Tim Cook Urges U.S. Congress to Pass Comprehensive Federal Privacy Legislation in Op-Ed

[69Mustang]

While legislation is fine, Tim and Apple need to step up and encrypt everything with on device keys and then they can obviate some of the need for it.

Make each device its own walled garden and give everyone the power to control what is shared and with whom.

Create new me.com addresses for every login like gmail allows, it do it automatically so no shared addresses or passwords. Then automatically map them to your regular address.

I take an opposite position. Legislation is the answer we all need... something similar to GDPR. That legislation needs to have some consequences. What Apple does is a drop in the bucket regarding personal data and privacy. The sentiment is great. The effectiveness is minimal at best; amounting to more positive marketing than an actual deterrent. We're on a tech site so we focus on the tech aspect of data and privacy, but that's not where we're being sold as a product. Not in any appreciable way.

We need the legislation to cover larger aspects of our data beyond our choice of tech. Our financial info is shared/sold by our banks. Our home info is shared/sold by mortgage companies and rental agencies. Same with our insurance, autos, credit standing, etc. Take your suggestions for example. Sounds nice and secure, and it is. But what are you actually securing? None of the valuable personal info about yourself that's being transacted by the very companies you use. But hey, your phone is secure amirite? So that I'm clear, I'm not advocating for companies like Apple to sit by and do nothing. Far from it. Their efforts do play a part. What I am advocating for is consumers to recognize where they are really being invaded and monetized. Facebook, Google, IG, Twitter, etc. isn't the larger issue. Cook's example of making a purchase at a retailer only highlights the insignificant data trafficking. I understand why he uses the example he does. It's just not really important data when you examine it.

tl;dr We need the legislation more than anything else.

Apologies to all for length.

 

[hawkeye_a]

While I appreciate Apple's stance on privacy and the way it incorporates it into its products (which is one of the reasons I use their products and services; they are better than their competitors). I'm not sure it should be a government regulation....
1. If people want to give up their privacy(or a portion of it) in exchange for services, that should be a choice IMHO.
2. Apple has the money to comply with regulations, adding more regulations serves to create a barrier to entry for new competitors, who would have to have to resources to comply with more regulations.

If businesses violate their terms of service (including privacy violations), the judiciary can deal with that IMHO.

Instead of promoting more government regulations, I think Apple should invest in highlighting the privacy shortcomings of competitors instead, by informing customers of what they are getting into if they go with competitors. IMHO

 

[marco114]

Always be warry when you hear: "I'm from the Government and I am here to help." Government's inherent over regulations on private businesses gives the big players (Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter) the upper hand and makes the small guys suffer the most. Just like cell phone companies, and tele-communications, the regulations regulate out competition and this will be no exception. If you don't like what the companies collect, stop using their services. Plain and simple.

 

[adamjackson]

How far are we from Apple's marketing angle of iPhones cost $200 more than everyone else's because we don't subsidize your data? Why haven't they yet?

 

[DNichter]

It's is only good for the Apple (and other businesses) if consumers reward them for taking this position by not buying the competitor that doesn't care about privacy. The problem is that most people put little value in their personal information, particularly when they get services for free by giving it up.

When people don't care, then it's another excuse for the government to not care. Apple needs to up it's game with regard to educating people about privacy.

Yup, for sure. I agree with the education part of your post also. I think it's good that Apple is establishing this early on (even before this), as I feel this will only become more and more prevalent in the minds of consumers.

 

[BootsWalking]

Hey Tim, how about putting our money where your mouth is and donating the billions of dollars you secretly get from Google every year to the EFF?

 

[unplugme71]

I don’t disagree with Cook but how much is it going to cost consumers? The reason most of this data collection happens is because people want services like Facebook but don’t want to pay money for them. And what happens to Apple as it becomes more of a services company and is less reliant on making money from hardware sales? Can Apple compete with Google, Netflix and others without data collection? Also, of course Big Tech is going to push for regulations because they can afford to comply. In the end does it just stiffle new entrants who can’t afford to comply with the heavy regulations? Is the end result that companies like Facebook and Google become even more powerful?

Facebook doesn’t have to be a free service entirely. It can learn to generate revenue elsewhere. Make a free/paid model for example by unlocking features. If people want it they will pay.

 

[jonblatho]

Instead of promoting more government regulations, I think Apple should invest in highlighting the privacy shortcomings of competitors instead, by informing customers of what they are getting into if they go with competitors.

That’d be a good strategy if Apple didn’t almost religiously follow an opposing strategy of never mentioning competing companies/products.

In doing so, they inherently put themselves on the same level as those competitors. Then (for example) the question becomes “which computer should I buy?” instead of “which Mac should I buy?”

 

[PlainviewX]

The example given by Tim in his letter is dead wrong. If a retailer transfers your purchase information to a third party and such information does not contain personal information that can be linked to you, it is not personal information at all. The data collected by a retailer about his sales and numbers for example, is also personal information of the retailer. I really dont care if a retailer sells the information that I purchased a specific product as long as this information does not contain my name, credit card number and address. It is raw statistic information which is no way personal in nature.

Did you read the article? "Companies should challenge themselves to strip identifying information from customer data."

 

[jonblatho]

Always be warry when you hear: "I'm from the Government and I am here to help." Government's inherent over regulations on private businesses gives the big players (Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter) the upper hand and makes the small guys suffer the most. Just like cell phone companies, and tele-communications, the regulations regulate out competition and this will be no exception. If you don't like what the companies collect, stop using their services. Plain and simple.

That’d be a great solution if Facebook weren’t known to compile “shadow profiles” on people who’ve never signed up or otherwise interacted with the company, if ISPs and cell phone service providers didn’t monetize users’ location and browsing data with no way to fully or even partially opt out, if police departments didn’t employ mass license plate tracking and mass facial recognition through security cameras, etc.

It’s not just that most users are unwitting pawns in this world of data brokering. It’s that it’s basically inescapable unless you’re living in BFE with no network-connected devices whatsoever and you never leave your house. Last I checked, both freedom of movement and privacy were constitutional rights. Pretending like users have a realistic choice in these matters without significant and negative impacts to their lives is as harmful to privacy as the data collection itself.

 

[TheShadowKnows!]

I don’t completely agree. The money has to come from somewhere, yes, but you can still generate revenue and protect the users’ privacy at the same time. Apple is a good example of that.

Sorry, dude.
Apple is no "privacy messiah", as long you care to look under the covers.

Let me give you an indirect example, affecting your privacy:
Apple under Cook heavily promotes sales of its iOS hardware to:

1. auto insurance companies
2. health and care providers
3. ...

Why?
With iOS hardware (heavily subsidized, or even pushed "free", to subscribers), these outfits will monitor and model the targets' private behaviors:

1. auto insurance companies -- will track and record via GPS your auto driving behaviors by location, extent, schedule and speed, ...
2. health-and-care providers -- will track and record physical activity, calorie consumption, sleep habits,...
3. ...

Of course, Cook can claim direct, Apple-driven protections to privacy, because its hardware is the main source of revenue, and all services are paid directly by, or are a derivative of, Apple hardware.

As long as this is the case, Apple can claim to be the "privacy messiah", but it is just posturing.
Just my view.

 

[PracticalMac]

The example given by Tim in his letter is dead wrong. If a retailer transfers your purchase information to a third party and such information does not contain personal information that can be linked to you, it is not personal information at all. The data collected by a retailer about his sales and numbers for example, is also personal information of the retailer. I really dont care if a retailer sells the information that I purchased a specific product as long as this information does not contain my name, credit card number and address. It is raw statistic information which is no way personal in nature.

He wrote:

First, the right to have personal data minimized. Companies should challenge themselves to strip identifying information from customer data or avoid collecting it in the first place. Second, the right to knowledge--to know what data is being collected and why. Third, the right to access. Companies should make it easy for you to access, correct and delete your personal data. And fourth, the right to data security, without which trust is impossible.

He left the details to debate, so he is doing what you want.

I would say location data could note area of 800m (1/2 mile) of your house, not name, credit card number, tele-number. Maybe no email either.

 

[DNichter]

Sorry, dude.
Apple is no "privacy messiah", as long you care to look under the covers.

Let me give you an indirect example, affecting your privacy:
Apple under Cook heavily promotes sales of its iOS hardware to:

1. auto insurance companies
2. health and care providers
3. ...

Why?
With iOS hardware (heavily subsidized, or even pushed "free", to subscribers), these outfits will monitor and model the targets' private behaviors:

1. auto insurance companies -- will track and record via GPS your auto driving behaviors by location, extent, schedule and speed, ...
2. health-and-care providers -- will track and record physical activity, calorie consumption, sleep habits,...
3. ...

Of course, Cook can claim direct, Apple-driven protections to privacy, because its hardware is the main source of revenue, and all services are paid directly by, or are a derivative of, Apple hardware.

As long as this is the case, Apple can claim to be the "privacy messiah", but it is just posturing.
Just my view.

So you're saying that, without my consent, Apple is providing auto insurance companies with my driving behaviors via GPS information? At the same time, all my health data is being shared to health care providers without my consent? Can you please link me to some sort of proof to show this? Also, I never called them a "privacy messiah", not sure where that came from, but I am saying that Apple is better than most.

 

[sw1tcher]

Here is a real world example: a wet floor must have a sign next to it to warn others that it's a trip hazard. . . .

You see how that works?

No. How does one trip on a wet floor?

 

[Jodeo]

There are two extremes hard at work and we're oft being pulled between these powerful forces:

One is a governmental ideology that advances collectivism, that the individual is lesser than the group. It's not married to one political philosophy or party per se.

The other is a social-economic ideology that advances corporatism, which pushes that groups can be manipulated into doing what various organizations want. It is not married to one social or economic model or system (and, worth noting, isn't a synonym for capitalism).

(Pardon the light treatment of both here. This is, after all, an Apple thread; new iMacs and Power Macs notwithstanding...)

These two extremes are not quite "two sides of the same coin." But they are two means to very similar ends: The increasing loss of individualism - personal privacy, personal rights, personal ownership of property, and more. Sometimes they're opposing forces and sometimes they're joined at the hip.

The grand experiment of our flawed but ambitious 'disruptor' founders was to create a framework that placed most of the ownership of life experience and outcome on the individual first (though not quite exclusively) - something akin to autarchy:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There really wasn't anything like it in their world or before. The US Constitution was written not to tell Americans what their rights were but to tell the government what its rights and functions are. It was designed to scale with time through amendments and structured to create a barrier between an overbearing central government and the autonomy and "co-sovereignty" of the states themselves.

For citizens there was an idea of an inherent balance between the individual and those around her or him. A notion that "liberty" is freedom + responsible stewardship, an implication that self-determination is impossible without collaboration, consideration, even humility and delayed gratification.

That we've moved from that to more group-centrism and identity politics exposes, in my opinion, that those two independent forces (collectivism and corporatism) are intensely in play. While our instincts are to build tribes and communities, those same survival instincts are at work within us to guard against our loss of individualism amid vastly large groups, stereotypes, and various demographic constructs: We don't want to be products, we don't want to be manipulated, we don't want to lose our choices or voices.

We just simply want to live and live the best lives we possibly can.

We want to be individuals, "us" - entitled only to the next breath and the choice to make the most of every opportunity before us, owning the rewards and consequences of those choices. But neither as isolated people nor units of political, social, or economic currency. We want to explore and pursue our own course with freedom coupled with responsibility and live our lives as we best see fit, mindful and respectful of those in our sphere of influence. We want to elevate people along the way and leave them better off.

For all our errors and mistakes, even our gross offenses and crimes, we want to overcome them and be defined and regarded by the best we've offered and accomplished - by the brightest qualities of our personhood, not the darkness of the shadows we've cast. And these 'wants' are not appeals for permission, they are the natural yearnings of the soul that we think and act on daily.

It's one thing to be served and enabled by fair and conscientious governments, organizations and businesses to these ends. But for any of them to productize us and dismantle our rights, our privacy, and our liberties inevitably deconstructs our individuality and sells it for parts to the highest bidder or the darkest rulers. Or both.

Therefore, happen or be happened to. Follow those who by their actions demonstrate belief in you and your individuality, who lead with the heart of a servant.

Whatever powerful forces are in play, they depend on us, individually and even in tribes and communities, to either fuel them or overcome them.

Personally, I like our odds.


______________________________________
PS: Mr. Cook is right on this one and we ought to press for this - in the US and throughout the world.
(Change.org petition, anyone?)

 

[justperry]

It's is only good for the Apple (and other businesses) if consumers reward them for taking this position by not buying the competitor that doesn't care about privacy. The problem is that most people put little value in their personal information, particularly when they get services for free by giving it up.

When people don't care, then it's another excuse for the government to not care. Apple needs to up it's game with regard to educating people about privacy.

Who says they don't care, my guess would be most people haven't got a clue about what's going on online.

Note: There's not a single living human which knows 100% what's going on.

 

[ipponrg]

So you're saying that, without my consent, Apple is providing auto insurance companies with my driving behaviors via GPS information? At the same time, all my health data is being shared to health care providers without my consent? Can you please link me to some sort of proof to show this? Also, I never called them a "privacy messiah", not sure where that came from, but I am saying that Apple is better than most.

The poster gave indirect examples, not direct. Apple pushes their privacy from within the box, but does not necessarily have full control over what happens outside the box in their ecosystem.

Think about it outside the box but still within their ecosystem.

 

[TheShadowKnows!]

That’d be a great solution if Facebook weren’t known to compile “shadow profiles” on people who’ve never signed up or otherwise interacted with the company, if ISPs and cell phone service providers didn’t monetize users’ location and browsing data with no way to fully or even partially opt out, if police departments didn’t employ mass license plate tracking and mass facial recognition through security cameras, etc.

It’s not just that most users are unwitting pawns in this world of data brokering. It’s that it’s basically inescapable unless you’re living in BFE with no network-connected devices whatsoever and you never leave your house. Last I checked, both freedom of movement and privacy were constitutional rights. Pretending like users have a realistic choice in these matters without significant and negative impacts to their lives is as harmful to privacy as the data collection itself.

Protection of privacy must rely, to most extent, on personal behaviors, and not on government legislation/intervention.

Stay away from "free" services, refuse "free" or heavily subsidized personal digital assistants, do not register or use "free" anything. (This includes Google apps, and the more obvious, bad actors).​

Not perfect. Nothing is.
The rest you list "is what it is".

[Really, nothing has changed from prior century, other than information is now collected, shared, analyzed, and preserved, digitally. But, at least since mid 1970's, we have the tools of public-key encryption (thanks to Rivest, et al) -- of course, until Quantum computing makes PKE obsolete.]
[doublepost=1547740930][/doublepost]

So you're saying that, without my consent, Apple is providing auto insurance companies with my driving behaviors via GPS information? At the same time, all my health data is being shared to health care providers without my consent? Can you please link me to some sort of proof to show this? Also, I never called them a "privacy messiah", not sure where that came from, but I am saying that Apple is better than most.

DNichter, it is indirect, not direct, support, as I emphasized -- not just once but twice.
But the indirect result is that this hardware will undress, unwittingly, your privacy.
Here are some examples (without trying too hard):

1. Health insurance company lets customers walk off the cost of an Apple Watch, https://www.cultofmac.com
2. Be Wary of Insurance Providers Offering Cheap Apple Watches
   http://ipadinsight.com/apple-news/be-wary-of-insurance-providers-offering-cheap-apple-watches/
   
3. ...

Just my view.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

I don’t disagree with Cook but how much is it going to cost consumers? The reason most of this data collection happens is because people want services like Facebook but don’t want to pay money for them. And what happens to Apple as it becomes more of a services company and is less reliant on making money from hardware sales? Can Apple compete with Google, Netflix and others without data collection? Also, of course Big Tech is going to push for regulations because they can afford to comply. In the end does it just stiffle new entrants who can’t afford to comply with the heavy regulations? Is the end result that companies like Facebook and Google become even more powerful?

Doesn't Apple make something like $9 billion from Google by making them the default on iPhones? If Tim wants to double down on privacy he should ban all apps from the App Store that collect data. That of course would be suicide.

Big tech calling for regulations is like the days when Phillip Morris and Marlboro had such good brand recognition they lobbied for advertising bans on tobacco. Not quite the same but they didn't do it for the public good.

So your iPhone is set up to be harvested from the day you buy it because Apple is willing to take the money so Google can do that.

 

[oliversl]

Tim Cook intention are for the common good, but he is the CEO of Apple, not a politician. Give me back my 650 US$ top of the line iPhone please and remove that screen covering volumen UI

 

[neliason]

I applauded Cook for promoting privacy. But, it all seems somewhat silly. Edward Snowden revealed our own government is spying on us and has deep connections into every major IT or telecom corporation. Apple has denied they are so connected, which makes me doubt their honesty. How will the government making new laws help us when the government is the chief violator of our privacy?

Another real problem I see is that the corporations are too powerful. AT&T has been selling user location for years. But what can we do about it? AT&T is one of a very few cell service providers. This isn’t a real, competitive market. It isn’t a competitive market precisely because of government. Government regulation, licensing, and oversight has allowed AT&T to have tremendous power, limited competition, and face no consequences for violating basic expectations of privacy. Again, more government isn’t the answer as they are the problem and can’t be trusted themselves.

 

[Naraxus]

Sigh. Little Timmy using Apple as his own personal soapbox. What else is new. Tim you have zero credibility because of your stock deception. Get lost so someone who actually CARES about Apple and isn't using it to wh0re out the name to every left-wing political cause can take over where you've failed.

 

[Cosmosent]

What's really needed is a new Law that prevents ANY public company from buying back ANY shares on the open market if they have ANY Debt !

As an alternative, OR in the interim, force them to use (& publish) the new ("Timmy") Debt-adjusted Price to Earnings Ratio (on a Daily Basis) ... simply subtract a company's debt from projected Earnings, & RE-calculate the P/E ratio.

This will very-likely be Tim Cook's legacy (i.e., Generating a new awareness of Corp Debt).

 

[Hirakata]

Here is a real world example: a wet floor must have a sign next to it to warn others that it's a trip hazard. By your logic, the solution is individual vigilance. Whilst that might protect some people, most people aren't on guard, or have an awareness, all the time, so we as a society put rules in place to help protect others for the benefit of all. Plus if we don't have those rules, some people will find ways to take advantage of the lack of rules, some might create trip hazards for a laugh for example, especially if they could monetise videos of people tripping over. We need to protect people from things like that and more.

I see this more as a chicken and egg thing. Are the rules created because people are unaware (sheeple)? Or are people unaware (sheeple) because rules have been created and there is no need for them to be?

To me, there are far too many rules created to protect sheeple that interfere with me being able to do what I would like to.

 

[DNichter]

Protection of privacy must rely, to most extent, on personal behaviors, and not on government legislation/intervention.

Stay away from "free" services, refuse "free" or heavily subsidized personal digital assistants, do not register or use "free" anything. (This includes Google apps, and the more obvious, bad actors).​

Not perfect. Nothing is.
The rest you list "is what it is".

[Really, nothing has changed from prior century, other than information is now collected, shared, analyzed, and preserved, digitally. But, at least since mid 1970's, we have the tools of public-key encryption (thanks to Rivest, et al) -- of course, until Quantum computing makes PKE obsolete.]
[doublepost=1547740930][/doublepost]
DNichter, it is indirect, not direct, support, as I emphasized -- not just once but twice.
But the indirect result is that this hardware will undress, unwittingly, your privacy.
Here are some examples (without trying too hard):

1. Health insurance company lets customers walk off the cost of an Apple Watch, https://www.cultofmac.com
2. Be Wary of Insurance Providers Offering Cheap Apple Watches
   http://ipadinsight.com/apple-news/be-wary-of-insurance-providers-offering-cheap-apple-watches/
   
3. ...

Just my view.

Okay, so nothing of any merit unless you are opting in to this through your insurance provider. Thank you.