Judge orders Apple to hand over documents, prove compliance in privacy lawsuits - Page 2

As usual, we have a misleading and inaccurate AI headline.

Apple can't prove that they never violated anyone's privacy any more than I can prove that I didn't kill JFK.

The issue is not one of privacy, at all. The issue is whether Apple has made a good faith effort to comply with the judge's orders.

"Prove compliance" in the headline refers to complying with the courts' order to produce certain documents in this privacy-related lawsuit. The headline isn't about whether Apple complied with their privacy policy,

A more likely motivation for Apple's curious stand is that the company is trying very hard indeed to prevent users from having the possibility to discover exactly how extensively their personal information is being collected and used or propagaged by Apple. This looks more like an attempt to evade privacy responsibility and maintain a curtain of secrecy in a wilful attempt to be able to continue to use the personal information of users without their knowledge or consent.

 

I have pointed out elsewhere that Apples definition of "personal information" is not compliant with internationally accepted legal definitions and is certainly much more limited than the legal definition in the EU and at least 40 Countries worldwide. According to Apple's contrived definition, personal information is only that information which is DIRECTLY associated with natural persons. Since 1980 the OECD has defined personal information to include also information which is INDIRECTLY associated or can be associated with natural persons.

 

This difference in definitions is a self-serving and deceptive use of the terminology which "allows" Apple to use your personal information in any way and for any purpose it sees fit. It is definitely not consumer friendly and it is definitely not compliant with the EU definition.

For a stupid person you sure post something stupid.


Maybe this page gives some insight, but I don't have any knowledge on Google and you seem to have a way better understanding of their business :
http://www.seobook.com/illegal-beagle

I'll ignore the silly name-calling. Your link asks a lot of questions, but there's no answers there. Is Google selling BBVA raw search data? Is Google even giving BBVA search data at all? Is Google simply reporting to BBVA a rise or fall in certain keywords from various regions with no search data at all being given to them?  Is BBVA just using this Google service combined with their own data, or is it something more than that? 

http://www.google.com/trends/

 

The article almost sounds like something Microsoft might have come up with. As an aside BBVA announced five days prior to that they were dumping Microsoft office products in favor of Google's office suite. Probably no connection tho.

 

With a company of the size and scope of Google wouldn't there be numerous sources offering proof of the claim that Google sells data, anonymized or not? There's been several members here who mention their association with advertising interests. Surely they would be aware of it. Yet nothing from them either. Google may sell data as I've said more than once. Neither you nor Eric nor anyone else has actually come up with details yet.

 

If it's such common knowledge that, in your opinion, it's "stupid" to question whether it's true wouldn't it be easier to find proof? Does the fact it's not easy say anything to you at all? Perhaps not if it's a claim you want to believe and intend to despite no clear evidence supporting it. 

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/10/13 at 7:49am

Well, yeah, I agree, if no one knows, then we don't. I would presume if it's true there would be many articles to be found.

 

+1

 

Surely between all the ex-Google employees, advertisers who use them, app makers who are on Google Play, and all the quarterly statements and press releases there'd be some sort of proof of them selling personal data, as claimed.  

 

Most of the Google haters simply make alot of false assumptions about what Google does (and MS, Yahoo, and Apple apparently don't), and repeat it so often they believe it to be true. 

Exactly Mike. And because there isn't proof, no one knows!