or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple joins Google, Microsoft, others in support of government surveillance reform
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple joins Google, Microsoft, others in support of government surveillance reform

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Apple and a consortium of other tech industry giants have signed their names to an open letter addressed to President Obama and members of Congress, calling for substantial reforms to the regulation and oversight of surveillance performed by agencies like the NSA.

Redacted


The letter reaffirms the tech giants' opposition to the large-scale surveillance operations carried out by the NSA and foreign counterparts such as Britain's GCHQ, saying that such operations have tipped the balance of power "too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual" and arguing that the unfettered surveillance "undermines the freedoms we all cherish." Joining Apple are AOL, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo.

Readers are directed to an accompanying website --?ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com --?which lays out five principles the group believes governments should consider during the drafting of legislation. The five policies are designed "with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight," according to the website.

This most recent letter, which the Wall Street Journal reports will appear in the form of a full-page advertisement in the Monday editions of the Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, and The Hill, among others, is not the first public word from Apple on the issue.

Following the revelation of the NSA's PRISM data collection program in June, of which Apple was said to be a participant, the company issued a rare public statement entitled "Apple's Commitment to Customer Privacy" in which they reiterated that they "do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order."

Then, in July, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company joined with 62 other public companies, non-profits and trade groups --?including Microsoft, Google, and Facebook --?to demand that the government allow the companies to be more transparent about the number and scope of requests they receive for users' data. That request was followed in November by a new "Report on Government Information Requests" that shed more light on exactly how many requests it receives from intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Monday's full letter is reproduced below:

Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress,

We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual -- rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It's time for a change.

For our part, we are focused on keeping users' data secure -- deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope.

We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com

Sincerely,

AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo

post #2 of 47
I suspect this is hurting these companies businesses. If people continue to think the government is viewing their individual habits and activities as they like, people are going to be less likely to use these services and keep things in their homes verse on their servers.
Edited by Maestro64 - 12/9/13 at 7:25am
post #3 of 47

IBM and Cisco have shown there is serious international blowback that hits the bottom line.

post #4 of 47
There seems to be one company missing here, can't think of their name, but they deal in books and other kinds of online merchandise. Damn, it's on the tip of my fingers . . . big company, lots of servers . . . Anybody?
post #5 of 47
Are they based in the amazon jungle by any chance??
post #6 of 47
Interestingly, while Apple's name and logo is included in the letter to the President, it is missing from the website...
post #7 of 47

This has already cost US businesses dearly (witness Cisco and HP in their recent earnings conference calls). We'll never know the billions in contracts not signed from here on because of this stupid over-reach on the NSA's part. Markets like the EU, China, Russia, Brazil, India, and the Middle East will never look at providers of US IT infrastructure the same way again.

 

The NSA's snooping has also now risen to being a national security threat: many of our allies are going to be far more suspicious of what we do (as opposed to what we say we do). Not because they don't attempt similar shenanigans, but because none of them can match the US's reach and capabilities, and it does not play well in terms of their domestic politics.

 

Many people here (and elsewhere) think that the Fourth Amendment amounts to a hill of beans. And that privacy does not matter. However, without privacy rights protected, there are no First Amendment rights. Or, for that matter, Second Amendment rights -- although I am not a fan of the Second Amendment, I have to respect the fact that it is in the Constitution. Or, for that matter, Fifth Amendment rights. One could go on.

 

And, to think that we were getting all holier-then-thou about Huawei......

post #8 of 47
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual -- rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish.

Sincerely,
AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo

 

Really, since what the government’s doing is illegal, can’t these companies just, you know, ignore them? And refuse access? Or specifically build an encryption that requires a quantum computer to solve?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #9 of 47

The people who think privacy doesn't matter are saying, whether they realize it or not, that they believe in conformity to a degree that they will do nothing interesting in their lives, they will not innovate, they will lead no one, and they will challenge no status quos — and that no one else should either, that every grass-roots idea should be intercepted and co-opted, and that the people who have power should keep it and have more.

post #10 of 47
@anantksundaram, True, this, and it's probably more obvious to more realistic people outside the US that "security state" more nearly describes this outfit than "constitutional democracy."

The rise of electronic mail and messaging means that we need a new, more expanded legal definition of privacy. But the security apparatus holds more power than any elected government could. For example, how long did the first FBI chief executive stay on the job, and how many public figures did he mess with?
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Are they based in the amazon jungle by any chance??

Yeah, that's it, the Bezos River is a tributary to the mighty Amazon, I believe. Comes in near the mouth. Lots of piranhas.
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Really, since what the government’s doing is illegal, can’t these companies just, you know, ignore them? And refuse access?

Yahoo and Lavabit tried the first two. The NSA basically went to the courts and said "**** you, I'm national security" and won. Lavabit being a private enterprise however was allowed to play more extreme games of avoidance, whereas yahoo could only go so far without shareholders raising objections.

post #13 of 47
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post
Yahoo and Lavabit tried the first two. The NSA basically went to the courts and said "**** you, I'm national security" and won.

 

Screw the courts, then. I don’t get it: it’s illegal. I don’t care who says it’s legal, it’s illegal and wasn’t enacted legally. Don’t do it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Screw the courts, then. I don’t get it: it’s illegal. I don’t care who says it’s legal, it’s illegal and wasn’t enacted legally. Don’t do it.

Trust me, I'm totally with you in that regard. This whole dilemna is the reason I switched my focus on studies from general programming and information handling to Cryptography and related fields as study for my later degrees.

post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post
 

The people who think privacy doesn't matter are saying, whether they realize it or not, that they believe in conformity to a degree that they will do nothing interesting in their lives, they will not innovate, they will lead no one, and they will challenge no status quos — and that no one else should either, that every grass-roots idea should be intercepted and co-opted, and that the people who have power should keep it and have more.

 

I don't disagree with the concerns over erosion of rights, but I don't think I follow your logic here.  The ability to do interesting things (assuming that's not a euphemism for illegal things), innovate, lead and challenge the status quo do not, per se, require any particular level of privacy, unless the results of government intrusion into your privacy are used to prevent such things. So far I've not seen or heard of evidence of these data being used in such ways. From a personal privacy point of view, the observation that certain agencies have the same, or similar, capabilities to monitor domestic traffic that we have always assumed that they have for international traffic should not be surprising. That they may be exercising it without due process, even if it is not adversely affecting most of us for now, is certainly an issue that I'd like to see addressed in the near future.

 

On the other hand, the coercion of US companies to yield to illegal data requests (if that is happening) and the impact on US international trade as a result of potential customers' data security concerns seem to be more tangible and immediate worries.

post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Screw the courts, then. I don’t get it: it’s illegal. I don’t care who says it’s legal, it’s illegal and wasn’t enacted legally. Don’t do it.

Interestingly enough, something might be both "legal", as in there is a law that must be followed and enforced, yet at the same time be unconstitutional until addressed by the Supreme Court.

The upshot? We have far, far, far too many laws in this country. We need a hard reboot and a return to self-reliance and communities that come together to help each other voluntarily.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #17 of 47
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Interestingly enough, something might be both "legal", as in there is a law that must be followed and enforced, yet at the same time be unconstitutional.

 

But… as fundamental, overarching law, legality within the Constitution overrides any “legality” elsewhere. :lol::p

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But… as fundamental, overarching law, legality within the Constitution overrides any “legality” elsewhere. lol.gif1tongue.gif

True. And those powers not allowed government by the Constitution are left for the American people to decide.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 47
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/surveillance_court_releases_new_opinion_upholding_nsa_collection_of_phone_d/

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has released an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the phone data collection program by the National Security Agency...

Eagan also said the data collection is authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to issue orders to produce “tangible things” if there are reasonable grounds to believe the records are relevant to a terrorism investigation. “The government need not provide specific and articulable facts, demonstrate any connection to a particular suspect, nor show materiality when requesting business records under Section 215,” Eagan said.

A previous Justice Department white paper had also used the court's reasoning, but Eagan went a step further when she said the government could collect the information for probes of "unknown" as well as known terrorists, the Post says."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/surveillance_court_releases_new_opinion_upholding_nsa_collection_of_phone_d/

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has released an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the phone data collection program by the National Security Agency...

Eagan also said the data collection is authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to issue orders to produce “tangible things” if there are reasonable grounds to believe the records are relevant to a terrorism investigation. “The government need not provide specific and articulable facts, demonstrate any connection to a particular suspect, nor show materiality when requesting business records under Section 215,” Eagan said.

A previous Justice Department white paper had also used the court's reasoning, but Eagan went a step further when she said the government could collect the information for probes of "unknown" as well as known terrorists, the Post says."

 

The Patriot Act needs to be completely reworked, in my opinion - it simply has too widespread, open-ended and vague provisions that are easy to interpret in ways that, I would hope, were not originally intended.

post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The Patriot Act needs to be completely reworked, in my opinion - it simply has too widespread, open-ended and vague provisions that are easy to interpret in ways that, I would hope, were not originally intended.

The Patriot Act should be completely eliminated. It's un-American and anti-American.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The Patriot Act needs to be completely reworked, in my opinion - it simply has too widespread, open-ended and vague provisions that are easy to interpret in ways that, I would hope, were not originally intended.

The Patriot Act should be completely eliminated. It's un-American and anti-American.

 

I'm not sure about that. While it does contain provisions that have been interpreted to be in violation of various aspects of the constitution, those are really a small part of the overall act. Remove those, clarify some others (mostly in Title II), and what is left has little impact on US Citizens, while making it significantly easier to monitor potential hostile targets. The other criticisms mostly relate to erosion of rights of aliens, and while those probably should be reassessed too, they have little domestic impact. The assertion that the act, in intent and as a whole, is un-American and anti-American doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.

post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

The Patriot Act needs to be completely reworked, in my opinion - it simply has too widespread, open-ended and vague provisions that are easy to interpret in ways that, I would hope, were not originally intended.

 

I think it's naive to believe that many of these open-ended provisions weren't included with intent.  By your wording, I suspect that you have similar concerns.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

The Patriot Act needs to be completely reworked, in my opinion - it simply has too widespread, open-ended and vague provisions that are easy to interpret in ways that, I would hope, were not originally intended.

 

I think it's naive to believe that many of these open-ended provisions weren't included with intent.  By your wording, I suspect that you have similar concerns.

 

Actually I think it's unlikely that there was widespread high-level intent. To clarify, the agencies themselves always tend to ask for whatever makes their jobs easiest, while we expect our elected representatives to make sure that they don't overreach. Unfortunately this act was a real rush job, with good intentions and a determination to do whatever it took to prevent a repeat of 9/11 outweighing caution and due diligence. It's a widely held belief that few politicians actually read it in detail before passing it into law.

post #25 of 47

What I really wish people would understand is that the only way to stop the data gathering and sophisticated analysis of individual behavior (and predictive behavioral analysis, yes Minority Report-esque) is by shutting it down at the source - i.e. not letting it get gathered in the first place.

 

That means commercial data harvesting, because that's where 95% of it comes from.  You may fear the government more, but they are not, for the most part, the gatherers of this data; it's the Googles and Facebooks (and many others) of the world that people freely and stupidly use, that are the problem.  The ONLY way to ever shut down this kind of monitoring is by not spewing your personal data, likes, dislikes, etc. all over the place, foolishly thinking it's somehow private.  NOTHING you put out on any kind of commercial "service" (unless you encrypt it yourself locally) will ever be private.  Nothing.  That includes every single email you send or receive through commercial providers.

 

Few people will stop using "free" (not really) email services (though the Lavabit CEO has), so it's difficult to imagine the problem being well-addressed in the near term, but I do think that people are slowly getting smarter about the problems, and the result of that will be more solutions arriving in the coming years that give people more control.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #26 of 47
OMG, we will get more junk mails for the big brother intends to sell the data to help USPS and the Federal budget...please dont comment on this comment, we are under the NSA's watches.
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

It's a widely held belief that few politicians actually read it in detail before passing it into law.

 

That alone is good enough reason to repeal it, not to mention that we now need to push for term limits on Congressional representatives and Senators. Open-ended employment for these people has led to some of the worst corruptions of our political system.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 47

It will be reformed in such a way that they won't be caught easily again.

Apple increments product features one bite at a time...hence the logo. Want the next big thing? You're gonna have to pick another fruit from the Apple Tree.

Reply

Apple increments product features one bite at a time...hence the logo. Want the next big thing? You're gonna have to pick another fruit from the Apple Tree.

Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post
 

What I really wish people would understand is that the only way to stop the data gathering and sophisticated analysis of individual behavior (and predictive behavioral analysis, yes Minority Report-esque) is by shutting it down at the source - i.e. not letting it get gathered in the first place.

 

That means commercial data harvesting, because that's where 95% of it comes from.  You may fear the government more, but they are not, for the most part, the gatherers of this data; it's the Googles and Facebooks (and many others) of the world that people freely and stupidly use, that are the problem.  The ONLY way to ever shut down this kind of monitoring is by not spewing your personal data, likes, dislikes, etc. all over the place, foolishly thinking it's somehow private.  NOTHING you put out on any kind of commercial "service" (unless you encrypt it yourself locally) will ever be private.  Nothing.  That includes every single email you send or receive through commercial providers.

 

Few people will stop using "free" (not really) email services (though the Lavabit CEO has), so it's difficult to imagine the problem being well-addressed in the near term, but I do think that people are slowly getting smarter about the problems, and the result of that will be more solutions arriving in the coming years that give people more control.

 

That's trivially correct, but presumes that all such data gathering is inherently bad. There are certainly conceivable bad uses, but there are also tangible advantages to the consumer, such as benefitting from crowd-sourced data, targeted product information etc.. I don't regard anonymized consumer data as an intrusion of privacy, and so it seems to be me that the bad comprises mostly hypothetical future abuse, while the perceived benefits are current and actual. An important question then becomes - how much do we act on the fear of future misuse?

post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

It's a widely held belief that few politicians actually read it in detail before passing it into law.

 

That alone is good enough reason to repeal it, not to mention that we now need to push for term limits on Congressional representatives and Senators. Open-ended employment for these people has led to some of the worst corruptions of our political system.

 

As I said, I'd replace repeal with reconsider, but no argument with your second observation. I'd go further and say that the political system in the US is broken in many ways.

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

Actually I think it's unlikely that there was widespread high-level intent. To clarify, the agencies themselves always tend to ask for whatever makes their jobs easiest, while we expect our elected representatives to make sure that they don't overreach. Unfortunately this act was a real rush job, with good intentions and a determination to do whatever it took to prevent a repeat of 9/11 outweighing caution and due diligence. It's a widely held belief that few politicians actually read it in detail before passing it into law.

 

I too doubt many politicians went through it in detail and/or gave it much in the way of deep thought.  But there were almost certainly people in "the agencies" that did, and it was almost certainly authored with a great deal of input by them.  I'm not even saying they were wrong to push for what they did, as it fits their interests, but I think oversight of these matters is incredibly weak and uninformed.  Things need to be clarified and tightened down a lot.  It won't hurt our national security, and anantksundaram suggested above, it may actually help in some ways, if it's not already too late.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlongz View Post
 

It will be reformed in such a way that they won't be caught easily again.

 

I think perhaps you misunderstand the relationship between the lawmaking process and the operation of government agencies.

post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

Actually I think it's unlikely that there was widespread high-level intent. To clarify, the agencies themselves always tend to ask for whatever makes their jobs easiest, while we expect our elected representatives to make sure that they don't overreach. Unfortunately this act was a real rush job, with good intentions and a determination to do whatever it took to prevent a repeat of 9/11 outweighing caution and due diligence. It's a widely held belief that few politicians actually read it in detail before passing it into law.

 

I too doubt many politicians went through it in detail and/or gave it much in the way of deep thought.  But there were almost certainly people in "the agencies" that did, and it was almost certainly authored with a great deal of input by them.  I'm not even saying they were wrong to push for what they did, as it fits their interests, but I think oversight of these matters is incredibly weak and uninformed.  Things need to be clarified and tightened down a lot.  It won't hurt our national security, and anantksundaram suggested above, it may actually help in some ways, if it's not already too late.

 

Completely agree.

post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

What I really wish people would understand is that the only way to stop the data gathering and sophisticated analysis of individual behavior (and predictive behavioral analysis, yes Minority Report-esque) is by shutting it down at the source - i.e. not letting it get gathered in the first place.

That means commercial data harvesting, because that's where 95% of it comes from.  You may fear the government more, but they are not, for the most part, the gatherers of this data; it's the Googles and Facebooks (and many others) of the world that people freely and stupidly use, that are the problem.  The ONLY way to ever shut down this kind of monitoring is by not spewing your personal data, likes, dislikes, etc. all over the place, foolishly thinking it's somehow private.  NOTHING you put out on any kind of commercial "service" (unless you encrypt it yourself locally) will ever be private.  Nothing.  That includes every single email you send or receive through commercial providers.

Few people will stop using "free" (not really) email services (though the Lavabit CEO has), so it's difficult to imagine the problem being well-addressed in the near term, but I do think that people are slowly getting smarter about the problems, and the result of that will be more solutions arriving in the coming years that give people more control.

Personally I think Google is not nearly as much of a problem as the insurance companies, credit bureaus, and assorted data brokers like Acxiom and Intelius who may never have heard of. . . but should. They all happily buy and sell your data. At least Google keeps it to themselves.

EDIT: Here's a recent article on Acxiom. Still think the problem is the Google and Facebooks of the world? You might look carefully at some of these data companies that shy from the public eye. THAT'S where the bigger privacy intrusions are, away from the limelight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consumer-database-marketing.html?_r=0

EDIT2: You'll love this link
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1012/gallery.data_miners/
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/9/13 at 11:57am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 47
 
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

advantages to the consumer, such as benefitting from crowd-sourced data, targeted product information etc.. I don't regard anonymized consumer data as an intrusion of privacy, 

 

I agree that anonymous (not anonymized, that implies after-the-fact) data gathering and analysis is okay.  That has existed for decades. But that's not the trend of what's happening now, on the commercial side.  It's all about very personal, individualized data.

 
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

An important question then becomes - how much do we act on the fear of future misuse?

 

Bingo.  It's an important question to ask, and one that has ramifications for quite literally the rest of our lives and the lives of our children. 

 

My views are strong on this topic exactly because of that; the time frame for abuse is essentially unlimited.  Data gathered on each of us can (and much will) live on forever.  It never goes away.  Data storage is cheap and getting cheaper; data processing is cheap and getting cheaper; data harvesting methods are getting cheaper and more ubiquitous every single day.

 

Given that, what then are the odds of this data being misused or abused (or required for job interviews, or car insurance, or medical insurance, or hell, even getting a ticket to the movies at some far date in the future)?  Just using simple logic, as the length of time grows, the odds of misuse or abuse grows.  As the timeframe approaches "forever", the chance of abuse approaches 100%.  This is an extreme formula to illustrate a point, but people need to understand that once this data is no longer under the control of the individual, the odds of it being abused over time is pretty likely.  The more data out there, the more organizations that acquire it, and the more people happily posting and emailing their life stories via "free" (data harvesting) services, then the more likely Bad things are to materialize.  I'm not sure I see any real end in sight, but I can hope.

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Personally I think Google is not nearly as much of a problem as the insurance companies, credit bureaus, and assorted data brokers like Acxiom and Intelius who may never have heard of. . . but should. They all happily buy and sell your data. At least Google keeps it to themselves.

EDIT: Here's a recent article on Acxiom. Still think the problem is the Google and Facebooks of the world? You might look carefully at some of these data companies that shy from the public eye. THAT'S where the bigger privacy intrusions are, away from the limelight.

 

Acxiom is the devil.  Yes, the data brokers are indeed Really, Really Bad, perhaps the worst of breed among the personal data harvesting/using/selling paths.  I totally agree on this part.

 

What I don't agree with is that just because one party is worse, that other parties are a-okay.  Again, the only way people can prevent abuse of their personal data is by not sharing it out with commercial organizations, to the degree humanly possible.  Even the data that you think Google keeps private, will not be private forever.  There are no laws to compel that, and even among Google employees, I can guarantee you that most of them do not have a full grasp of what happens with that data behind the scenes, though that's all I'll say right now.

 

sorry, rushing off now, won't b able to respond more today-


Edited by Blah64 - 12/9/13 at 12:02pm
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #37 of 47
EDIT:
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/9/13 at 1:30pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 47

How can Microsucks sign this? Their Internet Explorer and Explorer are known to report everything that people do on their machines to the company. Maybe they just want to keep that information for themselves.

 

Any new law should require companies to disclose exactly the information that they store about their users and product buyers. The license agreements people accept and the terms of service that people accept are too vague. Companies should be required to say if they keep the text of e-mails, the web addresses people visit, the files on customers computers or their titles, and whether that data is aggregated for future use in creating profiles of any type for each user whether identified by name or any other means.

post #39 of 47

Here is something a lot of people do not understand which was obvious from the surprise when people found out. When the Government pull the national Security trump card there is not a whole lot you can do even private businesses have no recourse. If the Government claims national security they can even grab US companies technologies and patents and freely license them to other companies if they feel it services their needs.

 

I worked for company who supplied products to NSA and a few other government agencies. Our product was based on an Intel chip-set which they told us at the time they were about to EOL and within a year we could no longer buy the chip-set after they had told us it would be around for years and we told our customers the same thing. When the NSA was told within a year we would need to move them to a new platform they were not happy to say the least. A few months later they gave us a letter which they told us to give to Intel. This letter basically said our product with their chip-set was part of a national security matter and as such Intel could not discontinue the chip-set as long as the NSA needed the product.

 

Needless to say, we kept getting the parts from Intel without question. This is the who issue we have with the patriot act it allows the government broad definition of what is in national security interest. The above situation happen after 911.

post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

IBM and Cisco have shown there is serious international blowback that hits the bottom line.
I have seen multiple million dollar deals on cloud based services go bust in Europe due to suspected peeping NSA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple joins Google, Microsoft, others in support of government surveillance reform