Apple Watch Already Facing Questions Concerning User Privacy

[iWe]

Seeing those three pictures of the Watch and the rear of the iPhone 6, knowing it's Apple's best work... Pretty disappointing that they've lost it so badly, they're no longer the best at making gorgeous consumer hardware.

That picture doesn't really do justice to the model in the middle which I think looks rather nice now that I have had time to get used to the design. Yup, off-topic etc..

 

[robbyclark]

Attention seeking knob.

Another twit who wants their 15seconds of fame. Moron, he should read what Apple has already publicly released about their healthkit APIs and general Privacy Policies... Does he really think Apple haven't thought about this. Class A knob.

 

[McCool71]

This is important - the first major breach of security for the Apple Watch can really send the whole wireless payment future over the cliff - both for Apple and other companies in the same market place.

 

[xxlmarcoxxl]

I am quite sure the Attorney General is getting a big fat check from Google. That or he is on their payroll! Questions sound a little bit to technical for an attorney general.

 

[Lancer]

Really think Apple will have addressed any security issue, I do wonder if this would even have happened if the recent hack of the iCloud had not happened? Which if anyone has forgotten was not Apple fault, it was a targeted attack on user passwords and security info, it happens to every securer network.

 

[djgamble]

Much easier in Australia since there is no tort of privacy.

 

[cdmoore74]

I really like the the Apple watch ! absolutely a gorgeous design

Image

I love the design but they need to rethink the entire idea of that digital crown because you should not need the ability of zooming if you designed the OS to be touch friendly and simple in the first place. Zooming in on maps and pictures should be best left to the iPhone which you already have tethered to in your pocket. For me the purpose of a smartwatch is to quickly glance and go back to what you were doing without taking out your phone. Using 3 fingers to turn a knob for zooming on a screen smaller than 2” is crazy.

 

[ineedamac]

What crap. Did the AG read through the documents on the APIs? Nope, nada. They just want their name in the paper and a meeting with Apple to feel cool.

Did this AG send a similar letter to Samsung, Fitbit, Nike etc when they released products that track health items?

 

[Wishbrah]

Suggested Title Edit:

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen Sends Letter to Tim Cook in Attempt to Remain Relevant in Public Eye as Mid-Term Elections Near

This!

 

[dredlew]

Yet they're incapable of running their biggest event over a live internet stream. The fact they can't handle that should raise concerns about how securely they can look after private health data perhaps?

Apple aren't flawless, aren't beyond reproach and there's nothing wrong with asking questions of them - this isn't a cult with a divine leader, it's a tech company with many individual's life history stored in their devices or on their cloud servers. With great power comes great responsibility and all that...

And you certainly know who was in charge of handling the stream, whether it was Apple itself or a third-party. And you must also know how predictable the user volume was for this specific event. Because, it's all Apple's fault and they should have known how unprecedented the demand would be.

Look, if you don't know the details and have no clue about the technology at hand, call yourself incapable (of understanding the issue).

 

[kdarling]

What crap. Did the AG read through the documents on the APIs? Nope, nada. They just want their name in the paper and a meeting with Apple to feel cool.

Did this AG send a similar letter to Samsung, Fitbit, Nike etc when they released products that track health items?

Did those others put out a Healthkit like OS addition that gathered all your health information from multiple apps together in one spot, where each app could read what the others had written? (with permission)

They understandably want to be able to definitively answer their constituents when they ask if it's safe.

 

[Jimrod]

And you certainly know who was in charge of handling the stream, whether it was Apple itself or a third-party. And you must also know how predictable the user volume was for this specific event. Because, it's all Apple's fault and they should have known how unprecedented the demand would be.

Look, if you don't know the details and have no clue about the technology at hand, call yourself incapable (of understanding the issue).

Apple are among the most cash rich companies in the world, they are a tech company, this was their flagship event. They would know demand to watch the stream would be huge and should ensure they can deliver, otherwise, well it might just be a little embarrassing... The stream was a cluster**** and Apple were responsible, third party involvement or not - if they didn't foresee the problems my point about personal information still stands.

 

[philosopherdog]

Everything Android is google spyware

Maybe he should be asking about android devices. Aren't they just google spyware?

 

[mdelvecchio]

He must be a Democrat. Always looking for ways to insert government control into your private business.

hmm like abortion clinics? oh wait, those are republicans inserting themselves into private businesses...

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Apple is under no obligation to respond to a letter. Pound dirt!

 

[Twimfy]

Privacy doesn't bother me but theft does. I hope they implement the "Find my iPhone" locking capability somehow. I'll be cool wearing the watch where I live but I wouldn't consider taking a single step into London with it unless there's some kind of theft deterrent.

 

[nsayer]

I think if the AG of Connecticut has nothing better to do than fret about the potential privacy impact of an as-yet unreleased product he has some 'splainin' to do to the voters.

 

[planetMitch]

the Jepsons

Thanks to you thread fanatics, I can't get the theme song from "The Jetsons" out of my head!

"Jane - his wife"

 

[oplix]

It's 2014. You have no more rights to privacy.

 

[skinned66]

I hope he gets a hyperlink to the dev guildelines with a note that says something to the effect of "please feel free to inquire about anything that you feel has not adequately been covered."

 

[UnfetteredMind]

I think they should send him ALL the developer documents (not just the HealthKit ones) and any and all marketing information available for the Watch and tell them all the info they need is in there, go find it like all of us have to when we need to file our damn taxes each year.

 

[IJ Reilly]

We're talking HIPAA here. One of the advantages of HealthKit is that your medical team can monitor you and use your data. You have to give express consent for your physician to see your data as well as anyone they might want to share it with (like your spouse).

I think we are not really talking HIPAA here. This may the most misunderstood federal law of all time (not without reason, it is freaking complicated). Essentially what HIPAA protects is your doctor(s) sharing your health records with others without your express authorization, particularly for non-medical purposes. You as a patient can decide to not tell your doctor anything, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of seeing one.

 

[borneo76]

Why watch as a target? Many smart watch with similar functionality out there

Oh wait, because its run android

 

[ronwasserman]

He must be a Democrat. Always looking for ways to insert government control into your private business.

Funny. He's trying to investigate and possibly alert us to a privacy issue and you are claiming the opposite.

Remember it's you guys who, under the Patriot Act, that started the "let's start controlling private businesses" (along with a whole laundry list of invasion of privacy issues) back in 2006.

Good attempt at a spin though!

 

[Rigby]

I am quite sure the Attorney General is getting a big fat check from Google. That or he is on their payroll! Questions sound a little bit to technical for an attorney general.

Perhaps you should read the announcement linked in the article. Among other things, it mentions that the AG has asked similar questions to Google regarding privacy protections of Google Glass:

"Last year, Attorney General Jepsen met with representatives from Google, Inc. following a similar request to address questions about the privacy protections of Google's wearable computing device, Glass. Through that meeting and subsequent communications, Google implemented a policy requiring review and approval of third-party applications developed for the device before they would be made available to users."