing www.google.com". You just made that up, these are straw man arguments.

I really wonder, what do you think google is paying apple 9 billion$ for?
[doublepost=1557346007][/doublepost]
I would like to ask you the same question.
What do you think google is paying apple 9 billion$ for?

Why did google pay 12 billion for Motorola and run it into the ground?

 

[FFR]

Just want to re-clarify I never said that they mine your personal information either. Please read again what I wrote.

"I am simply saying the mechanisms for how they collect data is the same".

I am simply saying you're trusting them in good faith that they won't harvest data in a malicious manner. They already collect data (albeit very unlikely your personal data) from your browsing sessions in the same manner as everyone else.

Perhaps if you still don't know what tracking pixels are, then there's no point in explaining further

I get you your back tracking. It happens.

No one cares about tracking pixels. We are talking about MINING PERSONAL data, what google does, what google gets caught doing all the time and what ddg doesn’t do.

You said you had evidence to back your claims that ddg was just as bad as google.

Then you posted a paragraph you wrote.


“I am simply saying you're trusting them in good faith that they won't harvest data in a malicious manner. “

Should I trust google in good faith instead?