Tim Cook Speaks on Privacy in New Interview: 'We Try Not to Collect Data'

[spectrumfox]

People actually mention the word "guarantee" when it comes to data security on the Internet?

There is never a guarantee. It doesn't even matter whether or not the NSA has backdoors to Apple, Google, etc. If the NSA wants your data, they will get it, and a backdoor into some company servers only makes it marginally easier for them.

The more important question is whether or not Apple collects data for the sake of collecting data. When the NSA collects data, then at least I can say that it is a government agency which works for an elected government (with the most important question being not whether data is being collected but whether the government still has full control over that agency). But I have never elected Google or Apple. I may have bought their products, but that does not imply that I wanted to imbue them with any kind of "power". But data is raw power. If people feel more comfortable with that power being in the hands of corporations than with that power being in the hands of elected governments, then capitalism has really won big time.

Google for example could know more about most people than even their closest friends or their spouses. They can correlate huge amounts of data into profiles that say more about you than you would ever be willing to reveal to any living person. And they are very much in the business of using that data. The NSA is at least supposed to be bound by laws and due process, and they are supposed to be tightly controlled by the government (and yes, note the usage of the word "supposed"). Google on the other hand is pretty much free to do whatever they want. There is not even a "supposed" level of control there. People worry about the NSA and babble about Big Brother while naively ignoring the real threat. My vision of the future is that Google will be Big Brother. A non-elected corporation outside of any public control whatsoever using its knowledge to exert power. Heck, there are already many many people who have telescreens with Google software on it in their living rooms. That is the scenario I really worry about. And that is why a statement like "We don't collect data" is a fairly major statement to me. As far as I am concerned, no company should be allowed to collect data beyond what the customers have very explicitly asked them to collect.

Out of curiosity, how come you see Google as being the "Big Brother" persona and not a company like Facebook?

Personally, Facebook scares me more than Google does. The government keeps a watchful eye on Google to make sure they don't overstep their boundaries, but who's watching Facebook?

People put their whole lives on Facebook. Purposely. They upload pics of their kids, of their families, of their food, of their pets, of their cars, of their jobs. Selfies galore. People tell Facebook what they're doing at all times. Where they go. Who they talk to. Who they're involved with.

And all that data goes into the hands of Mark Zuckerberg.

That's a scarier thought than what Google collects from web searches.

 

[gnasher729]

We don't read your iMessage... But they will be analysing it in the watch... They showed that.

_Your_ watch can do things without Apple ever knowing. Please apply some common sense. If I send you an iMessage, and your iPad displays it, how can it do that without knowing the content of the message? The point is that _Apple_ doesn't know it.

Even if Apple 'analyses it', something may be sent to Apple in an encrypted form, processed in some way, the results sent back, without any trace of that information left at Apple.

You should have no expectation of privacy for anything that goes to any cloud or server.

Traverse, this is so wrong, wrong, wrong and an absolutely defeatist attitude. You should have a 100% expectation of privacy for anything that goes to any cloud or server. "No expectation of privacy" means you can't complain if someone accesses it. Of course you can complain. You have every right to complain. A breach of your privacy will most likely involve a criminal act. If a law enforcement agency gets your data from Apple, then this may be legal but you can complain very very loudly because Tim Cook didn't tell you the truth.

There is never a guarantee. It doesn't even matter whether or not the NSA has backdoors to Apple, Google, etc. If the NSA wants your data, they will get it, and a backdoor into some company servers only makes it marginally easier for them.

That isn't quite right. If the NSA wants my data, and I'm in the top 100 of people whose data they want, they will get it (since I'm just an ordinary citizen in an ordinary country. Putin is probably much higher on their list and they will find it a lot harder to get his data). But the NSA wants _everyone's_ data and they don't have the manpower to achieve that, as long as companies like Apple make it hard for them.

The fact that Apple and other companies always state that they "try" to keep our data private or state that they share a few things is ominous. You'd think that they'd at least say "we share nothing". I mean, that's what the privacy policy on my networked app says, even though there's nothing in place to guarantee that.

That's just paranoid mentality. When Tim Cook makes a public statement, it must be true. "Try" is true. He cannot make a one hundred percent guarantee that nobody will ever be able to access your data. There is no hundred percent guarantee for anything in live. That's why an honest person will not tell you that they give you a hundred percent guarantee. If Tim Cook said "I give you a hundred percent guarantee that your data can never be accessed by someone who shouldn't" then we would all know he is lying. When he says "We try whatever we can to make sure that nobody can access your data" then he's saying the truth.

 

[shootingrubber]

You should have no expectation of privacy for anything that goes to any cloud or server.

Don't use the internet, don't use your phone or computer in public, and never connect to the internet ever if you want true privacy.

 

[kironin]

Uhh, don't think Apple doesn't sell your personal data to companies. Because they have in the past. Don't think they won't again if the opportunity arises.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=apple sells user data

Putting blind faith into a multibillion dollar company is a fool's errand. Don't be a fool.

be a bigger fool yourself, if you think that comes anywhere near what google does in it's ecosystem you're just deluding yourself.

...

 

[spectrumfox]

be a bigger fool yourself, if you think that comes anywhere near what google does in it's ecosystem you're just deluding yourself.

...

You should probably read the rest of the thread and catch up...

 

[kironin]

It's adorable you believe that.



Wise words.



Ok then I trust Google and Eric Schmidt.

It's adorable how you think that was a valid comeback in any way shape or form.

...

 

[spectrumfox]

Traverse, this is so wrong, wrong, wrong and an absolutely defeatist attitude. You should have a 100% expectation of privacy for anything that goes to any cloud or server. "No expectation of privacy" means you can't complain if someone accesses it. Of course you can complain. You have every right to complain. A breach of your privacy will most likely involve a criminal act. If a law enforcement agency gets your data from Apple, then this may be legal but you can complain very very loudly because Tim Cook didn't tell you the truth.

People too easily forget the number one rule of the Internet:

Do not put anything on the Internet that you do not want the whole world to see.

No matter how much a large corporations tells you your data is safe, it does not supersede the number one rule of the Internet. This includes clouds and servers. Some famous celebrities recently figured this out the hard way.

 

[Mr Fusion]

be a bigger fool yourself, if you think that comes anywhere near what google does in it's ecosystem you're just deluding yourself.

...

Quit comparing companies, they're all evil. Wake up already!!!!!

Anyone that would defend a "corporation" is a fool. They're all in the same business... The business of screwing you over. Apple's "different" only because they've pulled the wool over the eyes of a bunch of already blind fanboys. Get a life.

 

[shootingrubber]

Quit comparing companies, they're all evil. Wake up already!!!!!

Anyone that would defend a "corporation" is a fool. They're all in the same business... The business of screwing you over. Apple's "different" only because they've pulled the wool over the eyes of a bunch of already blind fanboys. Get a life.

What? Tell me how all corporations are evil.

 

[kironin]

You should probably read the rest of the thread and catch up...

Why would I bother given such idiotic responses from what are probably kids that were someone's oocyte when I hacked into my first computer system.

...

 

[spectrumfox]

Why would I bother given such idiotic responses from what are probably kids that were someone's oocyte when I hacked into my first computer system.

...

Well, that's not pretentious at all.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple can reset your password at any time, they can get into your account whenever they want to - let's no be silly here.

Doesn't mean they read everyones messages, they don't care.

But they will give access to your account when the government knocks on their door - they have to.

Cook is intentionally misleading in his statement about the encryption of messages.

So what evidence do you have for that? None?

 

[spectrumfox]

So what evidence do you have for that? None?

Well, there are some truths and some non-truths about what they said.

Apple can reset your password at any time, and someone (or some group) at Apple can get into your account whenever they want to. It's standard for a high-level database and/or security administrator to have master access to databases and customer data. It's how companies who handle customer data work. Apple is no different.

It doesn't mean they read everyone's messages. They really don't care, and I'd hope the people with access to our data have better things to do than to be snooping around.

Apple will fight for your right to privacy when the government comes knocking, but that doesn't automatically mean they'll win.

Cook isn't really misleading about the encryption of your data to iCloud. It is secure on it's way to and from your device. Someone (or some group) at Apple does hold the master key though.

 

[gnasher729]

Google, like Apple, only encrypts email in transit IFF the receiving server supports such encryption. Many do not support it because email is, as cmaier pointed out, inherently insecure. The base protocol has no option for encryption.

Well, there is the S/MIME protocol, which I think is fully supported by Apple's Mail software. It's transparent to the mail server. Not all clients support it, but many do. There are some problems with it, like you need a publicly available encryption key, and I need to know it, to send you an encrypted message.

I really don't get why people think Apple is so "good" compared to other companies. At the end of the day, they're in it to maximize shareholder profit, by any means necessary short of doing something that would land them all in prison. I guess if it makes everyone feel better that they "try" to be "good", then that's fine. I for one don't trust them any more than I do Microsoft/Google/GM/etc.

You are wrong there. A company has its statutes, and it doesn't say "maximize shareholder profit" in there. And doing "anything necessary short of doing something that would land them all in prison" is a very good method to minimize shareholder profit, because people will stop buying your products. Here's the motto of my CEO: "Look after the customers, look after the employees, and the share price will look after itself". And for the last ten years, that has worked very, very well.

 

[Mr Fusion]

What? Tell me how all corporations are evil.

No.

 

[shootingrubber]

No.

You lost already. Even a lot of small businesses are incorporated. You can't tell me they're evil too.

 

[Mr Fusion]

You are wrong there. A company has its statutes, and it doesn't say "maximize shareholder profit" in there. And doing "anything necessary short of doing something that would land them all in prison" is a very good method to minimize shareholder profit, because people will stop buying your products. Here's the motto of my CEO: "Look after the customers, look after the employees, and the share price will look after itself". And for the last ten years, that has worked very, very well.

Were there six or seven rainbows today in that fantasy world you're living in?

 

[bsolar]

People too easily forget the number one rule of the Internet:

Do not put anything on the Internet that you do not want the whole world to see.

No matter how much a large corporations tells you your data is safe, it does not supersede the number one rule of the Internet. This includes clouds and servers. Some famous celebrities recently figured this out the hard way.

The rule is meant about data users make available to the public, not private data never meant to be published made available without the user's consent.

The fact that security is never 100% guaranteed doesn't mean we don't have an expectation of privacy. As example I use eBanking which means my bank account data are available on internet, but I expect to be the only one able to access it, and I surely don't expect this data to become public or to be forwarded to third parties.

Expectation of privacy doesn't mean it can't happen, but it surely means it shouldn't.

 

[elvislives]

Google, Microsoft.....we collect your life.

 

[batchtaster]

No, Apple forced a free album onto everyone. If they gave it or offered it to people, it would have been opt-in.

They didn't force a tricking thing. They added it to your purchased items. That's it. That's the entirety of everything that they did. As someone who was actually looking for it, I was confused that I couldn't find it. Because I had auto-download and visibility of un-download store content both turned off.

Or in other words, your tin-foil hat has its own tin-foil hat firmly attached, all because every one of your devices behaved EXACTLY according to your settings for EVERY OTHER THING THAT YOU"VE EVER OBTAINED FROM THE STORE. Oh my god, the horror. And the ridiculous dramatics due to a severe lack of knowledge.

 

[bsolar]

They didn't force a tricking thing. They added it to your purchased items. That's it. That's the entirety of everything that they did. As someone who was actually looking for it, I was confused that I couldn't find it. Because I had auto-download and visibility of un-download store content both turned off.

Or in other words, your tin-foil hat has its own tin-foil hat firmly attached, all because every one of your devices behaved EXACTLY according to your settings for EVERY OTHER THING THAT YOU"VE EVER OBTAINED FROM THE STORE. Oh my god, the horror. And the ridiculous dramatics due to a severe lack of knowledge.

Automatic downloads did behave according to my setting, except that it downloaded a purchase I didn't make nor want. Apple added it to my purchased items without my consent which is exactly why people talk about the album being "forced".

Even Apple more or less admitted their approach was incorrect with their quick release of a way to remove the album from user's accounts. If there was no problem Apple wouldn't have to release a way to fix it.

 

[MentalFloss]

Out of curiosity, how come you see Google as being the "Big Brother" persona and not a company like Facebook?

Good question. Perhaps I am naive there myself. But my feeling is that with Facebook, I am sharing my data much more consciously. I place personal information there, share pictures, like pages, etc. Facebook is about storing data to begin with, so I always know in every single transaction with Facebook that data is at the core of my relationship with Facebook. My feeling is that this makes it easier for me to restrict myself to sharing only certain bits and pieces with Facebook that I consider "public".

With Google, it is not such a conscious thing. I do web searches, I use Google mail, I watch videos on Youtube, I use Google docs, I buy apps on Google Play, I check flights on Google, I have a stock portfolio on Google Finance, and my Android devices are logged into my Google account - devices which can track my location and which contain a camera and a microphone. In fact, if I do my Facebook updates on an Android device, then - at least theoretically - Google could know everything about me that Facebook knows, plus everything else that Google can collect about me.

None of these Google services are directly about sharing data. The data part is always more of an afterthought and not the core of the service. And that is why in my eyes, many people don't even realize how much Google knows about them. Everyone knows what Facebook knows about them, because they knowingly placed the data on Facebook's servers, but people don't realize that Google might know their next vacation destination, or what they are planning to give their wife as a birthday present, or which stocks they are evaluating or even which candidate they are going to vote for in the next election! Unless I actively like a candidate on Facebook, they will not know that. Google could get that out of a few badly worded web searches.

(By the way, before someone accuses me of knowingly running into the situation that I am warning about by using Google services left and right - I am using several Google accounts to avoid data correlation, but I actually realize that it is scary how indispensable Google has become even for Google paranoiacs like me.)

 

[cmaier]

Of course your iPad knows what the message is. But Apple does not. Your iPad decrypts it with a key that apple does not have.

People think that because your iPhone or iPad has data then apple just have it. Not true.

This is all nicely said.

_Your_ watch can do things without Apple ever knowing. Please apply some common sense. If I send you an iMessage, and your iPad displays it, how can it do that without knowing the content of the message? The point is that _Apple_ doesn't know it.

Even if Apple 'analyses it', something may be sent to Apple in an encrypted form, processed in some way, the results sent back, without any trace of that information left at Apple.



Traverse, this is so wrong, wrong, wrong and an absolutely defeatist attitude. You should have a 100% expectation of privacy for anything that goes to any cloud or server. "No expectation of privacy" means you can't complain if someone accesses it. Of course you can complain. You have every right to complain. A breach of your privacy will most likely involve a criminal act. If a law enforcement agency gets your data from Apple, then this may be legal but you can complain very very loudly because Tim Cook didn't tell you the truth.



That isn't quite right. If the NSA wants my data, and I'm in the top 100 of people whose data they want, they will get it (since I'm just an ordinary citizen in an ordinary country. Putin is probably much higher on their list and they will find it a lot harder to get his data). But the NSA wants _everyone's_ data and they don't have the manpower to achieve that, as long as companies like Apple make it hard for them.



That's just paranoid mentality. When Tim Cook makes a public statement, it must be true. "Try" is true. He cannot make a one hundred percent guarantee that nobody will ever be able to access your data. There is no hundred percent guarantee for anything in live. That's why an honest person will not tell you that they give you a hundred percent guarantee. If Tim Cook said "I give you a hundred percent guarantee that your data can never be accessed by someone who shouldn't" then we would all know he is lying. When he says "We try whatever we can to make sure that nobody can access your data" then he's saying the truth.

 

[andyx3x]

I'm not sure if I believe Tim Cook here. Am I supposed to believe that if the feds or the local police go to Apple and subpoena someone's iMessages in a criminal investigation they'll be told they can't get it?

I have a hard time believing that.

 

[MacMulti]

You should have no expectation of privacy for anything that goes to any cloud or server.

That being said, I do trust Apple more than most companies. With their stance on privacy up to this point, I feel they've earned that. Still, the only things that are truly private are those stored in an offline, password protected device or your mind.

I too buy what Apple say, ok so far. If this 'We Try Not to Collect Data' was spurted by Google, I would say FO.