Sure, or apple decided to just settle as they do in other lawsuits. Settling is not an admission of guilt, no matter the spin.
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 to Shell Out $95 Million to Settle Siri Spying Lawsuit [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All tech companies are working with the NSA. One would have to live under a rock to not think tech doesn’t have connections to government.
"wHaT hApPeNs In YoUr IpHoNe StAyS oN yOuR iPhOnE"
there is no trust when it comes to closed source corporates
there is no trust when it comes to closed source corporates
Have you some proof to offer? If no, you’re projecting opinions too 😉
I think you’re out of thumbsdown by now 😃
Would you settle if not quilty? If so, you might start many lawsuits for easy money.
When it took Apple many class action lawsuits to admit their butterfly keyboard was faulty by design not to talk about faulty MacBook displays, it’s hard to imagine they settle for something they aren’t guilty off 🤔
Sometimes settling is the best course, even when a company is not guilty. It probably cost less to settle than to prove their innocence. What's $95M to Apple? That's probably less than a day's operating cost. What would it cost Apple to have drawn out court case?
Actually my only comment was that either way it’s unknown. And no I’m not out of thumbs down yet.
Still not proof, only some conjecture.
If Apple really has privacy at it highest goals, they would defend it vigorously to proof that consumer privacy is their first amendment.
it would also give Apple the perfect advertising to proof they protect your privacy. It would be all over the news.
It’s very strange and suspicious they’ve settled this one.
I hope some reporters will get more into this because I can smell a big scandal that Apple isn’t protecting consumers privacy as they claim they do.
You know this how? You have all the information and know the moving parts and financial gains and losses within Apple?
Did you know, that Apple are still publicly traded and still have a duty of care to their stock holders…AND (Now this bit is important)…. AND there is no fault or finding against Apple. So unless your opinion carries some kind of weight here… no harm, no foul.
Why the hell would they spend advertising money saying they fought a case and spent $100M to do so? Now that’s a very strange thing to do.
I even had someone pay me to not take something to court. Happens every day.
You’re reading my comment not right or I’m writing it wrong. English is not my native language.
It would give Apple FREE advertisement by defending it vigorously. Privacy is their biggest selling point.
By settling they don’t have to open up and that is suspicious. Why settle on a case that could proof you have customers privacy coming first place?
Why would Apple have to prove their innocence? People make all kinds of allegations, most of it is bs, pretty much like some of these posts ^^^
Just because you hate Apple, doesn’t mean they should have to do things your way.
Apple, as you are aware, like to control things. No surprise. That includes advertising. Why would they let the news cycles, including companies who hate them control the dialogue. They advertise their way.
I don’t think it’s suspicious at all. As I’ve said. I have done the exact same thing and the other party has no finding against them and I didn’t have to go to court. When people go to court they roll the dice to prove they other party are guilty, or they were not guilty (depending on the side). It takes a lot of money and is always a gamble.
Who says I hate Apple?
Apple defended lots of other cases they were guilty of. So why not defend a case when you’re innocent and pay 95 million?
Stockholders don’t have any moral compass it seems.
Prove it. Your byline says you do.
People can make a claim but it’s not always worth fighting for.
Do you offer any actual proof that they are guilty of using Siri data to target ads?
You can’t tell me what I think. And I surely don’t have to prove anything to you as a person. That’s creepy.
Paying 95 million for nonsense is the right decision in this case you’re telling me? I advise more people to do so when that amount of money can be get that easily.
Makes my point though. Not everyone needs to respond to an accusation and when there is 'some' kind of supporting evidence (such as a byline) then there could be a case. Personally, I don’t care. I know the answer already.
Easier just to pay the initial amount and walk away early.
Your opinion on whether it’s nonsense means nothing when you don’t have the facts. Even if they did go to court it doesn’t mean anything. Most courts decide if a person/company is guilty or not guilty. It doesn’t mean they are innocent. So proves nothing as far as reputation goes.
It proves Apple isn’t confident in the outcome and is more eager to pay 95 million than proving it has customer privacy in their corporate commitment.
Exactly. Court is always a gamble. It relies on the right prosecutor, the right defence and the right judge or jury to get your outcome. And that’s not even including the evidence.
It simply isn’t worth fighting when you have a war chest the size of Apple.
As I said. It doesn’t mean anything if they win the case. It certainly doesn’t prove innocence. It just proves the case wasn’t strong enough. If they won.
Yet they claimed just that, that it stays on the phone.
I have nothing against sharing some data, the thing is, instead of playing the good guy but then actin like others, Apple should have been more upfront.
We all know ai needs data to work, don't just pretend the world is stupid.
They weren't saying what happens on your iphone will be on your iphone, they made it so people thought it was already like that.
Read what I said again, carefully. It might have to wait until you're not suspended though. Arguing on the internet is not wise, but everything I said is factual. Take it or leave it, the complexities of the algorithms and surveillance mechanisms are beyond what most people have any clue about, and what they fear is for the most part not what is actually occurring, but there is a very good reason people get ads when they mention something to a friend, and it has everything to do with what I mentioned: data brokers, telemetry, and social graphs.
I'll give one example: You mention to someone that you're interested in buying a certain type of television, and your friend happens to live overseas. You suddenly get ads for that exact model the next day. Clearly they were listening to your conversations. Not so, what is actually occurring is that Google's ad network (and partners) are collecting so much data and have such an infrastructure built up that they understand the two of you are connected (the social graphs), your friend looked up the TV to check it out and their browser sent dozens, if not hundreds telemetry data points out into the internet by doing so – which are connected to data brokers and also to Google itself. The connections are made via algorithms that have processed so much data on billions of people that they understand the weighting of the social graphs, and have dozens of data points about you and your friend which inform the algorithmic decision to serve you ads about the product the next day, even if you never even searched for it on your own network or devices.
There are documented in depth cases of exactly this happening over a decade ago, just look at your network traffic. Then consider many people use "free" apps that they give too many permissions to, or use apps like fast food which often need location, etc. and what's really happening is you're trading your privacy for a slight discount on goods, and all of that data you send out is aggregated in such a way that it is so impactful it seems like they are listening to your conversations.
This doesn't even get into deep profiling, or things like transaction telemetry which virtually every purchase involves – from Google collecting gmail data on purchases, to your credit card companies selling your purchase information (or at least the categories that you purchase, if not the specifics), and tie all of that to wifi addresses, IP ranges, MAC addresses and UUIDs (if they can get them), etc. etc. The ad-surveillance network is deeply entrenched and active in almost every corner of the world, and real-time bidding technology is so fast with updates that you can as a seller of esoteric goods buy ads that will target exactly those few consumers who might be interested in your luxury furniture that sells less than 10,000 units a year, but it's worth every dollar because they get to the customer who was interested.
Or, it's perverse.
But it's damn sure not related to siri queries being reviewed to improve voice recognition. All of that is nonsense and BS. Apple doesn't need to sell your privacy for pennies, they already get most people using google and also get 20 billion dollars – that is enough. You can make a lot of changes, protect your network endpoints, use anonymized tools, etc. but you will never fully escape this larger system unless you are totally off-grid and don't use networked electronics.
If you're worried about the government or a state-level threat that's a whole different ballgame and I won't even discuss those things, but this is all baby stuff compared to that – and what's been referenced about the leaks from over a decade ago aren't even close to accurate as far as cooperation, but most people can't understand what I wrote above – they damn sure won't understand the nuances of actual cybersecurity.
