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 CEO Tim Cook: Privacy is 'One of the Top Issues of the Century'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ummm.... where did he say it said "big tech" in the constitution?
sure, he said 'as is the right', but that could mean anything.
Might want to brush up on reading skills.
It’s still all talk. Actions are where it’s at and Tim’s actions show he’s not ready to protect his customers privacy. Where is my choice to say Facebook can’t track me? He promised this now he’s delayed it? Come on Tim get your hands out of Google’s pockets and do something 🤦♂️
Show us a source where Tim promised the Bolded in your post.
Also, pretty sure he isn’t invested into Google as you claim.
Apple will never do E2E encryption. They have too much pressure from governments not to do it. Everything you do online is tracked. A VPN can help a little bit but it doesn’t stop all of it.
He announced this big feature where it gives users a choice not to be tracked. Go look it up yourself.
You’re correct he isn’t invested in Google. Google is invested in him by the tune of like $9 billion a year. If you don’t think $9 billion buys influence I’m not sure what world you’re living in.
Again, since you want to divert, you made a claim, I asked for a source, you not providing a source that also shows that you’re blatantly misleading others, you’re also violating the forum rules.
So, again, cite your source what Cook ‘promised’.
Apple delays new anti-tracking privacy measures
Facebook has warned that Apple's privacy plans could render some of its tools useless.
www.bbc.com
Here’s an article saying it’s delayed. Are you really going to pretend you don’t know? Come on are we gonna play these silly forum games?
It could just be nerves. Tim always looks nervous up on the keynote stage. He seems great at knowing his strengths and leaves most of the talking at the keynotes to others, as opposed to Steve who did most of the talking himself.
Nothing you just posted in that BBC link has anything to do with what Tim Cook ‘promised’ or there of. So there again, you made a claim that was misleading and it’s against forum rules.Apple delays new anti-tracking privacy measures
Facebook has warned that Apple's privacy plans could render some of its tools useless.
Here’s an article saying it’s delayed. Are you really going to pretend you don’t know? Come on are we gonna play these silly forum games?
So other than that, if you could actually provide a legitimate source that Tim Cook blatantly ‘promised’, I’ll wait. Otherwise, you should probably retract your previous posts saying something that he never was quoted on.
If they were serious about privacy then they would get rid of google. But Apple gets massive amounts of money for google to stay number one on searches.
Fwiw, I don't think speech that endangers us or our country is protected speech.
We've always said that speech that incites harm is illegal. If a newspaper advocates for raiding the capital, they get shut down. That's normal, expected, and good.
We've always said that speech that incites harm is illegal. If a newspaper advocates for raiding the capital, they get shut down. That's normal, expected, and good.
Dude it's clear you're playing forum games. I figured that out when you practically quoted the forum rules. I've been trolled by similar accounts so IDC. Report it and my post gets deleted and you win the Internet? Dude everyone here knows about the privacy features that Apple promised so my original post isn't wrong. You're just trying to be a cyber bully and failing at it
I snipped your post intentionally, because I want you to focus on this main part above.
Take a hard read what you just posted (Compared to your original post), now it’s ‘Apple promised’, before that it was ‘Tim Cook promised’.
Tim Cook specifically never promised anything, and even when I asked you for a source multiple times, you threw some diverted-non-related BBC link at me thinking I wouldn’t read it. [Which I did.] And now you just want to backtrack by saying ‘Oh, actually it was ‘Apple promised’.
So, there again, when you post something with a specific quote from the CEO of Apple, post a link, and don’t get so defensive when somebody asks you for something that you quoted out of context. It’s not a good look for credibility.
You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to insist that someone let you use their megaphone to spread that speech. It has always been that way.
It depends on how deep you want to take privacy. If we're talking about iCloud, there is no such thing as total privacy because Apple holds the encryption keys in the U.S. and holds the keys for China users in China so there is no absolute privacy from Apple and government mandates to release user data from either country. iPhone data is end to end encrypted so no one besides the two parties can intercept it without major hacking efforts including Apple, US and China government.
Likewise, people can prefer a business that is more permissive. It'd be cool if a mainstream player made a promise against censorship.
This is the first time I agree with Tim, beside the fact I still think that, anyway, one should resign from any position in a big company before giving political speeches. Conflict of interests is not admittable and, again, Tim, with this speech, proves that is subdued by his company interests even when he says something easy to agree to. For instance, he will never talk about these universal and noble concepts (human rights, privacy...) in China because, as CEO, he is worried mainly about sales in that country. The examples one could make to prove what I said are countless.
If Tim was really honest, he would add that freedom of expression is important as privacy. Social media should not censor anyone because this is the role of the judicial system and single people are responsible for what they write in their messages. If you are a publisher, it's another story, you are responsible for what is written in your newspaper and you may refuse some comments.
When big corporations want to take the role of politics, judicial systems, and the press, they are just preparing the field for the next hell.
If Tim was really honest, he would add that freedom of expression is important as privacy. Social media should not censor anyone because this is the role of the judicial system and single people are responsible for what they write in their messages. If you are a publisher, it's another story, you are responsible for what is written in your newspaper and you may refuse some comments.
When big corporations want to take the role of politics, judicial systems, and the press, they are just preparing the field for the next hell.
Last week I got the flu. Not COVID, I got a nucleic acid test to confirm. Before I got this test I was objectively scared about searching for hospitals / testing locations / symptoms in case I got a hazmat turn up at my door and haul me away.
Sure maybe these fears are unfounded, but this is fear of lack of privacy. Some may think serving tailored adverts is innocuous but it's the same tracking involved and can be exploited in the same way.
Sure maybe these fears are unfounded, but this is fear of lack of privacy. Some may think serving tailored adverts is innocuous but it's the same tracking involved and can be exploited in the same way.
Me? No.
However, Apple's reactionary move to remove an app like Parlor from their platform in the wake of the Capitol Siege and Riots is rather troubling. Why? Well, first of all, Parlor was considered a refuge for some on the right that deemed Twitter far too left in their policies towards conservatives while having no problem proactively halting the circulation of stories that might be detrimental to some on the other side of the aisle. The fact that the most visible social media platforms would not allow the dissemination of a story by one of America's oldest news outlets was alarming to not only those on the right. And the questions raised do at least deserve exploration.
Most illustrative of my point is this story from he WaPo confirming a hunch I had after Apple, Google, et. al decided to 86 Parlor that Facebook deflected blame towards their platforms (including Instagram) about planning for the Capitol Siege and Riots that occurred – mostly on their infrastructure. My initial reaction to this kerfuffle was that a conservative outpost seemed like a perfect scapegoat. I would reckon that most of the individuals that took part in the planning and executing of those dark acts likely were completely unaware of an app like Parlor.
It further reminded me of a quote by the late UNLV Basketball Head Coach, Jerry Tarkanian: "The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they're going to give Cleveland State another year of probation.".
Bottom line: I've never used any of those apps outside of a curious peek but I'm certainly not afraid of viewpoints that may deviate from my own more mainstream beliefs as long as they aren't inciting what we saw on 1/6. Apple, Google, et. al has a right to kick whomever they want off their platform – I just wish they used more sound reasoning for doing so.
you mean lobbying?
Yeah I feel NO company should be allowed to lobby for political reasons - muddles the waters so to speak on BOTH sides.