Apple Highlights Privacy Commitment After Settling Siri Spying Lawsuit

[steve09090]

…unless it has become true.

Such as that Apple has now (with iOS 18.1) begun to scan users‘ photos with iOS 18.1.
As a default setting, no iCloud necessary, no explicit user consent obtained.

I like this line.

I see this feature implemented with responsibility and privacy in nearly every way, but, because it is poorly explained and enabled by default, it is difficult to trust. ​

So if they made it an opt in, you’d be happy?f

 

[AppliedMicro]

So if they made it an opt in

Sending content of my photos to Apple‘s servers and matching it with their database should be an opt-in, yes.

Everything else is a gross betrayal of Apple‘s privacy promises and claims.

 

[surferfb]

…unless it has become true.

Such as that Apple has now (with iOS 18.1) begun to scan users‘ photos with iOS 18.1.
As a default setting, no iCloud necessary, no explicit user consent obtained.

Apple is not “spying on you” with that feature, which is what I was replying to when I said “none of that is true.”

From your link:

You take a photo; your Mac or iThing locally outlines what it thinks is a landmark or place of interest in the snap; it homomorphically encrypts a representation of that portion of the image in a way that can be analyzed without being decrypted; it sends the encrypted data to a remote server to do that analysis, so that the landmark can be identified from a big database of places; and it receives the suggested location again in encrypted form that it alone can decipher.

While yes, by literal definition I suppose that’s “scanning your photos”, but it is so far away from what people are concerned about, and done in such an incredibly private and protected way, it’s hardly worth mentioning.

And certainly not a “gross betrayal” of their privacy promises.

 

[steve09090]

Sending content of my photos to Apple‘s servers and matching it with their database should be an opt-in, yes.

Everything else is a gross betrayal of Apple‘s privacy promises and claims.

That’s not really a gross betrayal. If anything, and I'm trying to be gracious here, it’s a poor communication. Apple have always said they will 'try' and keep as much as they can on the phone. But have always acknowledged that to improve quality and experience, some interaction with the cloud (their servers) needs to take place.

Otherwise, why not buy a dumb phone and a Canon PowerShot if you think nothing is going in the cloud. Even then, if you’re going to do any photoshop, you’re giving Adobe rights to your images. Which would you prefer, or is this just you blowing smoke?

Further. You said 'Apple's Privacy Promises'. What promise is being broken? Specifically?

 

[Tagbert]

It’s not Apple it’s google. I get airline tickets stuff sent to my gmail account and my YouTube feeds get bombarded by hotel and travel ads.

That one could be on the airline

 

[tonywalker23]

I just have to say this…

The people who say 'this or that could never happen,' or the idea of 'but Apple does not do this or that' or, 'it is set up so that this or that is not possible' etc etc etc.

As someone who is a pastor and has spent a little bit of time talking and listening to people, this I know is possible:

People who claim to be more virtuous than anyone else and get offended when their character is hinted at being less than perfect, who will publicly stand and swear that they are in the right… those same people I have seen to be in the wrong, they knew it, and they lied through their teeth. They simply wanted to protect their marriage, their job, their ministry, their 5-figure salary.

Therefore, (though I know nothing more than any other MacRumors forum warriors and my only correspondence with Tim Cook are a few emails I excitedly archived to show my kids when has replied to a few of my emails), I think it is entirely possible, especially when you are not dealing with a single individual but dozens/hundreds who all know only pieces of what is going on, and you don’t have a 5-figure salary on the line and the reputation of a few hundred in a small town but billions of dollars perhaps and the reputation of a multi-trillion dollar company at stake...

it reminds me of a song lyric: "sometimes the best of men tell the best of lies."


OR maybe,

I bought an iPhone one time, read a few blogs, and now I'm an expert at the most secretive inner-workings of the most valuable company in the known universe, and they should have put my name at the bottom of the press contact for their privacy PR releases.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[bookofxero]

One time I talked about medical insurance, and boom, United Healthcare ad in my face? Is this really true?

Data scientists have debunked this several times.
Take the person that was talking surgical procedures with their doctor. What are the chances they did no web searches related to their symptoms or the potential surgery? Or if it was a specialist, what are the odds they didn’t use the office wi-fi or something else that gave their location? And then that location goes in aggregate with searches by others nearby or on that wi-fi.
People don’t grasp the full complexity of gathering and processing that much audio data.
Could Siri have been recording when it wasn’t supposed to? Sure, it happens. Is it a global conspiracy to sell ads? More than likely not and more likely just all those data aggregators you deal with every day and the ridiculous raw data they collect.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Even then, if you’re going to do any photoshop, you’re giving Adobe rights to your images. Which would you prefer, or is this just you blowing smoke?

Then again, Adobe isn‘t advertising as „The Privacy Company“.
And neither are they leveraging privacy concerns against their competitors.

If anything, and I'm trying to be gracious here, it’s a poor communication

They advertised “What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone”.

Analysing and matching photo content against online databases without user consent is a betrayal of trust and privacy promises. It isn’t just poor communication when they never even attempted to communicate it adequately to users.

I suppose that’s “scanning your photos”, but it is so far away from what people are concerned about, and done in such an incredibly private and protected way

Supposedly.
It’s not as if we could verify.

Apple is also based (and developing its products) mainly in a jurisdiction known for espionage, mass internet surveillance, being hostile to online privacy, and able to compel internet services into secretly building backdoors into their services.

Next time, the image content or pattern to be matched isn’t a geographical place of interest or building - but may be a political symbol or something.

 

[djgamble]

If an app is using the microphone, you will get an orange dot (green if the camera is being used) in the corner of your iPhone. There is no way around this, short of a security hole that lets apps bypass all of iOS's security to access the audio hardware directly.

Go back a step... in theory there's no way to access the mic without being authorised by the user. Two scenarios could happen though:

1. A 3rd party app finds a way of circumventing this. They intentionally WANT to be quiet and discovering whether or not the mic is capturing audio would require a thorough, highly technical investigation into it.

2. Similarly if Apple (or a rogue employee seeking to further a private agenda) decides to do this then they'd try a little bit harder than showing an orange dot every time their code is executed.

These guys have likely banked millions of dollars for raising this claim and for all we know MIGHT have submitted some more technical evidence to prove their claims. A private settlement was reached. MAYBE... just maybe there was truth in the claim, else Apple may have backed themselves to defend the matter? Just saying.