or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple says iPhone tracking lawsuit doesn't demonstrate harm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple says iPhone tracking lawsuit doesn't demonstrate harm - Page 2

post #41 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I get it. So if I steal your car, it's perfectly OK as long as I sell it along with a bunch of other stolen cars and don't tell anyone which one is yours.

Got it.

Let me dumb this down as much as possible for you. Let's say Home Depot wants to place an ad for drill sets on the page of anyone who searches “drill sets." Home Depot uses a service like ours (or can do it themselves) to manage an account with Google that has a listing of every product they sell. Along with this listing, they attach a bid, which says, “we are willing to pay $0.xx every time someone clicks on an ad for our product." When the search for drill sets is made, an ad for Home Depot drill sets would be placed on the results page of the search, assuming that Home Depot's bid was in the top x number of bids for that product. If the person who searched for drill sets clicked on the Home Depot ad, Home Depot would pay their bid and a click would be registered on their Google advertising account. When Home Depot logs in to their account, they can see how many impressions were made, how many clicks their ads received, how much they owe for the clicks they received, and a few other stats of this nature. Information about who clicked an ad is not available. Information about who clicked an ad cannot be requested. Does this make sense?
post #42 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Let me dumb this down as much as possible for you. Let's say Home Depot wants to place an ad for drill sets on the page of anyone who searches “drill sets." Home Depot uses a service like ours (or can do it themselves) to manage an account with Google that has a listing of every product they sell. Along with this listing, they attach a bid, which says, “we are willing to pay $0.xx every time someone clicks on an ad for our product." When the search for drill sets is made, an ad for Home Depot drill sets would be placed on the results page of the search, assuming that Home Depot's bid was in the top x number of bids for that product. If the person who searched for drill sets clicked on the Home Depot ad, Home Depot would pay their bid and a click would be registered on their Google advertising account. When Home Depot logs in to their account, they can see how many impressions were made, how many clicks their ads received, how much they owe for the clicks they received, and a few other stats of this nature. Information about who clicked an ad is not available. Information about who clicked an ad cannot be requested. Does this make sense?

Yes, I know. You and others insist that Google is a perfectly fine, upstanding company and all of your personal information is safe with them - in spite of a long history of their violation of people's privacy rights and companies' IP. It doesn't matter how many times they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar - they're really only there to protect our privacy and are, in fact, the only thing standing between us and anarchy.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #43 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, I know. You and all the other shills 

 

Oh for goodness' sake.  Every day we watch you call anyone who doesn't hate the same things you hate, a shill.  It's totally lost any meaning in your posts, you do it so often.

 

Quote:
insist that Google is a perfectly fine, upstanding company and all of your personal information is safe with them - in spite of a long history of their violation of people's privacy rights and companies' IP. It doesn't matter how many times they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar - they're really only there to protect our privacy and are, in fact, the only thing standing between us and anarchy.

 

No one said that.  What everyone is telling you, is that your repeated claim that Google sells personal information to third parties, is totally bogus.

post #44 of 62

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:27pm
post #45 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, I know. You and all the other shills insist that Google is a perfectly fine, upstanding company and all of your personal information is safe with them - in spite of a long history of their violation of people's privacy rights and companies' IP. It doesn't matter how many times they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar - they're really only there to protect our privacy and are, in fact, the only thing standing between us and anarchy.

Just one question. How much does Google pay you? That's the only explanation I can see for your blind faith in the company - in spite of all the evidence out there.

I'm not shilling for anybody! I gave you a step-by-step explanation of the way that Google makes money using ads without selling a single letter of any user's personal information. I'm not saying Google is angelic. No company is angelic because their primary driver is profits, not doing good for society, although many companies do good as a function of pursuing profits. I'm sorry that your idea of Google's operations does not reflect reality, but you're going to have to get over it and stop the name-calling.
Edited by wakefinance - 3/1/13 at 6:38pm
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

No one said that.  What everyone is telling you, is that your repeated claim that Google sells personal information to third parties, is totally bogus.

No, it's not.

They do sell personal information. Granted, it is generally combined with other's personal information, but that doesn't make the statement false.

Nor does that excuse Google's endless violation of individual privacy rights - like their overriding of Safari's privacy settings. "No" means "No". I guess that's another of those rules that Google never learned.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #47 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


No, it's not.

They do sell personal information. Granted, it is generally combined with other's personal information, but that doesn't make the statement false.

Nor does that excuse Google's endless violation of individual privacy rights - like their overriding of Safari's privacy settings. "No" means "No". I guess that's another of those rules that Google never learned.

 

Please explain how and when they sell personal information, individual or aggregated.  I want you to put your money where your mouth is.

post #48 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


No, it's not.

They do sell personal information. 

No matter how many times you say it and how many words you use, it's still not true. Personal information is not sold. There's no reason to continue arguing with you about it. By now every reader knows you're either confused or dishonest. I'd rather think it's the former. The more you go on the greater chance other readers may be convinced it's the latter,


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/1/13 at 6:55pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 62
How about we find someone who has personally benefitted from this - for example - where were you on this date at this time - I was driving to Boston - can you prove that? - well no, but evidence such as where your cell phone was and other items perhaps GPS log or EZ-pass tolls - may not constitute proof - but at least could either corroborate your story or at least add a shadow of a doubt. Then again - you could have someone else take your car and phone to create a false trail. On the other - other hand - if that is a regular trip maybe it strengthens your case - especially if you talk to or met with anyone during the trip.

Or conversely - it could help to place someone at the scene of a crime - which benefits the victims (or at least the victim's family) while helping the prosecution.

Personally I don't think the fact that the data exists or even that it can be retrieved without any personally identifying information is necessarily a bad thing.
post #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

That sounds liek a pretty bad argument to me.
If Apple can win on this, any other company can just harvest any information, whether or not the people signal their opposition... as long as they can't demonstrate that it "causes harm to them".

To me, that data harvesting causes harm because it stresses these people. I hope Apple loses on that one (but if it were Samsung, it'd be the same, it's not an Apple issue, it's a privacy rights issue).

I'm pretty sure anyone who bashed Brin yesterday about those "stalking glasses" will agree with me that Apple's doing the same mistake as he, here.


Apple is likely to prevail on these grounds since there is absolutely no effective federal data protection regulation that requires consent before collecting any kind of personal info in the US. The Apple privacy policy is carefully worded to permit Apple to do whatever it likes with indirectly linkable personal data. I discussed this previously in another thread. While not relevant to the US proceedings, Apple would definitely have a problem in many other countries including the entire EU.

 

One thing you may like to bear in mind is that even the rudimentary privacy protection derived from the 4-th Amendment provides only protection against government snooping, but not against commercial data collection, and what little protection that may have provided is effectively eliminated by the recent 5:4 US Supreme Court ruling on  Clapper vs Amnesty International which essentially eviscerates the 4th amendment. Putting it simply, you are f'd in the A** in the US when it comes to any attempt to get a court ruling on warrentless wire-tapping in every case where you cannot prove harm, which you cannot ever do because under FISA your elected government classifies these intelligence gathering activities as state secrets and government agencies will not divulge ANY information. Without this information however you cannot establish standing.

 

In some states there may be legislation which provides some protections, perhaps California. However Apple has pulled the wool over your eyes by defining PI as only that information which is DIRECTLY related to an individual person, which the UID is not. One final point: To my limited knowledge, apple is the ONLY major us service provider that uses this trick. All others I have examined use the internationally accepted definition that includes INDIRECTLY Associated data as Personal information.

 

I am so glad that I am not an american, do not live in or travel to the US. At least in the EU we have some vestige of constitutional rights and the right to due process.

post #51 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No matter how many times you say it and how many words you use, it's still not true. Personal information is not sold. There's no reason to continue arguing with you about it. By now every reader knows you're either confused or dishonest. I'd rather think it's the former. The more you go on the greater chance other readers may be convinced it's the latter,

 

Jumping in late on this one, I was under the impression that Google makes money off your information the same way that TV Networks in the United States of America make money by selling the audience.  Don't they just sell ad space to "Hip Youth-Oriented Soda" at X cents per view because they pitch to the bottler that they have 5 Skillion 12-26 year-olds that view their webpage on a daily basis.

 

Selling the information itself would be exceedingly short sighted since they could only sell your information once.  Your demographic they can sell to the same client over and over again at increasing rates, no?

post #52 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, I know. You and others insist that Google is a perfectly fine, upstanding company and all of your personal information is safe with them - in spite of a long history of their violation of people's privacy rights and companies' IP. It doesn't matter how many times they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar - they're really only there to protect our privacy and are, in fact, the only thing standing between us and anarchy.

 

I don't think anyone thinks Google is saintly.  They've certainly got caught with their hands in the jar a few times- but its actually a relatively small number given the volume of transactions they do.

 

Apple does the exact same thing (but they actually have far more information on their users) and they too have found themselves in a few dubious privacy situations.

 

I just want to clear up my perception of your view:

 

When Google does it it is malicious because they are evil and sinister and despite repeated proof that they do a very good job of protecting individuals' data (their business actually depends on that)- its all bogus FUD because Google is evil.

 

When Apple does it, it is pretty minor because Apple is awesome and everything they do is done with good intentions, basks in sunlight, and when they get caught with a little infraction here and there it is just an honest oversight.  The stories are overblown in the biased media and it is really just all being driven by clueless stock analysts who have a secret conspiracy to drive Apple shares down.

 

Does that fairly accurately sum things up?

post #53 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

I don't think anyone thinks Google is saintly.  They've certainly got caught with their hands in the jar a few times- but its actually a relatively small number given the volume of transactions they do.

Apple does the exact same thing (but they actually have far more information on their users) and they too have found themselves in a few dubious privacy situations.

How about some evidence to support your claims that:
1. Apple does exactly the same thing as Google.
2. Apple has more information on their users.
3. Apple has found themselves in comparable privacy violations compared to Google. Start with Google's intentionally ignoring Safari users' request not to store information. Where has Apple done that.

So far, you're simply making things up that aren't true. But feel free to try to support your claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No matter how many times you say it and how many words you use, it's still not true. Personal information is not sold.

No matter how many times you say it and how many worse you use, you're still wrong.

Google most certainly sells your private information. The fact that it's aggregated does not change the fact that they're selling your personal information.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Google most certainly sells your private information. The fact that it's aggregated does not change the fact that they're selling your personal information.

 

Sounds like you're coming around to align with what everyone else is saying.  

 

Google, like Apple, sells the fact that they know what we're interested in, but never the info itself.  That way, advertisers have to pay them to show their ads to the right people.

 

Neither Google nor Apple sell personally identifiable information to any outsider. Internally,"affiliates may share this personal information with each other" and "combine it with other information to provide and improve our products, services, content, and advertising."

 

As for aggregated data, such as "30% of our users are under thirty years old", there is a privacy policy which states that "Aggregated data is considered non-personal information", which makes sense as it's obviously not personally identifiable info.

post #55 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Google most certainly sells your private information. The fact that it's aggregated does not change the fact that they're selling your personal information.

 

Sounds like you're coming around to align with what everyone else is saying.  

 

Google, like Apple, sells the fact that they know what we're interested in, but never the info itself.  That way, advertisers have to pay them to show their ads to the right people.

 

Neither Google nor Apple sell personally identifiable information to any outsider. Internally,"affiliates may share this personal information with each other" and "combine it with other information to provide and improve our products, services, content, and advertising."

 

As for aggregated data, such as "30% of our users are under thirty years old", there is a privacy policy which states that "Aggregated data is considered non-personal information", which makes sense as it's obviously not personally identifiable info.


I wonder if you are missing a subtle but critical point. While it CAN be true that "aggregated data" is non-personal information, it is by no means always the case. It is significant that Apple has chosen to use a very "non standard" definition of personal information, one which deviates from the legal definition in the great majority of countries (and also with the definition in a number of US statutes). The Apple definition is that personal information is information DIRECTLY related to an individual. The accepted international convention is however "directly or indirectly related to an individual." It may seem a small point, but it is huge in its implications.

 

I have also argued that it is probably intentional on the part of Apple, since the "direct or indirect" wording has been accepted for decades. For example the OECD Definition from 1980 states : "b) "personal data" means any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual (data subject); http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm#part1

 

Now it seems legitimate to ask why the hell did apple CHOOSE to use a much more limited definition of personal information, if not to provide a legitimization under US law to hoodwink the users into believing that the Apple privacy policy is better than it really is. The main thing that Apple seems to be trying to do is to escape the FTC privacy monitoring, which focusses on whether a corporation adheres to its published policies (which the FTC sees as a consumer protection issue since it does not have a mandate for enforcing "privacy laws". As you know there are no federal privacy laws in the US relevant in respect of the private sector and no constitutional right to privacy in the US, unlike many other more advanced countries). Given that the broader definition had been in circulation and in various laws for at least 20 years before apple invented its own unconventional and limited version it looks entirely deceptive and self-serving to me. Not even Google is so blatant as apple in this respect.

post #56 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

As for aggregated data, such as "30% of our users are under thirty years old", there is a privacy policy which states that "Aggregated data is considered non-personal information
", which makes sense as it's obviously not personally identifiable info.

Sorry, but the fact that Google says that it's not personal information does not make it so.

Furthermore, there's the problem of cross-correlation. While it may be true that asking for a list of people under 30 in zip code 10101 doesn't tell you much, when you combine that with a list of gay people in 10101, people with blue eyes in 10101 and people who buy stetson hats in 10101, it may well allow identification of individuals.

Not to mention, of course, all the other privacy violations Google has already been found guilty of.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sorry, but the fact that Google says that it's not personal information does not make it so.

Furthermore, there's the problem of cross-correlation. While it may be true that asking for a list of people under 30 in zip code 10101 doesn't tell you much, when you combine that with a list of gay people in 10101, people with blue eyes in 10101 and people who buy stetson hats in 10101, it may well allow identification of individuals.

Not to mention, of course, all the other privacy violations Google has already been found guilty of.

How can it allow identification of individuals if the advertiser is never giving any details about who views their ad?  They can only cross-correlate data if they are actually given personal data in the first place, which they aren't.  You can keep banging on about this as much as you like, but Google do not divulge any personally identifiable information to advertisers.  Period.

 

As GG has already stated, you're either confused or dishonest and you're moving further and further towards the latter.

post #58 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

As for aggregated data, such as "30% of our users are under thirty years old", there is a privacy policy which states that "Aggregated data is considered non-personal information
", which makes sense as it's obviously not personally identifiable info.

Sorry, but the fact that Google says that it's not personal information does not make it so.

Furthermore, there's the problem of cross-correlation. While it may be true that asking for a list of people under 30 in zip code 10101 doesn't tell you much, when you combine that with a list of gay people in 10101, people with blue eyes in 10101 and people who buy stetson hats in 10101, it may well allow identification of individuals.

Not to mention, of course, all the other privacy violations Google has already been found guilty of.

 

Could you elaborate on how this might work?  When you say "a list of people" - what do you mean?  What actual data are in the "list"? Not names and addresses obviously - that would be PII. Simply how many of those kinds of people live in a particular ZIP code?  I can't see how that permits identification of individuals. So what kind of data do you think Google might actually be selling on that could be correlated to yield PII?

post #59 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

As for aggregated data, such as "30% of our users are under thirty years old", there is a privacy policy which states that "Aggregated data is considered non-personal information",

 

Sorry, but the fact that Google says that it's not personal information does not make it so.

 

You should've read Taniwha's post before replying, since s/he had aleady noticed that...

 

... every rule I quoted in my post about Google and Apple... including that one... came from Apple's Privacy Policy:

 

http://www.apple.com/privacy/

 

In other words, it was Apple who said that aggregated data is no longer personal information.

 

Quote:

How about some evidence to support your claims that:
1. Apple does exactly the same thing as Google.

 

See above.


Edited by KDarling - 3/3/13 at 9:01am
post #60 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


How about some evidence to support your claims that:
1. Apple does exactly the same thing as Google.
2. Apple has more information on their users.
3. Apple has found themselves in comparable privacy violations compared to Google. Start with Google's intentionally ignoring Safari users' request not to store information. Where has Apple done that.

So far, you're simply making things up that aren't true. But feel free to try to support your claims.
No matter how many times you say it and how many worse you use, you're still wrong.

Google most certainly sells your private information.

 

1.  No need to post more, you've already seen the multitude of issues on this site where Apple has done this.  You've responded to almost all of them in defense of Apple.

2.  All iPhone users have an iTunes account.  Apple has your name, address, most likely credit card info, and family info- right out of the crate.  Since iPhone users can only shop in one store (Apple's app store), Apple knows every app you and your family have ever bought and removed.  That is already way more info than Google gets from people right out of the crate, especially since there is no requirement to log in to use Google search.

3.  There was a fairly big gaffe where Apple allowed developers access to your UDID and the means to go in and get your personal info off your phone.  Take your pick- its either Apple giving away your personal info with their consent, or completely inept competence on Apple's part.  Given enough time, eventually someone will overstep the bounds and one developer started downloading all Apple users contact lists and info.  That means they most likely got not only the Apple users name, phone number(s), email, and physical address- but all of the Apple users' friends as well.  Because that one finally made users go 'Woah!  They can do that?!'  Tim Cook put on a big dog and pony show lambasting that developer.  What he was really lambasting was that developer being so blatant so they could no longer rely on the 'wink wink nudge nudge' system of 'if you want our users info, go take it- just keep it quiet'

 

 

A few questions for you JR:

1.  Why did Apple put a specific ID for advertisers on every iPhone?

2.  Why does Apple not give their users the ability to turn that off (you can only *limit* the system)?

3.  Why is that setting buried four screens deep in a non-intuitive place instead of on the 'privacy' settings where most people would expect it?

4.  Why is limited tracking turned off by default?

 

Again, I don't really mind Apples usage nor Googles.  I just find it odd that many of the people here can go off on Google for doing it, while ignoring Apple.   I think both do a pretty decent job and I don't mind that I prefer to get ads that are relevant to things I do.  The oldschool way of advertising where you got 938473728 untargeted ads in the advertisers hopes that 1 in 500 ads might actually semi apply to you sucked.

post #61 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

How about some evidence to support your claims that:
1. Apple does exactly the same thing as Google.
2. Apple has more information on their users.
3. Apple has found themselves in comparable privacy violations compared to Google. Start with Google's intentionally ignoring Safari users' request not to store information. Where has Apple done that.

So far, you're simply making things up that aren't true. But feel free to try to support your claims.
No matter how many times you say it and how many worse you use, you're still wrong.

Google most certainly sells your private information. The fact that it's aggregated does not change the fact that they're selling your personal information.

Are you ever going to provide evidence to back up your claims? Or are you having trouble finding evidence that isn't on a no-name, conspiracy theory website?
post #62 of 62

"the plaintiffs in the case cannot prove their claims."

This is because they are trying to use Apple Maps to find the proof!

 

hehaho

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple says iPhone tracking lawsuit doesn't demonstrate harm