Apple Says Siri Data Has Never Been Sold or Used for Marketing

[sdf]

I truly don’t know. Will it also cost Apple that much when they had won the case? Wouldn’t they got payed in lost damages? I mean, they haven’t done the things where they were accused off (Apple says).

I don’t get it. Strange world to me.

Innocence guarantees a not guilty verdict no more than guilt guarantees a guilty verdict, and the burden of proof isn't a strict for a civil case. I found the settlement unsurprising even as I recognized they could not have done what they were accused of.

 

[TJFDenver]

95mill is chump change for me

 

[retroneo]

There were recordings of people having sex. $20 is not appropriate compensation.

 

[Ramchi]

Apple won’t sell the data directly to the marketing companies instead there are many agencies or third parties or contractors who would be allowed to do research by paying Apple and they can use the data for AI or ML etc…for Apple but may accidentally leak to the outside world! Apple has enough scapegoats like contractors, vendors and suppliers to take the blame! They are legally very well covered with the 1000 page disclaimers and 10,000 page agreements which no one can read or understand!

 

[FlyingDutch]

Quite clear Apple is not Google. They are greedy as hell, don’t get me wrong, but for Apple you are a customer. For Google you are … the product

 

[FlyingDutch]

Using data to improve your product and SELLING USER DATA to PROFIT are two VERY different things.

Google and Amazon have a major stake in your information - Apple doesn’t. They sell hardware.

Plain and simple.

Exactly

Oh please,..EVERY company that has a return path is collecting your data in some form or capacity.

Not Apple. They are collecting data to improve products, not to sell those data.

Apple does a lot of data harvesting. It's detailed extensively on their own privacy page. The purpose it serves is as I previously described:

Data harvesting is different from data selling. Is that so difficult to understand?

I generally agree with what you have written. Though we have different opinions regarding the use of the data collected. Based on the quote above, my understanding is that your opinion is that Apple is different because the data they collect is not used for things like targeted advertising. In my opinion, the use of said data is entirely irrelevant. I don't want data collected on how I use my devices. Apple, being a company that promotes privacy ad nauseam, should afford me the option to have no data collected. Period.

You can limit the data collected. If you want no data at all, just use a dumb phone… you are living in the wrong century

 

[svish]

Good to hear about this. Apple's privacy policies are good compared to the others in the industry. Happy to hear that Apple is not selling the data to any third party.

 

[Dawn of Individual Merit]

Not selling the data to any thrid party ... but what about giving it, for free, to a third party, and then getting some free gifts in return?

Or if they're not selling _this_ data, they could process it a little and sell the result, and still would not have told a lie.

For Cook, privacy is only an advertising strategy. I'm sure you haven't forgotten about all their photo-library scanning plans that only got put on hold after immense pushback.

 

[dk001]

A lot of people are assuming Meta is using our phones to feed the ads, but wouldn't there have to be the orange dot showing up at the top of the screen for that to happen? If not.... isn't that a problem? I thought that's what it was for.

I have had my 15PM and iPadPro both arbitrarily put out a Siri response without asking a question and don’t see a dot when that happens.

 

[DavidLeblond]

I have had my 15PM and iPadPro both arbitrarily put out a Siri response without asking a question and don’t see a dot when that happens.

True, but that is part of the phone and supposedly just listening for the Siri keyword. I was talking about the idea that the Facebook app is listening for us to talk about products.

 

[dk001]

Definitely seeing some logical conclusions on here as to why Apple may have settled, but…the tinfoil hat, conspiracy theorist in me still wonders haha 🤣

I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt till the on device CSAM debacle. With all that came out, Apple lost my trust and have yet to show anything positive to gain it back. Last check, a new out of the box iPhone phones home a lot more than the same on an Android device (some OEM’s though…😣). Wish we had a lot more transparency from Apple. That would help.

 

[dk001]

True, but that is part of the phone and supposedly just listening for the Siri keyword. I was talking about the idea that the Facebook app is listening for us to talk about products.

While true, kind of, I have this happen randomly and without any keywords. Happened at least twice this weekend streaming the Bills game. No keywords I could identify. If that functionality exists, who else is using it? or something similar.

Personally, I assume my devices can always listen. How extensive or pervasive that is … no real idea.

 

[vantelimus]

For Cook, privacy is only an advertising strategy. I'm sure you haven't forgotten about all their photo-library scanning plans that only got put on hold after immense pushback.

Personally, I wouldn't be using this as an example of Apple wanting to violate privacy. The CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) detection technology was scrapped because of false positives and the potential for misuse by an authoritarian government. Your mischaracterization as a privacy violation of a good faith attempt to develop technology to catch child predators spreading illegal material should lead anyone reading your posts to completely discount them.

Oh, and now Apple is being sued for scrapping the plan https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...use-victims-sue-apple-for-lax-csam-reporting/

 

[I7guy]

Not selling the data to any thrid party ... but what about giving it, for free, to a third party, and then getting some free gifts in return?

Who? Citation needed.

Or if they're not selling _this_ data, they could process it a little and sell the result, and still would not have told a lie.

Hypothetically speaking.

For Cook, privacy is only an advertising strategy. I'm sure you haven't forgotten about all their photo-library scanning plans that only got put on hold after immense pushback.

It’s a great strategy and many believe it. The only people that seem not to believe it are the savvy MR poster. People believe what they want and nobody is changing anybody’s mind.

 

[MacAddict1978]

They lost me when they said they paid $95M to avoid costly litigation - I suspect they paid waaaay more in a settlement than they would have in additional legal fees if the claims had no merit whatsoever.

The people suing need to show "proof" right? To begin with, a court case cannot move forward if there is not substantiated merit to the claims, so there had some be some evidence. I cannot just file a suit and say "Apple employees look at my pictures" and show up for a prelim and not get my case tossed out if I cannot demonstrate reasonable proof or evidence to my claim.

Then if a claim is completely fabricated, the person making it is in legal crap. Something stinks here, and the stench is in Cupertino.

 

[procksa49er1120]

We (Apple) did nothing wrong and that’s why we pay $ 95 million to the ones telling we did and settle the case.

Strange….

Exactly, if they had not, it would behoove their stance on privacy to fight tooth and nail to maintain this position. The fact they settled tells me there is SOMETHING they did not want public. Even if it is not outright selling to 3rd parties, it is something antithetical to their "customer privacy is important" stance.

 

[I7guy]

We (Apple) did nothing wrong and that’s why we pay $ 95 million to the ones telling we did and settle the case.

Strange….

Correct. Apple isn’t the first one or the last one to settle.

 

[skit911]

I agree that using data to improve versus selling is different.

However, I do not agree that Apple doesn't have a major stake in my (and others') information. They absolutely use the data to bolster their revenue. Apple is a phone company that sells service subscriptions as an add-on; there is no way they are not using user data to position their hardware and services in a manner that generates the most revenue for them.

On the other hand, if we (hypothetically) agree that said data is used only for improving Siri, they we are forced to acknowledge that Apple is really, really, really, bad at this.

A major stake in the sense that they need the data to gauge where their products need improvement - absolutely. But to think Apple is harvesting our data to profit DIRECTLY off OUR information is a little silly. That’s google and social media.

That’s why I don’t have social media or an Android.

On that second point: exactly. Even if they are collecting data, their history of how they use that data to adjust shows they don’t handle data as well as a company like Google or Facebook.

 

[Dave-Z]

Data harvesting is different from data selling. Is that so difficult to understand?

Not difficult to understand at all... Except I was never addressing selling data in this conversation; I only addressed harvesting data.

You can limit the data collected. If you want no data at all, just use a dumb phone… you are living in the wrong century

Again:

Apple, being a company that promotes privacy ad nauseam, should afford me the option to have no data collected. Period.

 

[freekorps]

Sure they do.

 

[I7guy]

Not difficult to understand at all... Except I was never addressing selling data in this conversation; I only addressed harvesting data.

Again:

I can’t see apple doing this and this doesn’t mean they aren’t privacy focused. I think if one wants this, there are distros that provide this, but not apple.

 

[surferfb]

They lost me when they said they paid $95M to avoid costly litigation - I suspect they paid waaaay more in a settlement than they would have in additional legal fees if the claims had no merit whatsoever.

The claim was "Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that they were shown ads for Air Jordan shoes and Olive Garden after ‌Siri‌ recorded them speaking privately about those companies." What's more likely - said plaintiffs (or people in their family/social circle) were also Googling about Olive Garden and Air Jordans and that's why they got ads, or that not only does Siri secretly work differently than EVERYONE understands it, but also Apple secretly struck a bunch of secret deals with advertising companies, deals that go against all of their privacy marketing, deals that could actually destroy Apple's customers' trust, without that leaking on either side.

I mean, come on.

The people suing need to show "proof" right? To begin with, a court case cannot move forward if there is not substantiated merit to the claims, so there had some be some evidence. I cannot just file a suit and say "Apple employees look at my pictures" and show up for a prelim and not get my case tossed out if I cannot demonstrate reasonable proof or evidence to my claim.

Claims have to be "plausible" not "proven". It's up to a judge to determine if the claim is plausible.

Then if a claim is completely fabricated, the person making it is in legal crap. Something stinks here, and the stench is in Cupertino.

The stench is people abusing the US legal system.

 

[dumastudetto]

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would believe Apple could sell its privacy policies down the river for a few extra bucks.

 

[Dave-Z]

I can’t see apple doing this and this doesn’t mean they aren’t privacy focused. I think if one wants this, there are distros that provide this, but not apple.

So it's private as long as only Apple is collecting the data. By that definition even Google is a privacy-focused.

privacy: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation

eta: It's okay for us to disagree on this subject. My opinion is that private is private, i.e. no observation whatsoever; therefore Apple's claims of privacy fall flat with me and I consider them to be dishonest in that regard. Others may consider that Apple does focus on privacy when they collect data exclusively for their own use.

 

[Tagbert]

Not selling the data to any thrid party ... but what about giving it, for free, to a third party, and then getting some free gifts in return?

Or if they're not selling _this_ data, they could process it a little and sell the result, and still would not have told a lie.

For Cook, privacy is only an advertising strategy. I'm sure you haven't forgotten about all their photo-library scanning plans that only got put on hold after immense pushback.

You’re really reaching for a reason to blame Apple there.

The data was recorded when Siri activation triggered by accident. Apple had hired people to review mistaken activations of Siri to improve the activation code. The “third party” aspect is that these people were contractors instead of full-time employees. I can tell you that lots of large companies use contractors, especially for project with a limit time like this kind of investigation.

There is no evidence that Apple sent this to outside companies, whether for a fee or just as a little gift. Apple doesn’t even do targeting advertising that would require data about their users.