Tim Cook defends Apple Watch privacy focus in mental health talk

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2023

Tim Cook had to defend Apple's privacy policies during a meeting with Jill Biden and political spouses, after an accusation that Apple Watch users are being actively "watched."

Apple CEO Tim Cook
Apple CEO Tim Cook



Apple CEO Tim Cook welcomed the spouses of political leaders to Apple Park on Friday for a discussion on mental health, while world leaders attended a summit on American-Pacific issues. While seemingly a potentially relaxed gathering, the hour-long meeting did lead to a small amount of controversy.

Cook welcomed Jill Biden, South Korean first lady Kim Keon Hee, Papua New Guinea's Rachael Marape, First Lady of the Philippines Louise Araneta-Marcos, Malaysia's Dr. Wan Azizah binti Wan Ismael, and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Also in attendance was Blackpink singer Rose.

The talks generally covered mental health and social media, reports The Daily Mail, with topics ranging from the effects of social media on celebrities to the importance of connection and coping tools that the COVID pandemic highlighted.



Towards the end of the meeting, Dr. Wan Azizah binti Wan Ismail decided to ask Cook about AI's effects on mental health issues, and pressed to know what Apple was doing about privacy issues. She taunted "If you've ever had an Apple Watch, you are being watched all the time."

Cook initially responded "Absolutely not actually," and that Apple was a "privacy company." He then went into explaining why this is the case, including how the company believes "privacy is a fundamental human right."

He went on to cover Apple's policies to collect as little information as required, the use of on-device collection and storage, and encryption. "Apple doesn't even see them. We can't see them. And if it is somebody wanted to get that from us, we don't have it. It's data that we never collect," he added.

Ismail went on to propose that mental health could be affected if data is taken from Apple's hardware.

Cook countered that "we see that one of the very key roles that we had is providing people privacy and security. These two things go hand in hand."

Read on AppleInsider

FileMakerFeller

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    Disrespectful. 
    edited November 2023 pulseimageswatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 12
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,428member
    Dr. Wan Azizah binti Wan Ismail came off as a paranoid kook for saying that.  

    There are challenges to deal with but those people who don't understand technology should not have a say or make a policy. 


    9secondkox2watto_cobramike1jony0
  • Reply 3 of 12
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,091member
    Imagine being a “Doctor” and being this stupid and misinformed 

    What a nut job
    9secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 12
    A lot of people like to hate on Cook, but his ability to diplomatically, and deftly handle the sticky situations that Apple often finds itself in is highly valuable to the company.

    Jobs himself wouldn't nearly be as good at it; that's just not his personality type.

    Someone like Zuckerberg doesn't project credibility, and lacks gravitas.

    At the worst extreme, someone like Musk is often petulant, passive aggressive when not being confrontational, sometimes delusional, and completely lacking in any sort of empathy or even decency.  Worse, he espouses principles, but clearly lacks any himself, or respect for others' or those of society.
    dewmebadmonkwatto_cobraFileMakerFellerAlex1Nchasmjony0
  • Reply 5 of 12
    I don't think Ismail's comment was that big of a deal. She certainly wasn't belligerent about it, just clearly technologically ignorant. 

    Obviously the watch is monitoring all kinds of things locally all the time and it does send stuff back to Apple's servers to sync with your other devices. That doesn't mean that Apple "is watching". 

    But, when you take into account what people hear about "the cloud" coupled with what they hear about the things Google and Facebook are doing (credible or not), then her ignorance is not that farfetched or unreasonable. 

    It was a teachable moment and Cook handled it with grace. Wasn't that kind of the point of the meeting in the first place? 
    auxiowatto_cobraFileMakerFellerAlex1Nchasmjony0
  • Reply 6 of 12
    Until the results of what I understand are 14+ class actions suits are resolved I would ask if such questions are reasonable...

    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/2
    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/9

    Even IF Apple is not currently accessing the data what could change with a revision buried in the legaleze EULA or a hack...?

    Meanwhile in Germany a prominent auto company is being challenged on a couple of representations including privacy:

    driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-facing-lawsuit-in-germany-over-privacy-concerns-and-climate-claims/
    www.wired.com/story/tesla-surveillance-detection-scout/

    ...will the Vision Pro and rumoured Apple Car cover the last corners of personal data that Apple might as a single entity be potentially able to access or put at risk being hacked ...?

    edited November 2023
  • Reply 7 of 12
    Until the results of what I understand are 14+ class actions suits are resolved I would ask if such questions are reasonable...

    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/2
    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/9

    Even IF Apple is not currently accessing the data what could change with a revision buried in the legaleze EULA or a hack...?

    Meanwhile in Germany a prominent auto company is being challenged on a couple of representations including privacy:

    driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-facing-lawsuit-in-germany-over-privacy-concerns-and-climate-claims/
    www.wired.com/story/tesla-surveillance-detection-scout/

    ...will the Vision Pro and rumoured Apple Car cover the last corners of personal data that Apple might as a single entity be potentially able to access or put at risk being hacked ...?

    Go back to Cook’s comments quoted in this article for your answers. Data isn’t collected if it’s not needed for the specific user service. What is collected is processed and stored on the user device, whenever possible. Data is encrypted for local storage and for cloud storage and syncing between a user’s devices. Apple doesn’t have access to the unencrypted data. 

    As for hacks, nothing should ever be claimed to be unhackable, but some encryption processes are better than others. As for your question about EULA revisions, a company could always change what they do, but for a company that leans heavily into privacy and security as a core reason to choose their devices, making sneaky changes in EULA agreements to do questionable things with privacy and security is a good way to quickly destroy the company’s entire business. So that seems unlikely. 
    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellerAlex1Njony0
  • Reply 8 of 12
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,316member
    Imagine being a doctor who is going to a prestigious meeting with a major corporation’s CEO and failing to do the slightest bit of research on the company you are visiting, including not bothering to visit Apple’s very visible privacy policies, which you can find at apple.com/privacy. That’s how important its privacy polices are to the company.

    I hope she learned something from Cook’s gentle schooling, and will take the time to research such things on her next visit so she doesn’t make incredibly ignorant claims in the course of her “questions.” I’m glad she is so interested in mental health, and I hope she came away with a better understanding of how Apple deeply considers such topics in their product design — more than any other tech company I’m aware of.
    jony0
  • Reply 9 of 12
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,334member
    AppleZulu said:
    Until the results of what I understand are 14+ class actions suits are resolved I would ask if such questions are reasonable...

    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/2
    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/9

    Even IF Apple is not currently accessing the data what could change with a revision buried in the legaleze EULA or a hack...?

    Meanwhile in Germany a prominent auto company is being challenged on a couple of representations including privacy:

    driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-facing-lawsuit-in-germany-over-privacy-concerns-and-climate-claims/
    www.wired.com/story/tesla-surveillance-detection-scout/

    ...will the Vision Pro and rumoured Apple Car cover the last corners of personal data that Apple might as a single entity be potentially able to access or put at risk being hacked ...?

    Go back to Cook’s comments quoted in this article for your answers. Data isn’t collected if it’s not needed for the specific user service. What is collected is processed and stored on the user device, whenever possible. Data is encrypted for local storage and for cloud storage and syncing between a user’s devices. Apple doesn’t have access to the unencrypted data. 

    As for hacks, nothing should ever be claimed to be unhackable, but some encryption processes are better than others. As for your question about EULA revisions, a company could always change what they do, but for a company that leans heavily into privacy and security as a core reason to choose their devices, making sneaky changes in EULA agreements to do questionable things with privacy and security is a good way to quickly destroy the company’s entire business. So that seems unlikely. 
    Given the EULA would have to be public to be enforceable, every lawyer worth their salt would love to find Apple doing something sneaky. The downfall would be fast. Probably faster than the delivery of the software update containing the change. 


    jony0
  • Reply 10 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,249member
    mattinoz said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Until the results of what I understand are 14+ class actions suits are resolved I would ask if such questions are reasonable...

    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/2
    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/9

    Even IF Apple is not currently accessing the data what could change with a revision buried in the legaleze EULA or a hack...?

    Meanwhile in Germany a prominent auto company is being challenged on a couple of representations including privacy:

    driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-facing-lawsuit-in-germany-over-privacy-concerns-and-climate-claims/
    www.wired.com/story/tesla-surveillance-detection-scout/

    ...will the Vision Pro and rumoured Apple Car cover the last corners of personal data that Apple might as a single entity be potentially able to access or put at risk being hacked ...?

    Go back to Cook’s comments quoted in this article for your answers. Data isn’t collected if it’s not needed for the specific user service. What is collected is processed and stored on the user device, whenever possible. Data is encrypted for local storage and for cloud storage and syncing between a user’s devices. Apple doesn’t have access to the unencrypted data. 

    As for hacks, nothing should ever be claimed to be unhackable, but some encryption processes are better than others. As for your question about EULA revisions, a company could always change what they do, but for a company that leans heavily into privacy and security as a core reason to choose their devices, making sneaky changes in EULA agreements to do questionable things with privacy and security is a good way to quickly destroy the company’s entire business. So that seems unlikely. 
    Given the EULA would have to be public to be enforceable, every lawyer worth their salt would love to find Apple doing something sneaky. The downfall would be fast. Probably faster than the delivery of the software update containing the change. 


    The obvious issue with EULA's and ToS agreements is that the rights you the user are granting are generally so inclusive, and lacking clear and concise explanations of the permitted uses and limits on the data collected, that it's near impossible to understand exactly what you have agreed to. An example was the granting of Apple's right to outsource your Siri recordings to a human listener in a foreign country for deeper inspection and logging. No one truly understood they had agreed to it until it was pointed out; legally Apple was not doing anything untoward. 

    Add to that the dozens of pages that Apple uses in their ToS, strewn across different services and locations, and the fact it is all or nothing, and users can be forgiven for throwing their hands up and accepting while hoping for the best. Keep it always in mind: The primary purpose of these agreements is to protect the software developer's intellectual property rights, and allow for limited (??) storage and application of your data collected in the course of using that software. It is not for your benefit. 

    While smart lawyers can craft a EULA worded in such a way that you are given the impression no personal data is being collected, stored, or shared, it is not a guarantee it doesn't happen. EULA's are multi-page and include broad exceptions for good reason. 

    The big techs don't outright lie. They just make sure the terms of service are loose enough to give them cover. 
    edited November 2023 jony0
  • Reply 11 of 12
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,733member
    gatorguy said:
    mattinoz said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Until the results of what I understand are 14+ class actions suits are resolved I would ask if such questions are reasonable...

    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/2
    gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092/slides/9

    Even IF Apple is not currently accessing the data what could change with a revision buried in the legaleze EULA or a hack...?

    Meanwhile in Germany a prominent auto company is being challenged on a couple of representations including privacy:

    driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-facing-lawsuit-in-germany-over-privacy-concerns-and-climate-claims/
    www.wired.com/story/tesla-surveillance-detection-scout/

    ...will the Vision Pro and rumoured Apple Car cover the last corners of personal data that Apple might as a single entity be potentially able to access or put at risk being hacked ...?

    Go back to Cook’s comments quoted in this article for your answers. Data isn’t collected if it’s not needed for the specific user service. What is collected is processed and stored on the user device, whenever possible. Data is encrypted for local storage and for cloud storage and syncing between a user’s devices. Apple doesn’t have access to the unencrypted data. 

    As for hacks, nothing should ever be claimed to be unhackable, but some encryption processes are better than others. As for your question about EULA revisions, a company could always change what they do, but for a company that leans heavily into privacy and security as a core reason to choose their devices, making sneaky changes in EULA agreements to do questionable things with privacy and security is a good way to quickly destroy the company’s entire business. So that seems unlikely. 
    Given the EULA would have to be public to be enforceable, every lawyer worth their salt would love to find Apple doing something sneaky. The downfall would be fast. Probably faster than the delivery of the software update containing the change. 


    The obvious issue with EULA's and ToS agreements is that the rights you the user are granting are generally so inclusive, and lacking clear and concise explanations of the permitted uses and limits on the data collected, that it's near impossible to understand exactly what you have agreed to. An example was the granting of Apple's right to outsource your Siri recordings to a human listener in a foreign country for deeper inspection and logging. No one truly understood they had agreed to it until it was pointed out; legally Apple was not doing anything untoward. 

    Add to that the dozens of pages that Apple uses in their ToS, strewn across different services and locations, and the fact it is all or nothing, and users can be forgiven for throwing their hands up and accepting while hoping for the best. Keep it always in mind: The primary purpose of these agreements is to protect the software developer's intellectual property rights, and allow for limited (??) storage and application of your data collected in the course of using that software. It is not for your benefit. 

    While smart lawyers can craft a EULA worded in such a way that you are given the impression no personal data is being collected, stored, or shared, it is not a guarantee it doesn't happen. EULA's are multi-page and include broad exceptions for good reason. 

    The big techs don't outright lie. They just make sure the terms of service are loose enough to give them cover. 
    Very true. This is one nasty area that needs a legislative hammer smack. 

    Not only the wording but how the terms are presented. 

    No new changes to previously accepted terms should be presented on first use (after installation). They should be presented prior to download. They should also present the changes to the terms clearly in summary form instead of requiring the users to hunt for changes by re-reading the entire agreement again. 
    gatorguy
Sign In or Register to comment.