Apple’s use of your data is opt-in. You have to choose to do it and can opt-out at any time. As long as Facebook discloses their tracking and makes it opt-in, I am totally fine with it. My issue is their opposition to both of those things.
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.
Lawsuit Accusing Apple of Recording of Confidential Siri Requests Without User Consent Dismissed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but this option is also new, as of 2019. Siri came out with the iPhone 4S back in... 2011? Thats 8 years of potential privacy violations and voice recordings.
The problem with making facebooks tracking "opt in" is that Facebook is offered to users as a free service. Without tracking, they can make limited to no money off of users. Thus, the service probably wouldn't exist in the first place. Facebook discloses in its terms of service that it tracks you for targeted advertising when you sign up for the service. There might not be much of an option to turn it off, but it is disclosed right at the start.
Do you have evidence of that? My understanding is that it was a new program started post HomePod.
Apple can never do right according to the macrumors forums.
How are there privacy violations when there are no people listed as being violated?
Facebook say they won’t pass any of your details on to any advertisers "unless you give us permission". Do you actually believe that?
This was dumb anyways. I do this kind of work part time as a side gig in my consulting business, all of these queries are transcribed to the written word, and completely anonymized. You get the general user location and a timestamp for context and then the actual voice assistant response, but you never ever get to hear an actual human’s voice, or have any other personal data at all.
Sounds like its a massive breach of privacy then! 😂
I guess when the 20 days are up and we hear the sounds of "we have thousands of affidavits, but we are not prepared to use them" allegations by the lawyers, we'll know it’s time to leave the court and play a round of golf.
It’s not the same. Apple isn’t going to sell random anonymous Siri troubleshooting data to Cambridge Analytica. It’s not their business model.
What do you expect, cameras and microphones everywhere and services for "free"
Now we all know they're all in on it together.
Now we all know they're all in on it together.
That is not a problem at all.
You should tell the broadcast networks that they are not making any money, given that they cannot track users. Advertising existed before they were able to track users in this way.
Your argument seems to be that if people knew what Facebook was doing, they would not think the value they receive (Facebook’s service) was worth the cost (their privacy). If that is the case, they should not exist.
Again, Apple’s requirement is that they both disclose and get permission to track users across sites. Facebook can certainly implement a policy that says anyone who does not give their permission to be tracked cannot use their service. Then they would see if people felt the value was worth the cost. If you actually believe that they clearly disclose that they are tracking users across sites, then you should also believe that people will give their consent when Facebook is forced to ask the question again on iOS/iPadOS.
The only way this is a problem for Facebook is if people did not really understand that they were being tracked in this way and when it is clearly explained to them, they decide not to allow it.
I been long time in this forum too. For some forum members here, Apple can never do wrong. And for some others, everything Apple does (because it is a trillion dollar company) it must be wrong. To be honest, I find people of this second category somehow more vocal around here.
But liking Apple or its products doesn't have to mean losing your power of objective thought when it comes to Apple, as seems to be the case with some people on here - those people who can't get their heads round the fact that somebody can disagree with something Apple do, yet still like their products.
Siri works just fine without this feature. The only point where it makes a difference is if you say something that Siri doesn't understand, so then a human could listen to your request, figure out what you meant, and explain it to Siri - so the next time someone says the same thing, Siri will know what it means. So it doesn't help you, it helps the next customer.
Important is that Siri only listens when you say "Hey, Siri". Siri on a HomePod filters out all voices except the one that said "Hey Siri". So it's rather difficult to have Siri listening by accident. So if someone heard you talking about drug deals, or having sex, then the reason is that you said "Hey Siri".
BTW. My wife was quite convinced for some time that there was _always_ a human listening and providing all the answers. She wouldn't believe me that the answers came from a computer.
Actually, the court said the claimants didn't accuse Apple of a breach of _their_ privacy, and the claimants only provided unproven conjectures about violations of other people's privacy. That was enough to through out the case; the court didn't even look at whether a violation of privacy ever occurred.
And the data that humans were listening to wasn't _random_. It was all data that Apple's computers handling Siri _couldn't make sense of_. Like you ask a million American's who they voted for. 900,000 will tell you. 50,000 say "none of your business" which your computer understands. 45,000 more say something else that your computer understands. What the remaining 5,000 say that your computer can't make any sense of would be totally useless to anyone.
If he said that using Siri, he is most likely not the first one or the second one, and Siri will be able to provide an answer. The answer might be useless like "Nothing I can help you with.", but Siri can answer. So this wouldn't be sent to a human to listen to.
BTW. Having the police at your house doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Even having the police at your house and shooting you doesn't mean you did anything wrong, as we all should know.
I think Apple's worked exactly the opposite. You would get to hear the actual sound, but have no location, no timestamp, nothing so you could not find out who in the world was talking to Siri. The whole point was that this is only done for things that Siri doesn't understand. That would be different in a business that _wants_ questions to be answered by humans.
I just find all the “conspiracy” theory stuff funny. My dad rants and raves at my HomePods throughout the housebut uses YouTube to watch his radical news interpretations.
And, Siri does sometimes trigger on mistake - ether a house plant is rubbing the top or my aunt goes “Hey (my name)” and do to the distance or room layout from the speaker she thinks we said “Hey, Siri”. (HomePods are in the kitchen/dining room and my aunt was like 20 ft away: those mics are really good at picking stuff up)
And, Siri does sometimes trigger on mistake - ether a house plant is rubbing the top or my aunt goes “Hey (my name)” and do to the distance or room layout from the speaker she thinks we said “Hey, Siri”. (HomePods are in the kitchen/dining room and my aunt was like 20 ft away: those mics are really good at picking stuff up)
Bookmark this comment section.
When you made some really bad decisions and feel stupid, just read the comments here to feel better 😃
When you made some really bad decisions and feel stupid, just read the comments here to feel better 😃
My own opinion is that this was just a money-grab, but I'm anti-class action suits anyway.
But Apple still has to deal with the fallout.
But Apple still has to deal with the fallout.