Yes, that's what you are supposed to believe. Because it's true. There have been news stories about various law agencies being frustrated by apple's inability to provide decrypted messages.
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.
Tim Cook Speaks on Privacy in New Interview: 'We Try Not to Collect Data'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've seen stories about how law enforcement can't crack or view iMessages in real time because of the encryption but none about getting them subpoenaed after.
On his values, Tim Cook says that he believes in treating all people with dignity, regardless of color, religion sexual orientation, and gender. "Everyone deserves respect." Cook goes on to comment on the driving force behind Apple, which he says is a goal to enrich people's lives and change the world, not to be the largest company.
If only this were true Tim. White males need not apply though, right?
If only this were true Tim. White males need not apply though, right?
In the news there are also security researches who state that Apple has the capability to act as "man in the middle" in the encrypted communication since the user has no control of the encryption keys used: Apple's iMessage encryption claims refuted (again)
What you are saying is nonsense. You are confusing what happens inside a company and what happens with customer accounts. My company can reset my passwords and access data stored in my name. It's not private data. The data belongs to my company. If I'm run over by a bus tomorrow, they have a right to access data protected with my employee password. I'm sure Apple can access the data of their employees in the same way.
But we are talking about customer data here. It would be _criminal_ for a database or security administrator at Apple to have access to _my_ customer data. So again, where is your evidence that Apple has access to customer data?
He is wrong. Apple _would have_ that capability if they chose to have it. But they don't. It's like saying that the locksmith installing the locks at your house has the capability to enter because he could have made copies of the keys when he installed them. He _would have_ the capability if he acted criminally. But since he didn't, he doesn't have that capability.
I don't get what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that white males can't get jobs at Apple? That will be big news to Tim Cook.
That's what Tim Cook says, so you can believe it. The trick here is that if Apple _can_ access the data then they have to access it. If they _can't_ access the data then there is nobody to force them to do something impossible, and nobody can force them to change the way iMessage works. It's like if a suspected murderer threw his gun over your garden fence; you have to let the cops in to search it or give it to them if you found it. If it's not there, or if it cannot be found, or if it dropped into a hole where it can't be removed, there's nothing you can do or have to do.
If there is evidence for a crime in your possession, you have to give it to the cops. If it's not in your possession, then you don't have to do a thing.
Last edited:
The analogy doesn't work because basically I don't have the keys of my own house when I use iMessage: I trust Apple to use my key to encrypt the message, but I actually have no control about this: Apple has the technical capability to use a different key, which allows them to break end-to-end encryption.
As far as I understand according the the law in the US Apple could be requested to employ this capability and be forbidden through a gag order to inform about it. That's the reason e.g. LavaBit had to shut down its operations and companies in general only report cumulated statistics about information requests from government agencies.
It's seriously naive for anyone to believe that any company in the world does not collect data, while it has the ability to do so. Maybe in the fairy land, but not in this planet, not today.
It would be more decent for Apple to say that they will not give away the data for commercial/financial benefit (which actually I know they won't) instead of "We try not to collect them". Seriously apple ? You "try not to" ? This sentence worries me more than if they didn't say anything about it.
It would be more decent for Apple to say that they will not give away the data for commercial/financial benefit (which actually I know they won't) instead of "We try not to collect them". Seriously apple ? You "try not to" ? This sentence worries me more than if they didn't say anything about it.
How do you know that lava it was any different. The problem with Internet and all the services that live on the Internet is that at the end of the day you still have to take that leap of faith.
Let's say I'm an email provider. I'm saying that I have no access to your mail and IM. Tell me exactly how or what I need to do so you actually believe me?
100% honest provider with no backdrops or whatever.
It's not naive. Everything Apple has done in the past, and continues to do today backs the words of Tim Cook. That's undeniable proof through actions of the company.
By saying "try not to" he means they strive to ensure they only collect the data that is absolutely necessary and nothing more. Obviously there's certain bits of data they must collect to provide products and services to us on a daily basis. But Apple doesn't go further than the necessary. Whereas the likes of Google and Facebook want to collect every shred of data they can about us, and build a business around amassing this treasure trove of information.
Well played, Apple. This has VERY likely sold me back away from Android - at the very least it's helped me choose which tablet to get.
Google, by contrast, are completely shameless about how much info they harvest about you, with the classic attitude of "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about"
I don't like how locked-down things are with Apple. See NFCgate as a classic example. But it is definitely lesser of the evils at the moment, plus there can be some decent arguments in favour of the locking down as well.
Google, by contrast, are completely shameless about how much info they harvest about you, with the classic attitude of "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about"
I don't like how locked-down things are with Apple. See NFCgate as a classic example. But it is definitely lesser of the evils at the moment, plus there can be some decent arguments in favour of the locking down as well.
I've given up believing in privacy and just accepted the fact that privacy is dead.
I don't like it but it's easier just living with the fact and knowing that I'm a law abiding citizen happy to toe the line. If my government investigated me they would probably be pretty bored, student, drinks, plays rugby/weights, computer geek, gamer, works in an uninteresting job.
The NSA & GCHQ have pretty much limitless access to the worlds internet.
Big businesses like Google accumulate and assimilate everything they can about me.
Democracy is just a show nowadays - especially in the US.
I'm not some conspiracy nut, just an ordinary guy who's come to accept these facts, and I don't really care so long as I can live a happy peaceful life with as little government interference as possible.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/09/the-fbi-just-finished-its-insane-new-facial-recognition-system/
FBI's new facial recognition system.
We live in an Orwellian world now, I just like to believe my government will stay on the right side of the line between invasive and oppressive. But one thing movies and books often forget is general government incompetence and inefficiency, as well as realising our politicians are often a lot less intelligent than we like to imagine, George Bush anyone?
But I also feel things are a lot more Brave New World - all the relevant information is there, we're just overloaded by masses of disinformation and a general apathy to the whole situation. Who cares what the US and UK are up to? Reality TV 24/7, super markets, cheap fuel, jobs - no one cares providing life is 'good'.
Oh and I also use Ghostery and plenty of Adblock Filters just to make my online movements that bit more private
.
I don't like it but it's easier just living with the fact and knowing that I'm a law abiding citizen happy to toe the line. If my government investigated me they would probably be pretty bored, student, drinks, plays rugby/weights, computer geek, gamer, works in an uninteresting job.
The NSA & GCHQ have pretty much limitless access to the worlds internet.
Big businesses like Google accumulate and assimilate everything they can about me.
Democracy is just a show nowadays - especially in the US.
I'm not some conspiracy nut, just an ordinary guy who's come to accept these facts, and I don't really care so long as I can live a happy peaceful life with as little government interference as possible.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/09/the-fbi-just-finished-its-insane-new-facial-recognition-system/
FBI's new facial recognition system.
We live in an Orwellian world now, I just like to believe my government will stay on the right side of the line between invasive and oppressive. But one thing movies and books often forget is general government incompetence and inefficiency, as well as realising our politicians are often a lot less intelligent than we like to imagine, George Bush anyone?
But I also feel things are a lot more Brave New World - all the relevant information is there, we're just overloaded by masses of disinformation and a general apathy to the whole situation. Who cares what the US and UK are up to? Reality TV 24/7, super markets, cheap fuel, jobs - no one cares providing life is 'good'.
Oh and I also use Ghostery and plenty of Adblock Filters just to make my online movements that bit more private
.
"try not to collect" is not the same as "won't collect"
Yet Apple does say in their Terms they don't collect personal data, for some things..
Therefore, that is false.
I hate when companies hide behind the fact what they are really up to.
Customers have a right to know what infio, not just generalizing it. But all you'll get from Apple is the standard "We do not collect any info"
er. yes u do. maybie not personal info, but that depends on what your doing.
Yet Apple does say in their Terms they don't collect personal data, for some things..
Therefore, that is false.
I hate when companies hide behind the fact what they are really up to.
Customers have a right to know what infio, not just generalizing it. But all you'll get from Apple is the standard "We do not collect any info"
er. yes u do. maybie not personal info, but that depends on what your doing.
not sure if serious.....
He is saying APPLE does not read your emails and share the content keywords to advertisers -- that is the context here. Baysean software to filter and bucket spam is NOT (not in any functional definition within the known universe) the same as reading your email with intent to sell you as a product through business partners.
If you handle the encryption for me? No way I can 100% trust you, and that's the key issue. Basically the design of iMessage was made with a compromise between security and ease of use: it's not 100% secure but thanks to the compromise taken it's much easier to use. Without Apple handling the keys automatically for the user this burden would fall on the users themselves, and many would not be able to do it or be willing to do it.
In my opinion its a good compromise, but the compromise is there and it's correct to take note of it.
not sure if serious.....
He is saying APPLE does not read your emails and share the content keywords to advertisers -- that is the context here. Baysean software to filter and bucket spam is NOT (not in any functional definition within the known universe) the same as reading your email with intent to sell you as a product through business partners.
Can you tell me who sell the keywords to advertisers?
So, the one that seem not being serous is you with all the wrong claims about selling you, you being the product,...
I'm not hugely concerned about NSA or GCHQ. I do think there's a question there of "why would they care about what I get up to?".
I don't really like the idea of them routinely saving every single bit of communication, because leaks happen, what's legal now (let's say homosexuality) might not be legal in future if nutjobs come to power etc. But the thought that they can ask for data through a court order as part of a genuine investigation doesn't concern me much.
However even if the NSA do save every byte, yes I'm annoyed and it needs to stop and all the campaigning against it needs to continue... but in all honesty in the grand scheme of things I'm far more concerned with all the mining that Google and the ad networks do, and the implications that has. Even on a basic level, no one wants to search for car insurance and then be hounded by ads for it for the next 6 months. To say nothing of the creepiness levels that Android is suspected of going to.
I don't really like the idea of them routinely saving every single bit of communication, because leaks happen, what's legal now (let's say homosexuality) might not be legal in future if nutjobs come to power etc. But the thought that they can ask for data through a court order as part of a genuine investigation doesn't concern me much.
However even if the NSA do save every byte, yes I'm annoyed and it needs to stop and all the campaigning against it needs to continue... but in all honesty in the grand scheme of things I'm far more concerned with all the mining that Google and the ad networks do, and the implications that has. Even on a basic level, no one wants to search for car insurance and then be hounded by ads for it for the next 6 months. To say nothing of the creepiness levels that Android is suspected of going to.
I think that you've missed the difference I tried to point out between collecting and using. Let me say it in more detail:
Apple can claim all they want that they try not to collect data. They will not prove it, so you (and me) are not able to know if it's true (unless we get access to their data centers). And I'd bet anything, it is not true. Cause they can use this data internally. Any user data is valuable in long term.
On the other hand, Apple can claim they will not use the data externally (e.g. allow 3rd party to have access to them for financial benefit, spam you with ads etc) like Google does constantly. Now, that, I believe. And it has been proved to be true.
But Tim didn't claim the second. He chose to claim the first. I wish he didn't, cause it cannot be true. Having said that, I still trust Apple more than any other company on that matter.
ALL publicly traded companies are accountable to their shareholders. Trying to sneak in billions and billions of offshore dollars and instituting share buyback programs are done for the shareholder's benefit.
Try to get out of the house for at least a couple of hours a day, would ya'.
Google don't sell the data directly. If they did that, advertisers wouldn't need them anymore. It makes no business sense.
Data can only be sold once, black-box targeted advertising can be sold again and again.
The key issues are 1) whether or not you trust Google's own use of the data 2)Security, outsiders can't hack what isn't stored. 1 is nuanced because advertising isn't the only thing Google collects user data for, they also use it to provide services like Google Now and optimize search results.
Perhaps is well stablished for people that don't know how they work, but it doesn't make more real
And just because a MR m.... cannot accept Apple to be as bad as other companies, it means something?