Apple CEO Tim Cook: Privacy is 'One of the Top Issues of the Century'

[DeepIn2U]

Privacy is why we have shades and blinds on our windows

Actually it's not.

You have shades and blinds on your windows due to

a) Ghouls, demons etc coming to haunt at the witching hour and
b) Biblical (protection of first born - blood on the outside wall by the door)

Joking aside blinds/shades was invented for 'privacy' but the history of covering windows in your dwelling is not based on privacy

 

[DeepIn2U]

I agree. There should be a law banning speech that other people don't agree with.

Why is this becoming a discussion of speech? one's right to privacy is not only about speech.

 

[ksec]

Apple don't take privacy seriously as there is a long list of changes they could make to their products to enhance privacy significantly. I agree that they're better than most competitors but we shouldn't forget that they'd drop any commitment to privacy in a heartbeat if it hurts their business (see: iCloud and iPhone in China).

I think they do care about privacy in some way. And a lot of those point are fine or necessary evil when conducting business. I am OK with that.

I am not OK with Apple painting themselves as I am so righteous. Because it reeks of Hypocrisy.

 

[wikiverse]

Nothing in there about big tech.

There is no such right. On the other hand, a business has the right to refuse to do business with you.

Tech companies are afforded immunity from litigation for anything published on their platforms under Section 230. It means they are treated as a carriage service, not a publisher, and cannot be sued for what users publish. By engaging in censorship and the curation of content in any way - specifically based on politics, they are breaching their obligations under Section 230 to behave like a platform and not a publisher. In order to receive the immunity, they are supposed to extend 1A rights to users. Accepting the 230 protections means that tech companies are agreeing to act as an extension of Congress that granted the protection. But also the failure for Congress to enforce the S230 obligations could be challenged as a 1A violation.

There is already precedent for this when a court ruled that Trump could not legally block people on twitter because it would be a violation of their rights. This precedent means that these services have been acknowledged as forums for 1A and equal protections.

As long as s230 exists, the 'they are a private company' argument doesn't carry any weight since no other company in any industry receives such protections.

 

[kingofwale]

Apple and Hypocrisy... name a more iconic duo...

 

[radus]

Well spoken.
And now please remove all API's that can be used to spy the user - problem solved -
or couple every call of such an API with a dialog box that enables the user to opt out.

 

[ds2000]

Timmy Mad but I'm glad we've got him

 

[H2SO4]

More hot air and soundbites.
Privacy is important yes but companies are so dishonest and two faced.

Apple, the company that for years in one breath told us Privacy was number one then in the same breath use Google and Google services that they then try and position as the enemy of privacy.
They even have a YouTube channel.

Loads of other examples in other fields of the Apple smoke and mirrors show. (I know they are far from the only ones doing this).

 

[H2SO4]

Apple's policies vis-a-vis China are created to comply with China's laws. it's not a concern that it might "hurt[] their business," which clearly it wouldn't.

Some companies refuse to do business with China, that of the OP mentioned being one of the reasons.

 

[Nordichund]

The battle for anonymity in the tech world is for the vast majority already lost. Most of these organisations want to know your life story. The sad thing is that most don't care or are just ignorant. For me it is hard to trust an organisation like Facebook, who once you sign up to them, just keeps changing the goal posts about what they can and cannot do with your information. When I do use their services I purposely click on things that don't interest me, so the profile they have of me is completely worthless to their advertisers.

But it is good to hear Tim Cooke take a stand. The question is for how long, and what will his successor do?

 

[nikaru]

Privacy is a double edged sword. I agree that people should have privacy, but there are actions, and discussions that should not have any privacy at all. Conspiring to attack, murder, rape, pillage, plunder, should not have any privacy. But how to remove privacy depending on what is being discussed. Wow... I don't know if that's even possible.

The fact is that only 0,00001% of the private conversations are about murdering, raping, plundering or any form of criminal activity. So, for the sake of detecting this 0,00001%, you cannot jeopardize the privacy of the rest 99,99999%.

 

[Whathappened]

I continue to appreciate Apple’s focus on privacy but... they are way over the line in censoring opinions they don’t agree with. For those of us old enough to remember, the Macintosh was the reason 1984 was not going to be like 1984. Now, Apple is full on in support of creating Orwell’s 1984... A complete anathema to the founding of Apple. Tim is no Steve...

Why should Tim be Steve? Btw Steve Jobs pushed to keep porn away from iOS. It is likely that he didn’t want to see his company and services being the amplifier for the lies and hate of a few maniacs and fascists.
Those idiots can create their own platform if they don’t find a company willing to have their crap on their apps and websites.

 

[Onexy]

I'd say super rich people are a bigger problem than privacy.

 

[troublador]

I continue to appreciate Apple’s focus on privacy but... they are way over the line in censoring opinions they don’t agree with. For those of us old enough to remember, the Macintosh was the reason 1984 was not going to be like 1984. Now, Apple is full on in support of creating Orwell’s 1984... A complete anathema to the founding of Apple. Tim is no Steve...

Good.

 

[Mike_Trivisonno]

People want technology, not technocracy.

 

[Td1970]

I agree. Keep the government out of my personal stuff.

 

[the-msa]

In the case of Facebook....I don't view it as merely a privacy issue. Facebook's engagement algorithms have blown way past just being a privacy concern. They're neck deep into manipulating people's thoughts & emotions.

"A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."

 

[ericwn]

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

What exactly did he promise to you?

 

[ericwn]

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.

Oh you can’t back it up. Never mind. Nuff said.

 

[ericwn]

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

You respond well when your own word fall flat. Telling.

 

[ericwn]

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.

Well said. Some folks are just having a hard time understanding that they cannot use other people’s megaphone anymore.

 

[ericwn]

There will always be arguments from both sides. I’m not gonna sympathize with anyone. They all have agendas.

That’s nice of you to support them all! Big ask but one person is out there doing it.

 

[ericwn]

Did I miss the story where apple stopped watching what apps we had open and activly made it so people could not use littlesnitch to disable their ability to do so ?

Please share.

 

[MBAir2010]

Actually it's not.

You have shades and blinds on your windows due to

a) Ghouls, demons etc coming to haunt at the witching hour and
b) Biblical (protection of first born - blood on the outside wall by the door)

Joking aside blinds/shades was invented for 'privacy' but the history of covering windows in your dwelling is not based on privacy

kinda meant the windows as in bill gates but that would mean too much lawn and house adornments in one sentence.
ahhh such a full moon now.

 

[Abazigal]

More hot air and soundbites.
Privacy is important yes but companies are so dishonest and two faced.

Apple, the company that for years in one breath told us Privacy was number one then in the same breath use Google and Google services that they then try and position as the enemy of privacy.
They even have a YouTube channel.

Loads of other examples in other fields of the Apple smoke and mirrors show. (I know they are far from the only ones doing this).

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.

For example, Apple is not telling you to delete Facebook from your phone, nor are they removing Facebook from the App Store. Rather, what Apple is doing is giving consumers more tools to help make everyone more aware of what these apps are doing on our devices, such as the ability to make an app not track us (in a future update), as well as let us know when apps are accessing bluetooth or clipboard (which prompted apps like YouTube and reddit to move said functionality from their apps when users called them out for it). Even Google is saying they will update their iOS apps to not need the IDFA.

All other things equal, we are still better off with these privacy features than without.