Apple's Concern With User Privacy Reportedly Stifling Siri Development

[kdarling]

But others do. The solution is simple, make SIRI data use opt-in. Make the opt-in option local to the device only and encrypted like a credit card.

This. Apple already has a lot of information about me, so why not use it to my benefit and not just theirs, if I wish them to.

Agreed! Plus, I would prefer to give my meta-data to a company that has privacy as a guiding principle rather than one that wants to use it to sell advertising.

Apple sells advertising in iAds, the App Store and in News. They use who we are, where we are, and/or what we're looking at in order to sell targeted ad spots.

As for privacy, all the major companies keep our personal info personal, and only sell anonymous ad slots. Keeping the info private and safe is exactly what makes that info valuable for ads.

And that's why I didn't agree with your long post of that stuff, because it didn't seem as invasive as something Google would put out. I've read Google's privacy policies. They're open about collecting more than your address, emails etc. They build an entire profile of you and store it on their servers, and sell it out to 3rd parties (aka ads). Apple doesn't do this. There's a huge difference.

1) Google doesn't sell information to advertisers. They sell anonymous ad slots.

2) Apple collects info and sells anonymous ad slots as well. What do you think iAds is about? Heck, Apple probably has even more personal info on us. They claim to have almost a billion iTunes accounts, with our credit/debit card info, addresses, and purchase / location history.

At least Google gives us a dashboard where we can see the info they collect, what ad slots they'e put us in, and even edit and control that info. Does Apple do that? No, it would expose what they do.

Perhaps I could have been more concise, but it's largely semantics. There's really no difference between 'selling your information' and 'selling access to your information' the latter of which is the 'targeted ad space' you refer to.

Are you kidding? There's a HUGE difference between selling the actual info versus selling ad slots based on that info.

Perhaps you're confused about how such ads work. When Apple / Google sell ad slots, they are the ones who pick the target user and display the ad, not the advertiser. The advertiser has no access to the info.

It's true that Google doesn't sell or share your real name, but they absolutely do sell access to your unique personal ID, which is why 3rd parties give companies like Google (the middle man) lots of money to place their ads in front of your eyeballs.

Both Apple and Google give advertisers an anonymous advertising id. Both Apple and Google allow you to reset that id any time you wish. Both Apple and Google allow you to turn off a checkbox that tells an app programmer not to use that id to target you, but the id is still visible to them.

It doesn't have to do any such thing. I'm tired of this lack of privacy protection these days. The USA was founded with privacy in the Constitution (no unreasonable search or seizures).

Right, but available with a valid Warrant. Which is why everyone, including Apple, complies with such warrants.

People are SO ready to let THIEVES (and that means corporations more than anybody) STEAL their data and monetize it while you get NOTHING.

Apple collects billions of dollars a year in kickbacks from Google for being the default search engine and thus collecting info on us. I agree that Apple should provide us something in return!

At least Google and others... including this website... use ads to support a service that we can use freely. TV shows are the same way; they are supported with ads targeted at their audience. Not to mention millions of websites.

I'll take the free services, thank you very much. At the same time, perhaps they should offer paid services for those who wish more privacy. For example, many of us contribute to MacRumors to avoid ads. This could rapidly get expensive if done across the internet though.

This whole Apple/Google faux privacy debate is BS anyway. Both collect and keep our data private. The REAL privacy problem is with the hundreds of lesser known entities that collect and actually SELL our personal info.

 

[slimothy]

This. Apple already has a lot of information about me, so why not use it to my benefit and not just theirs, if I wish them to.



Apple sells advertising in iAds, the App Store and in News. They use who we are, where we are, and/or what we're looking at in order to sell targeted ad spots.

As for privacy, all the major companies keep our personal info personal, and only sell anonymous ad slots. Keeping the info private and safe is exactly what makes that info valuable for ads.



1) Google doesn't sell information to advertisers. They sell anonymous ad slots.

2) Apple collects info and sells anonymous ad slots as well. What do you think iAds is about? Heck, Apple probably has even more personal info on us. They claim to have almost a billion iTunes accounts, with our credit/debit card info, addresses, and purchase / location history.

At least Google gives us a dashboard where we can see the info they collect, what ad slots they'e put us in, and even edit and control that info. Does Apple do that? No, it would expose what they do.



Are you kidding? There's a HUGE difference between selling the actual info versus selling ad slots based on that info.

Perhaps you're confused about how such ads work. When Apple / Google sell ad slots, they are the ones who pick the target user and display the ad, not the advertiser. The advertiser has no access to the info.



Both Apple and Google give advertisers an anonymous advertising id. Both Apple and Google allow you to reset that id any time you wish. Both Apple and Google allow you to turn off a checkbox that tells an app programmer not to use that id to target you, but the id is still visible to them.



Right, but available with a valid Warrant. Which is why everyone, including Apple, complies with such warrants.



Apple collects billions of dollars a year in kickbacks from Google for being the default search engine and thus collecting info on us. I agree that Apple should provide us something in return!

At least Google and others... including this website... use ads to support a service that we can use freely. TV shows are the same way; they are supported with ads targeted at their audience. Not to mention millions of websites.

I'll take the free services, thank you very much. At the same time, perhaps they should offer paid services for those who wish more privacy. For example, many of us contribute to MacRumors to avoid ads. This could rapidly get expensive if done across the internet though.

This whole Apple/Google faux privacy debate is BS anyway. Both collect and keep our data private. The REAL privacy problem is with the hundreds of lesser known entities that collect and actually SELL our personal info.

Nah, you can limit tracking on the Apple end. Google makes a business of ads. Apple has not nearly as much presence with it, thank god.
[doublepost=1497015962][/doublepost]

I think there should be two modes: one that favors privacy, one that favors functionality. Why not let the customer choose?

You can choose. Google/Samsung/Android or Apple/iOS/MacOS. Make your pick.

 

[vertsix]

Apple's defense of customer privacy is probably not effective anyways. It should just drop it completely. Just drop the focus on privacy, it's a losing battle, just as Chinese distributors/insiders have proven in China recently that privacy of Apple customers can still be compromised by corrupt insiders (distributors, contractors, suppliers, etc).

Officials arrest Apple distributors who sold private data

Forget the focus on user privacy, it's a lost battle, and just go forward and cut loose with technological progress if Apple ever wants to catch up with Google and Amazon and Microsoft. Apple is supposed to be a technology company. And issues like this simply keeps its hands tied, hinders technical progress.

I literally just saw this. Why isn't MacRumors writing about it?

It seems like a huge story. Also, why are those internal tools so easily accessible?

Apple's decline to comment is worrisome.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Are you sure you follow technology at all? Machine learning is not as simple as collecting data on your iPhone. Your iPhone's ability to learn is limited. You want to use it for other things. There are HUGE servers across the world that machine learn.

Why would you want machines to learn? Did you not see the Terminator???

And don't get me started with the naïveté of your "USA blah blah blah" crap. The founding fathers have been dead for 2 centuries. They had no idea what was coming. Take your right wing nonsense and put it in PRSI.

LOL. You're the one that is being naive. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Perhaps you don't mind living in a world where web cams are in every room of your house including the bathroom so the government can make sure you're not doing something against their rules (say in the shower), but some of us think the rest of the world doesn't need to know what we're eating for breakfast. Go watch 1984 some time. I think if the founding fathers knew what was coming they would have made some changes, starting with term limits.

 

[redscull]

What I have noticed a lot lately is that Siri starts out hearing what I said perfectly and then for some strange reason, I see her backspace over what she had and replace it with ridiculous phrases.

I assume that my phone sent it to a server and it was reinterpreted. So, I know that it's not a matter of my poor elocution, as she had it right, but then "fixed" it.

Now that you mention it, I think that's at least some of what I am dealing with too. Maybe the dictation isn't quite as bad as I make it out to be. it's a combination of dictation and autocorrect nonsense. Because what you're describing is what I normally think of as autocorrect nonsense since it also happens when typing. Perfectly legit words replaced with bizarre substitutes.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I can understand not wanting data in the wrong hands.

 

[PhilHo]

Most people just don’t understand the importance of privacy. I am glad that Apple still cares about it. The reason why I’ll never buy an android phone or Google speaker is that Google earns money by collecting and selling data. I rather pay more for the advice/OS than paying part of it with my data.

 

[blasto2236]

Sounds like the best idea would be to develop on two tracks, with a toggle to switch between privacy and effectively no privacy. If you want privacy, you don't get as rich an experience, if you want a richer experience, you don't get privacy. Perhaps by enabling users to choose they'll learn how to fix the privacy-only method by examining the no-privacy method.

It's not about immediately giving the user a better experience in exchange for their privacy, though. All of the voice assistants are pretty much on even footing as of today. The concern is that Apple isn't collecting as much user data as the others to continue building out that platform and stay competitive. I personally would rather it stay somewhat limited and keep my privacy, thanks. I believe the switch you're referring to is going to Android.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I think there should be two modes: one that favors privacy, one that favors functionality. Why not let the customer choose?

Effectively, because they would need to develop two separate systems, each optimized to the available resources. It wouldn't be enough to have "good Siri" and "not-so-good Siri" based on the size of the dataset. "Not-so-good Siri" would still color the public's opinion of what "Siri" means.

The challenge continues to be, "How can we achieve the goal of maximizing privacy while delivering an effective personal assistant." It's a significantly harder task, and trying to achieve it drives innovation. My hope is that the extra time this takes will leave Apple with a better personal assistant. Presuming they finally "get it right," I think it'll be well worth the wait.

It's likely that privacy demands greater levels of on-device intelligence, and in the end, I think that's a good thing. Our personal assistants shouldn't lose all their smarts if we lose our internet connection.

 

[ssong]

As far as the SDK docs, Core ML is *not* for training ML models but for *running* pre-existing models on the device. Yes, user data stays on the device – but it does not make the model "smarter" per se.

crap my bad... it does say 'trained models'.... ok thats disappointing now..

 

[dude-x]

A bit off topic, but if you love the Apple II, join us on the Apple II enthusiasts Facebook group. It's an awesome place to talk about vintage shiny.

I am more of an Apple IIc, IIe fan than the original Apple ][ because they were much better computers for the time, but I'll check out the fan page.

As an aside, an antique shop was selling a complete Apple IIe system with color monitor, dual disk drive, mockingboard, and a box of diskettes all for 250 dollars. I couldn't justify the space it would take up in my apartment and it would also have annoyed my wife. Looking back I should have bought it, before the store sold it to someone.

 

[Keane16]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! You are saying that the Apple Watch is more successful than the Iphone because it has higher enjoyment? Steve brought down blackberry, pushed the boundaries if smart phones and really made smart phones ubiquitous, oversaw the development of OSX and iOS, and you cite the pathetic apple watch as a true success story?

Is that what is making their stocks sky rocket? And I thought it was because of the sales increase due to their expansion into China.. Guess i'm wrong. I was all these happy apple watch users...

Are you kidding me? My mouth is still open.. The apple watch is a freakin iphone companion. And you cite Wristly? A company that makes it's money on Apple watch research? I would take Trump's word over Wristly!


.

Close your mouth, you'll swallow a fly. You miss the point completely (again). Without defining success you could have meant anything.

You said Apple "Under 6 years of Tim Cook's lack of leadership, Apple has yet to have a successful product as Jobs did.". I was merely pointing to the fact that under Cook Apple has had products which outdo the iPhone by some metrics. Apple have had lots of successful products over the last few years. Success isn't just about sales and stock price.

The Apple Watch is about 2 years old (and by sales already makes Apple the 2nd largest watch seller in the world). The impact it can have going forward is potentially huge in the health sector (fitness and medical). So only time will tell how successful it will be. ResearchKit and CareKit are both relatively new and with a wearable like Apple Watch and the opportunities for tracking (think diabetes as an example) the possibilities are exciting.

At 2 years old the iPhone was just getting Cut/Copy/Paste - Apple's MO is to build slowly from solid foundations. And the AW has a great foundation, I'm excited about what comes next.

 

[stylinexpat]

I’m all ears.. What happened to things remaining on your phone?


https://www.phonearena.com/news/Emp...stened-to-1000-Siri-clips-each-shift_id118397