Tim Cook Addresses Privacy, Government Requests in New NPR Interview

[ArtOfWarfare]

If the Government privately tells you....we need a back door to everything and keep your mouth shut...you will give them what they want. Anyone that thinks that they can't do that is kidding themselves...

Our government is corrupt and run by money. The businesses control the government, not the other way around.

When a business the size of Apple tells the government that they won't build a back door, they aren't going to build a back door.

Other companies might be small enough, or care little enough, that they'll comply with what the government tells them to, but Apple is neither little nor do they not care.

If Apple has a backdoor, it'll be found soon and Apple's support from privacy advocates will evaporate overnight.

But I don't think Apple has a backdoor, because the director of the NSA won't stop publically bitching about how impossible it is to get data from Apple. Plus it wasn't found when everyone else's backdoors were found.

 

[wovel]

What is the shady stuff Google does?

Just go read their press releases for the past couple of weeks or just about any of their executive blogs. They are proud of it. If you don't see anything in there that bothers you, you are one of the people that doesn't care.

 

[John Mcgregor]

But I don't think Apple has a backdoor, because the director of the NSA won't stop publically bitching about how impossible it is to get data from Apple. Plus it wasn't found when everyone else's backdoors were found.

Might just be a very good deception. There is no way of telling right now. Sacrifice a pawn as a distraction from the real picture.

 

[jimi78]

Personally liked the end of the interview when Tim was asked about the Apple car.

"Do you have another question?"

He was dodging this question left and right. No denial or confirmation...just diversion. I wonder what it will look like when it comes out.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Might just be a very good deception. There is no way of telling right now. Sacrifice a pawn as a distraction from the real picture.

Think about how competent the government is with things that they clearly want to do. Do you really think that they're actually capable of so competently being misleading like that?

This is where conspiracy theories involving the government always fall apart. To make such elaborate coverups requires them to be extremely competent, when clearly they are not.

IE, faking the moon landing in the ways that conspiracy theories often suggest ends up being more complicated than just landing on the moon (not that that was trivial. Hat tip to NASA, the only portion of the US government that I have any shred of faith in. But the ways suggested for faking the moon landing end up being more difficult.)

 

[scoobydoo99]

Everything he says is great.

But it appears to be ALL LIES:

http://fortune.com/2015/09/24/tech-vendor-cybersecurity-bill/

How can Apple care AT ALL about privacy, if they support the most draconian corporate spying bill ever seen? How can they believe in customer privacy and support covert, unconstitutional government spying aided by corporations?

Tim: Walk the walk, then we'll believe the talk.

https://www.cispaisback.org/

 

[John Mcgregor]

Think about how competent the government is with things that they clearly want to do. Do you really think that they're actually capable of so competently being misleading like that?

This is where conspiracy theories involving the government always fall apart. To make such elaborate coverups requires them to be extremely competent, when clearly they are not.

IE, faking the moon landing in the ways that conspiracy theories often suggest ends up being more complicated than just landing on the moon (not that that was trivial. Hat tip to NASA, the only portion of the US government that I have any shred of faith in. But the ways suggested for faking the moon landing end up being more difficult.)

I don't know, neither do you.

 

[69Mustang]

Why are you asking??
You CLEARLY don't care. Your own sig line admits that your ONLY criteria is "personal use case"... thus, you don't care about the politics of a company, the sleaziness of a company, the litigation tactics of a company, etc.
With all due respect, while holding that personal opinion is absolutely fine... I feel that asking another user for deeper info when you obviously are not interested is a bit disingenuous & most likely your actual goal is to try to discredit their claim. So...... in the interest of being more transparent like we want the companies we are discussing to be, why not just be up front about intentions from the start??

Couple of things. First, CAPS for emphasis doesn't make your point any more relevant. Second, your ability to discern my motivation is particularly atrocious. There's a word you should become more familiar with: context. How you think you know my personal philosophy regarding a company's politics and such is beyond me. You built a grossly incorrect narrative about someone you don't know based on a tag line. Presumptuous much? Just for your edification, that tag line is a statement about my dislike of fanboy mentality. Context. Not that stuff you made up. Ask don't assume.

To your point about my question. My question had 2 purposes. 1. Discourse - this is a forum for discussion after all. 2. Clarity - contrary to what you think you read in macass' quote, there was nothing for me to discredit. In fact I agreed with him/her about the boatload of information Google collects. What WASN'T <--(See how sill that looks? Looks sillier bold.) in that quote is anything about the shady accusation. It was just a list of information that Google collects.

Transparent enough?

 

[Solomani]

Image via NPR​

Tim looks his oldest in this picture. Sadly, I think the role of Apple CEO is taking a toll on him. Exactly like with US Presidents. When Obama first took office he was a dark-haired energetic young-looking president. Now Obama is a white-haired haggard looking man, like he aged at least 10 years.



Here is Tim in his "younger days" under the reign of Dear Leader. Only a few years ago.

 

[Piggie]

Let's wait till some potential/future? Paedophile ISIS (or other) gangs bomb a few American School buildings, killing hundreds of children, and then it turning out they were using iPhones to store their data and communicate with each other.

THEN............

When Tim cook says, sorry can't help you it's all private, and no information can be obtained because they were all using Apple equipment to plan their attacks.

THEN......... I will believe his words.

 

[Fenez]

Our government is corrupt and run by money. The businesses control the government, not the other way around.

When a business the size of Apple tells the government that they won't build a back door, they aren't going to build a back door.

Other companies might be small enough, or care little enough, that they'll comply with what the government tells them to, but Apple is neither little nor do they not care.

If Apple has a backdoor, it'll be found soon and Apple's support from privacy advocates will evaporate overnight.

But I don't think Apple has a backdoor, because the director of the NSA won't stop publically bitching about how impossible it is to get data from Apple. Plus it wasn't found when everyone else's backdoors were found.

Our government tells other countries what to do... Apple wouldn't be an issue...I'm not say that the government told apple anything, but to think that it couldn't happen is just being foolish. When they decide something is needed for national security the size of the company makes no difference.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Our government tells other countries what to do... Apple wouldn't be an issue...I'm not say that the government told apple anything, but to think that it couldn't happen is just being foolish. When they decide something is needed for national security the size of the company makes no difference.

You wish. What is in the interest of national security is determined by our defense contractors. The defense contractors fund the campaigns of their puppet politicians. In exchange, those puppet politicians vote for us to give tax money to defense contractors.

The only time the defense contractors don't get what they want is if another company is large enough to have their own puppets in the government to vote against it. Apple is a company large enough to bend the government to their will.

Our government does tell what other SMALLER, WEAKER, POORER, countries to do. Those other countries receive money for complying. They get a variety of punishments (sanctions, invasions, withdrawn defense) for refusal. We can't tell the bigger countries what to do. Those countries are smaller than Apple. Apple does what they want. If it's not legal, they change the laws.

 

[macduke]

LoL really?... He's the CEO of the world's most valuable company (depending on the day).

Yeah but when do you ever see Apple executives acting corporate or dressing in suits? Company culture at Apple is definitely different than similarly sized companies.

 

[Alameda]

You don't appear to understand the difference between you choosing to share specific data, limited and controlled by the operating system APIs, from one app or service to another, and Apple quietly doing it itself with everything of yours, with other apps, people and organizations, without your consent, which is the issue at hand. Look in the Facebook panel instead of Privacy.

You might want to think about that, because your claim of Tim being "a complete liar" is not only demonstrably false, it demonstrates your own ignorance.

You are not correct.
Apple has a deal with Facebook that lets Facebook read through your iPhone Contacts, and the only way to prevent this is to not install the Facebook app.

If you pick ten strangers at random out of a phone book from North Dakota or Birmingham, England, and add them to your iPhone Contacts, the Facebook app will eventually ask if you want to friend one of those people, assuming one of them is on Facebook. There is no Opt Out for that.

 

[Fenez]

You wish. What is in the interest of national security is determined by our defense contractors. The defense contractors fund the campaigns of their puppet politicians. In exchange, those puppet politicians vote for us to give tax money to defense contractors.

The only time the defense contractors don't get what they want is if another company is large enough to have their own puppets in the government to vote against it. Apple is a company large enough to bend the government to their will.

Our government does tell what other SMALLER, WEAKER, POORER, countries to do. Those other countries receive money for complying. They get a variety of punishments (sanctions, invasions, withdrawn defense) for refusal. We can't tell the bigger countries what to do. Those countries are smaller than Apple. Apple does what they want. If it's not legal, they change the laws.

OK cool... Someone forgot to tell Verizon and level 3 communications not to tap apple, Google, face book.... Because they were all tapped...

 

[spinedoc77]

Let's wait till some potential/future? Paedophile ISIS (or other) gangs bomb a few American School buildings, killing hundreds of children, and then it turning out they were using iPhones to store their data and communicate with each other.

THEN............

When Tim cook says, sorry can't help you it's all private, and no information can be obtained because they were all using Apple equipment to plan their attacks.

THEN......... I will believe his words.

Same old argument, trade freedom for liberty. I suggest they put cameras in your house that are monitored 24/7, implant brain scanners to evaluate your moods. You need psychological testing once per week, as does your wife, kids, dog and gerbil. Every detail of your life will be examined and placed in a computer algorithm designed to ferret out future terrorist activity, or just activity against the party in charge.

But seriously, I get your point. Just like 9/11 so many freedoms were eroded and lost, in the blink of an eye. Would Tim Cook be as steadfast in the face of a 9/11? Where would that line be drawn where it would be ok? And if that line were drawn, how soon until it became less and less distinct. We are living in a world where simply having somewhat large amounts of cash amounts to guilt of "something", with no crime witness, no arrest, no trial or conviction or hint of any crime that money can be taken away and kept with little recourse. Simply pulling out too much cash from your bank is now a crime. So yeah Tim Cook and Apple taking a stand definitely makes me proud, but talk is cheap.

 

[senrab]

He's the CEO of the largest corporation in the world by market capitalization. Apple is worth twice as much as the next-largest company, ExxonMobil

You clearly missed my point.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

OK cool... Someone forgot to tell Verizon and level 3 communications not to tap apple, Google, face book.... Because they were all tapped...

And they got unintelligible encrypted data. It's not hard to acquire that from any public wifi network. Much harder (normally) is cracking it.

 

[Piggie]

Same old argument, trade freedom for liberty. I suggest they put cameras in your house that are monitored 24/7, implant brain scanners to evaluate your moods. You need psychological testing once per week, as does your wife, kids, dog and gerbil. Every detail of your life will be examined and placed in a computer algorithm designed to ferret out future terrorist activity, or just activity against the party in charge.

But seriously, I get your point. Just like 9/11 so many freedoms were eroded and lost, in the blink of an eye. Would Tim Cook be as steadfast in the face of a 9/11? Where would that line be drawn where it would be ok? And if that line were drawn, how soon until it became less and less distinct. We are living in a world where simply having somewhat large amounts of cash amounts to guilt of "something", with no crime witness, no arrest, no trial or conviction or hint of any crime that money can be taken away and kept with little recourse. Simply pulling out too much cash from your bank is now a crime. So yeah Tim Cook and Apple taking a stand definitely makes me proud, but talk is cheap.

I hope you understand, all I am saying, to Tim Cook is..... "Please Don't Lie to Consumers"

That is all.

Either you can gain access to phone data/calls etc or you can't.
The severity or importance of WHY you should wish that access should have nothing with the ability to do it.

Let me give you an analogy:

A landlord who rents out homes, tells the media and customers, he gives the keys to the apartments to the people living there, and he, and his company has no way of gaining access as they don't have any means to get it.

All great so far.

Then a murder is committed, or some children are suspected are abducted and being held in the building imprisoned, together with weapons and drugs.
A matter of national security perhaps even.

All of a sudden, due to importance of this, a special key? is then found by the landlord which gives the authorities the access they wished.

So the original statement was a lie.

Either Apple can gain access to data or they can't.

If it's 100% secure as has been stated then I would presume all terrorists etc etc will be using Apple phones only as the company CEO has stated their terrorist information will be 100% secure from everyone, irrespective.

As I say, personally I'm not paranoid about security myself, if you want to stick webcams around my home to watch me watching TV in my underwear then feel free if that turns you on! lol...

I just wish to be told the truth about privacy.

 

[Neirin]

So should I stop using Google Chrome instead of Safari? I've been wanting to switch completely to Safari but I still use Google Chrome on my Mac Mini.

If privacy is a concern then definitely. I stopped using chrome a while back...

 

[Piggie]

I'd think most normal people are only interested if it's direct personal information, not general information.

For example, do I care that anyone would collect data that is not linked to me, but just tells someone that say a funny video gets a lot of hits, or that, washing machines are being looked at by 10,566 people today, if I'm one of those people.

I suspect no one cares. If it's not linked to YOU at all, just general info.
In the same way, they could, and probably do have camera's in stores that tell them how many people stopped to look at an item that week.
If you are one of those people who stopped and looked, but nothing is known about you, then who cares.
You are just a point of data.

Of course, if the data is linked to you as a person, and personal information about you THE PERSON is taken or held then that's a different story.

Some of this can be good of course.

If you enjoy certain things, perhaps go to certain events or shows, and buy certain items.
Then presenting you with other things along the same lines as other things you have seen or done or bought could be looked upon as positive.

Focussed marketing I guess that would be.

If I could go into a real town in real life, and they saw it was me, and all the stores nearest me, just displayed all the types of things I'm interested in, then would that be a bad thing?

 

[You are the One]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Although Franklin wasn't specifically referring to privacy, his words apply even more today than when he spoke them. However, the vast majority do not understand the threat from government spying, such as:

As I say, personally I'm not paranoid about security myself, if you want to stick webcams around my home to watch me watching TV in my underwear then feel free if that turns you on! lol...

The point is, you shouldn't be paranoid for yourself, since, I'm sure, you've "got nothing to hide", but you should be a good steward of the Constitution for future generations. Allowing a government to lay the foundation for the most powerful totalitarian regime the world has ever seen is irresponsible, even if that future doesn't occur for 50-100 years.

 

[Fenez]

And they got unintelligible encrypted data. It's not hard to acquire that from any public wifi network. Much harder (normally) is cracking it.

I totally agree, and when someone goes through all that trouble to obtain all that data from all those sources year after year, I'm sure they were just collecting it for the hell of it and had no means of decryption..

 

[spinedoc77]

I hope you understand, all I am saying, to Tim Cook is..... "Please Don't Lie to Consumers"

That is all.

Either you can gain access to phone data/calls etc or you can't.
The severity or importance of WHY you should wish that access should have nothing with the ability to do it.

Let me give you an analogy:

A landlord who rents out homes, tells the media and customers, he gives the keys to the apartments to the people living there, and he, and his company has no way of gaining access as they don't have any means to get it.

All great so far.

Then a murder is committed, or some children are suspected are abducted and being held in the building imprisoned, together with weapons and drugs.
A matter of national security perhaps even.

All of a sudden, due to importance of this, a special key? is then found by the landlord which gives the authorities the access they wished.

So the original statement was a lie.

Either Apple can gain access to data or they can't.

If it's 100% secure as has been stated then I would presume all terrorists etc etc will be using Apple phones only as the company CEO has stated their terrorist information will be 100% secure from everyone, irrespective.

As I say, personally I'm not paranoid about security myself, if you want to stick webcams around my home to watch me watching TV in my underwear then feel free if that turns you on! lol...

I just wish to be told the truth about privacy.

Yeah I totally agree. There is a difference between Cook saying "There is NO backdoor" versus "there is a backdoor we would only enable if the circumstances were extreme", the definition of extreme being up in the air. Personally I highly HIGHLY doubt there is no backdoor, it would be completely silly to assume that. I do believe Apple resists requests to enable that backdoor vigorously, but they only have so much power when it comes to the government, especially when a request is twisted and warped by including terrorism or pedophile.

I'm trying not to mix government privacy versus information to advertisers privacy, which I see many others on here mixing. Apple may share advertiser information much less than other companies, but I doubt there is a significant difference in terms of information the government requests in a legal arena.