Tim Cook on What He Would Do in Mark Zuckerberg's Shoes: 'I Wouldn't Be in This Situation'

[Michael Goff]

People are also forgetting that Apple relented to moving user data to China so Chinese government can have full access. Do you expect a used car salesman to tell the truth?

All cloud services that serve China have to have servers in China. But let’s not let facts get in the way, right?

 

[notabadname]

[JGIGS, post: 25933390, member: 148445] Regarding Jailbreak as an Apple vulnerability:

You asked for proof of something of Apple's being breached and I gave it to you even though it wasn't the reason I liked the original post and wasn't the same as asking for proof of what bad things Google was doing with user data.
[doublepost=1522268841][/doublepost]

A vulnerability is a still a vulnerability. End of story.[/QUOTE]

Simply a stupid argument. Jailbreak requires possession of the device - owner access. If you can jailbreak MY phone, then yes, you have found a “vulnerability”. The “vulnerabilities” in question are clearly cybersecurity related - (measures taken to protect a computer or computer system (as on the Internet) against unauthorized access or attack). The fact that someone can access or alter data on a device they physically have posession of is rather obvious. That would NOT be “unauthorized” as you are the device owner. Yes, Apple wants to keep iPhone buyers in their eco system, so they try to keep owners compliant with the agreement of purchase. But sorry, (actually I’m not), a device owner with physical possession modifiying their own device is completely unrelated to this security and vulnerability discussion. But go ahead and repost the “vulnerability is a vulnerability” again. It’s fun to watch.

 

[mi7chy]

this is an idiotic position. this applies to Chinese users only, and it's true for literally every web service available in China.

Does everything have to be spelled out for you? China's move is to gain full access to data of Apple customers residing in China while cutting off US government access. Apple II users were smart and open minded. What happened?

 

[AdonisSMU]

Deleted.
[doublepost=1522275498][/doublepost]

Simply a stupid argument. Jailbreak requires possession of the device - owner access. If you can jailbreak MY phone, then yes, you have found a “vulnerability”. The “vulnerabilities” in question are clearly cybersecurity related - (measures taken to protect a computer or computer system (as on the Internet) against unauthorized access or attack). The fact that someone can access or alter data on a device they physically have posession of is rather obvious. That would NOT be “unauthorized” as you are the device owner. Yes, Apple wants to keep iPhone buyers in their eco system, so they try to keep owners compliant with the agreement of purchase. But sorry, (actually I’m not), a device owner with physical possession modifiying their own device is completely unrelated to this security and vulnerability discussion. But go ahead and repost the “vulnerability is a vulnerability” again. It’s fun to watch.

It really is unrelated. I can't believe someone would make that at best weak and different argument about jailbreaking. Of course people can put whatever they want to on their device over Apple's objections.

 

[I7guy]

From his part, Zuckerberg would never be in the position of piling truckloads of spurious cash, by slashing customers with recycled iPads, obsolete computers and unavailable Airpads - while constantly pointing at others

Nah, he only gave his customers data away with impunity. Let's see, cash in Ireland and my stuff safe or pay taxes and throw customers data over the wall. I'll stand with Ireland here.
[doublepost=1522275965][/doublepost]

People are also forgetting that Apple relented to moving user data to China so Chinese government can have full access. Do you expect a used car salesman to tell the truth?

I don't know about a used car salesman, but Tim Cook was upfront about this.

 

[developer13245]

"Apple makes money selling products to customers for a profit"

Yes, but Apple is also party to the "user data is product" situation because Apple promulgated the expectation that software should be free. Try selling software on an Apple platform as a small developer and you will understand.

 

[toptekjon]

Not surprised. They’ve had a very hard stand on privacy for a long time.

Agreed. By default, I have about 0 trust in any large corporation, but I trust apple more than any other tech company. They are one of the very few (or even the only?) large tech companies that does not sell your data to earn a profit.
[doublepost=1522276813][/doublepost]

You can have a perfectly normal life without Facebook.

I can confirm that. I have a facebook page out there, but I haven't logged into it in years and I've never been an active user. I kept it simply to use Spotify for a while. I'm stuck with Google in a lot of cases, but I absolutely despise the business model that Google and Facebook both thrive on.
[doublepost=1522276929][/doublepost]

Apple and Facebook are worlds apart on privacy (thank you Apple), but I'd be careful if I were Tim Cook. He's setting himself up to be quoted the next time an App gets through review that does nasty things with user data. Obviously there are safeguards in place to prohibit the app from scraping a bunch of data from the users' contacts but any environment that allows third party code has the potential that the third parties will do bad things.

Before I get the nasty responses, I fully realize that one (Facebook) was created for the express purpose of harvesting user data whereas the other (Apple) has been a champion for safeguarding users. I'm just saying there's potential for abuse of Apple's ecosystem too.
[doublepost=1522256949][/doublepost]

I love that they're doubling down on this upcoming legislative fight by the way.

If an app sneaks through as you say, that is no where near as offensive/bad as a company that has built their entire business model around spying intentionally. Apple can "fix" a shady app. Facebook and google cannot "fix" their business models.

 

[ipedro]

I’m really looking forward to the rumoured Apple ID single sign in for websites replacing Facebook as a universal login.

Let me sign up for a website with Face ID and never have to remember a password again, without worrying about Facebook tracking my activity.

Most websites already include the necessary infrastructure to support this. They allow registering and logging in via Facebook, Google and sometimes even Twitter. Apple could provide a code for the button that would be dropped in and easily allow iOS and macOS devices to instantly register and easily log in without Facebook or Google tracking them.

Hooks for this were found in iOS 11.3. Is it still there? Now is as good a time as any to announce it.

 

[danranda]

Big statement. Can we see your proof that they are doing malicious things with this data?

I actually don't mind ads targeted at me so I can have free google apps and services. Plus if something Google knows I'm interested in buying goes on sale ad I get an ad notifying me of this I see that as added bonus.

Otherwise I just ignore the advertising.

How about when google purposefully injected code into their ads in order to trick mobile safari (iphone users) into "allowing the same tracking every other browser allowed" at that time.

Right there, is proves that when Apple took one of the first steps of the major browsers to, by default, prevent website tracking, Google saw how it was going to disrupt their ad revenue business and decided to subvert the privacy settings of users. That's pretty damn brazen and as close to evil as I think they've come.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225380456599176

 

[Naaaaak]

Simply a stupid argument. Jailbreak requires possession of the device - owner access. If you can jailbreak MY phone, then yes, you have found a “vulnerability”. The “vulnerabilities” in question are clearly cybersecurity related - (measures taken to protect a computer or computer system (as on the Internet) against unauthorized access or attack). The fact that someone can access or alter data on a device they physically have posession of is rather obvious. That would NOT be “unauthorized” as you are the device owner. Yes, Apple wants to keep iPhone buyers in their eco system, so they try to keep owners compliant with the agreement of purchase. But sorry, (actually I’m not), a device owner with physical possession modifiying their own device is completely unrelated to this security and vulnerability discussion. But go ahead and repost the “vulnerability is a vulnerability” again. It’s fun to watch.

You misquoted me; I never said anything you quoted me as saying.

 

[PrayForDeath]

'I Wouldn't Be in This Situation'

This is such a copout answer lol

 

[4jasontv]

Anyone know how to activate cross site tracking on selected sites in iOS?

 

[sumsingwong]

I don’t mind knowing there are lonely housewives ready to hook up in my area.

 

[virduk]

So then...why does Apple allow facebook on their app store?

 

[jinnj]

Hey Tim, unless you’ve personally reviewed every single line of code and checked the configuration of every single switch, firewall, server and database I wouldn’t be so smug.

Statements like that have a terrible tendency to come and bite you in the ass later on.

I still trust Apple completely with my data though.

Except that Facebook's issue was not due to a Bug in code. It knowingly collected and sold all of it's users' information. Remember that Apple has had it's chances to go into the data collection business with iAds and Ping but it hampered itself with it's own privacy policies. The Ad Exec hired to run iAd left crying about how access to any user's data took too many approvals (5 levels which ends with a Board Member's approval) and that is why iAds sucks. Google stopped updating Maps (iOS) because it wanted access to more user information. Magazine Publishers did not want to use iBooks for subscriptions because they "NEED" full user information.
[doublepost=1522287139][/doublepost]

All cloud services that serve China have to have servers in China. But let’s not let facts get in the way, right?

LOL You'll get the "NOT GOOGLE THEY LEFT CHINA" when in reality they got booted and now are trying to get back in!

 

[Arran]

I know they're not perfect. But my trust in Apple is a big part of why I keep giving them my money. I feel like they keep my data more secure than any other company I deal with. Thanks Tim.

And Apple is incentivized to keep your data private because their business model, and cashflow, is built on getting money from you - as opposed to someone else who wants to snoop on you.

If Apple leaks your data then what happens next is governed by brutal free-market principles: You stop paying and they run out of money. It's an in-built safeguard that doesn't exist with the others - like facebook and google - who offer ostensibly 'free' services. With them, it's quite the contrary; The more they leak your data, the more they make.

 

[370zulu]

Christmas would come early this year if FB completely tanks and shuts their filthy doors. Maybe FB zombies could find their way back to reality?

 

[notabadname]

You misquoted me; I never said anything you quoted me as saying.

You area absolutely correct. Please accept my apology. I used quote feature, but clearly I erroneously grabbed you in the embedded quote, as the poster had quoted you as well. I am sorry about the error.

jgigs was the source of the quote, not you. And I edited my original to attribute to correct source of quote.

 

[Naaaaak]

You area absolutely correct. Please accept my apology. I used quote feature, but clearly I erroneously grabbed you in the embedded quote, as the poster had quoted you as well. I am sorry about the error.

jgigs was the source of the quote, not you.

It's all good; it happens

 

[JGIGS]

How about when google purposefully injected code into their ads in order to trick mobile safari (iphone users) into "allowing the same tracking every other browser allowed" at that time.

Right there, is proves that when Apple took one of the first steps of the major browsers to, by default, prevent website tracking, Google saw how it was going to disrupt their ad revenue business and decided to subvert the privacy settings of users. That's pretty damn brazen and as close to evil as I think they've come.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225380456599176

Wasn’t aware and I wouldn’t say it’s cool but it’s still just for advertising so pretty low on the evil scale if you ask me.

Advertising is pretty unavoidable in this day and age people should be used to it by now and chill out. At least they are ads you should be interested in.

 

[Vasilioskn]

I feel like that statement could bite Tim in the ass soon enough

 

[Doc C]

Actually, I think not having an online presence looks a little suspicious. It's normal now to google people you don't know (potential employees for example).

For the longest time, people didn't have Facebook & Google. If you wanted to know about a potential employee, you asked the prior employer, or their professors/colleagues. Why can't they still do that?

I don't understand why it would look suspicious - can you please explain? (serious question, as I know more than a few people who stay away from most, if not all, social media).

 

[dumastudetto]

Thanks Tim! This is one big reason why I will always be 100% loyal to Apple. Everyone needs to be aware of the price you pay when you sell yourself out to Google/Facebook.

 

[bopajuice]

You can have a perfectly normal life without Facebook.

I deleted my account months ago. I can say there is life beyond FB. I've seen it. I find myself outdoors more often, engaged with family, going out and NOT taking pictures of my food. I am not posting pictures about how great my vacation is, I am actually enjoying my vacation. I still take photos, but I show them to friends and family when I actually see them. I have also found I could care less about other family members and friends political views.

 

[fairuz]

I say Apple's "doubling down on privacy" thing is true. They seem committed from the bottom up, even to the point where it hurts them like with iAd's death. I think they implemented iMessage with some overly complicated end-to-end encryption because it's glitchy af. But it's nice that I can trust them better than the other big corps.
[doublepost=1522300986][/doublepost]

People are also forgetting that Apple relented to moving user data to China so Chinese government can have full access. Do you expect a used car salesman to tell the truth?

Either that or they get banned from China. Everyone has laws to obey.
[doublepost=1522301192][/doublepost]

So then...why does Apple allow facebook on their app store?

User choice. Most people want to use Facebook. I'd be upset if they started telling me what services I should use (I don't use the FB app but do use Messenger). FTC or someone would be upset because iMessage is a competitor of FB Messenger. But it would be removed if it were spyware like the Android version.
[doublepost=1522301452][/doublepost]

Simply a stupid argument. Jailbreak requires possession of the device - owner access. If you can jailbreak MY phone, then yes, you have found a “vulnerability”. The “vulnerabilities” in question are clearly cybersecurity related - (measures taken to protect a computer or computer system (as on the Internet) against unauthorized access or attack). The fact that someone can access or alter data on a device they physically have posession of is rather obvious. That would NOT be “unauthorized” as you are the device owner. Yes, Apple wants to keep iPhone buyers in their eco system, so they try to keep owners compliant with the agreement of purchase. But sorry, (actually I’m not), a device owner with physical possession modifiying their own device is completely unrelated to this security and vulnerability discussion. But go ahead and repost the “vulnerability is a vulnerability” again. It’s fun to watch.

If your argument is that it's not a vulnerability if people can't abuse it: Some of the jailbreak vulnerabilities were exploitable through Safari. A malicious website could jailbreak a visitor's phone using a crafted TIF image that caused a buffer overrun, allowing attackers to install whatever they want. Also, don't rule out hardware attacks; plenty of people buy fake accessories.

If you want another one: Remember when iPhones could be bricked by setting the time to 0, and people were like "lol who the heck would do that anyway?" A malicious wifi network could spoof the NTP server and set the phones' times to 0.

Everyone has vulnerabilities. I think Apple are among the best WRT device and OS security (but def not cloud), but they aren't perfect.
[doublepost=1522301626][/doublepost]

You mean the leak that was done through phishing? Where numerous iCloud AND Google account holders were tricked into giving up their passwords?

Or do you still cling to the myth that iCloud was hacked?

True that that wasn't a real hack, but I know for a fact that my iCloud was vulnerable. I was able to reset my password using only security questions, not even an email verification. I couldn't believe it. They've since then fixed that problem.