or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google-owned Nest to acquire connected security camera firm Dropcam for $555M
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google-owned Nest to acquire connected security camera firm Dropcam for $555M - Page 4

post #121 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

2. Gmail: prying and spying
. This October, a federal judge refused to dismiss a potential class-action lawsuit brought by Gmail users who objected to its practice of analyzing the content of all the messages on its network and selling byproducts to advertisers. Those suing Google said it violated federal wiretap laws.

the rest of the article is here.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_ways_google_is_destroying_privacy_and_collecting_your_data_partner/

oookaaay. . . If that link was supposed to be proof Google sells personal data it wasn't. So I'll repeat: Google doesn't sell user data to whoever will pay despite your wish it were true. It would make hate of Google much more rational wouldn't it?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #122 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post

Every company including Apple makes and uses projections. You know why? Because they are not meaningless! Come on!

Long term projections are meaningless as things change all the time.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/12/7/2618225/eric-schmidt-le-web-paris-google-tv-majority-all-tvs

http://mobile.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/apple/119355/apple-needs-netbook-quick-warns-idc/
post #123 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

it is naive to assume Apple wouldn't mine data if they saw a net positive opportunity? That's not something I need to prove..

As probably most every large company does Apple too mines user data for information of value. With the mention of AI Siri might be one of the tools Apple uses to do so.
http://www.kdnuggets.com/jobs/12/05-02-apple-data-mining-engineer.html

Apple has specific divisions in Austin TX and Samta Clara CA, likely elsewhere too, dedicated to finding commercial uses for the mountaims of data Apple has collected. FWIW user and user device data can serve a whole lotta purposes and has value to the company collecting it well beyond the delivery of a few targeted ads.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/22/14 at 2:23pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #124 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If it makes you a little happier to believe Google is 100% behind everything then don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of that. IMHO Quantcast might have a little to do with it tho. They've had their own issues of course and a search for "Quantcast privacy lawsuit" will offer details if you have any interest.
https://www.quantcast.com/advertise

 

Nope. It's not about what I believe. The "ironic" ad that GTR posted, and the one I was responding to, has a little blue triangle in the corner:

 

Try this: on this site (this page you're reading right now) look for ads with that same little blue triangle with the "i" inscribed in it-->SNP_2821528_en_v0  Click on that, and it takes you to this page. That means the ad came from Google's AdSense.

Google AdSense has a feature that serves up ads based on the content of a page. This is why we see "ironic" ads on AppleInsider forums.

 

If it makes you a little happier to believe Google isn't 100% behind this ad, then don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your "Quantcast lawsuit" smokescreen.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #125 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Nope. It's not about what I believe. The "ironic" ad that GTR posted, and the one I was responding to, has a little blue triangle in the corner:


Oh, you were only commenting on that one specific ad, not that Google is 100% behind all targeted ads here at AI. My apologies then for the misunderstanding. Based on a couple of other responses I wsn't the only one who misread your intention. Sorry.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #126 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

As we all know, smartphones constantly track your eyes and have a camera on the world around them.

 

 

 

Not your eyes, but they do track your location and they do all come with cameras now.  Smartphones can track things as "constant" as Google Glass can.

post #127 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

If I've read you wrong then please clarify. I've quoted your words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Morality is Apple's TOP priority

Hey look. I quoted your own words! I can't believe you think morality is apples top priority.

See how only doing partial quotes can make it read whatever you want to read? It's almost like I've heard that before...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Nice job reading only what you wanted to read.
Ah yes, there it is.

When your argument is so empty that you feel the need to manipulate a quote, it's pathetic. Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #128 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


oookaaay. . . If that link was supposed to be proof Google sells personal data it wasn't. So I'll repeat: Google doesn't sell user data to whoever will pay despite your wish it were true. It would make hate of Google much more rational wouldn't it?

I don't have a hate for Google. I do not have an unconditional love for them unlike you & I also don't have problems with reading comprehension like yourself. Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means. Talk about zealotry. Kind of what I expected.You made the assertion they don't profit off of data. Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?

post #129 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post
 

I don't have a hate for Google. I do not have an unconditional love for them unlike you & I also don't have problems with reading comprehension like yourself. Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means. Talk about zealotry. Kind of what I expected.You made the assertion they don't profit off of data. Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?

 

They use the data to pair end-users up with a good advertisement match. The advertiser never learns of the user or anything about them, unless they become a customer/user of the advertiser's products/services.

post #130 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post



Hey look. I quoted your own words! I can't believe you think morality is apples top priority.

See how only doing partial quotes can make it read whatever you want to read? It's almost like I've heard that before...
Ah yes, there it is.

When your argument is so empty that you feel the need to manipulate a quote, it's pathetic. Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.

 

I cut out preceding sentences because I didn't think they were relevant and didn't add any particular context of significance, and because unnecessarily big quotation blocks in a thread are annoying.  Your manipulation deliberately removes context and plain intention and thus is not at all comparable.  I thought he was responding to the last part of the paragraph, since when I quote someone I want my comment to follow on directly from the last part of what they said.  If they don't then conversations become mangled and hard to follow.

 

I've invited him to clarify if that isn't what he meant, so your attack on my pathetic and empty argument is somewhat overblown.  I understood his point to be one thing, and if that's not what he meant, then that's fine, all he has to do is say so.

 

 

 

EDIT: I mean seriously, look at the full quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

 

Apple has been convicted of price fixing, anti poaching tactics, there was also a case previously about Apple saving GPS location data of users despite them saying they weren't. You're kidding yourself if you think morality is their top priority.

You’re kidding yourself if you think this is the truth.

 

Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple hasn't been convicted of price fixing and anti poaching tactics?  Because they have (aside: I'm not sure if "convicted" is technically the right word, but if that's the argument being made then it's a semantic and rubbish one).

Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple haven't been caught saving GPS location data when they said they weren't?  Because they have.

If TS was doing that then he is demonstrably, provably, false.  

 

I gave TS the credit for not claiming that the demonstrably, provable truths were false, and assumed he meant the last thing (which he has aped with his sentence structure, implying so).  You're saying that I manipulated the quote to make him look bad?  Manipulating the quote removed the obviously true stuff!

 

Patent absurdity in your argument.  And you have the gall to call me pathetic and my argument empty?  :lol: 


Edited by Crowley - 6/23/14 at 4:41am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #131 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Okay! I’ll keep that in mind the next time you call out something I say.

If you can't see the difference between quantifiable and categorical claims that can be proved or disproved, and the naivety of a blindly trusting a multinational corporation to do what it says it will do, which cannot be "proved" in any meaningful way, then I don't know what to say.  I'd offer "we can agree to disagree" but your position of being scared by people not being so naive is so ridiculous I don't think I could stomach that.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #132 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I cut out preceding sentences because I didn't think they were relevant and didn't add any particular context of significance, and because unnecessarily big quotation blocks in a thread are annoying.  Your manipulation deliberately removes context and plain intention and thus is not at all comparable.  I thought he was responding to the last part of the paragraph, since when I quote someone I want my comment to follow on directly from the last part of what they said.  If they don't then conversations become mangled and hard to follow.

I've invited him to clarify if that isn't what he meant, so your attack on my pathetic and empty argument is somewhat overblown.  I understood his point to be one thing, and if that's not what he meant, then that's fine, all he has to do is say so.



EDIT: I mean seriously, look at the full quote:
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple hasn't been convicted of price fixing and anti poaching tactics?  Because they have (aside: I'm not sure if "convicted" is technically the right word, but if that's the argument being made then it's a semantic and rubbish one).
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple haven't been caught saving GPS location data when they said they weren't?  Because they have.
If TS was doing that then he is demonstrably, provably, false.  

I gave TS the credit for not claiming that the demonstrably, provable truths were false, and assumed he meant the last thing (which he has aped with his sentence structure, implying so).  You're saying that I manipulated the quote to make him look bad?  Manipulating the quote removed the obviously true stuff!

Patent absurdity in your argument.  And you have the gall to call me pathetic and my argument empty?  lol.gif  

I fail to see how any of that addresses my only point of you needing to stop while you're behind.
Edited by Andysol - 6/23/14 at 6:41am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #133 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I fail to see how any of that addresses my only point of you needing to stop while you're ahead.

 

Make up your mind, you don't even know where I am!

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #134 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

I Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means.

I'd guess the terminology came from the team of lawyers who were filing the lawsuit (if it wasn't made up by your article's author), used to cast the defendant in the worst light possible as lawyers are typically expected to do. It does not say Google was selling your personal data to 3rd parties. Didn't you question your belief when you couldn't find anything to factually support it other than lawyer-speak? If Google really was selling personal information the lawyers would have come right out and plainly said so. That would be one huge industry-changing lawsuit worth untold billions. No beating around the bush with a vague term like "by-products".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?

If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.

In the meantime while you obsess over Google collecting and selling personal information you ignore the companies who really are doing so, Companies like Acxiom (enabled here at AI) and Epsilon and even credit reporting agencies like Experian that make a living from the sale of data. If you really believe that Google delivering targeted ads while keeping the data that enables it under lock and key should be a primary concern you're being incredibly naive.

Look beyond AI and do a little research of your own. With a simple search like "Worst dat brokers" you'll find sources of information like these:
https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-about-what-data-brokers-know-about-you
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-data-brokers-selling-your-personal-information/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/12/19/data-broker-was-selling-lists-of-rape-alcoholism-and-erectile-dysfunction-sufferers/

Pay attention as you read too. Not once will you find any of them claiming Google is involved in selling personal data. Not one of them. It's a imaginary story coming from those with an agenda to claim they sell your personal information. Google is not the enemy you should be watching if you're worried someone is selling details of your health, finances and family. Here's 20 that really are selling you out.
http://readwrite.com/2012/04/26/here-are-20-companies-who-sell-your-data-how-to-stop-them#awesm=~oI1nrxf5ycY6ea

You may not want to share any information with Google for any number of reasons including having no reason at all. Selling that personal data to the highest bidder shouldn't be one of them as it's imaginary FUD.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/23/14 at 7:51am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #135 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Make up your mind, you don't even know where I am!
Edit- not going to continue. Fixed my mistype- and have a good day

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #136 of 154

Well I disagree that I'm "behind", for all the reasons in my big post above.  I showed, pretty conclusively to my mind, that your premise for saying that was flawed.

 

You have a good day too.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #137 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.

 

At least iEvil isn't evil, in the Google sense.

post #138 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

At least iEvil isn't evil, in the Google sense.

Of course not. Even though Apple does the exact same thing, they do it with higher standards.
post #139 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I'd guess the terminology came from the team of lawyers who were filing the lawsuit (if it wasn't made up by your article's author), used to cast the defendant in the worst light possible as lawyers are typically expected to do. It does not say Google was selling your personal data to 3rd parties. Didn't you question your belief when you couldn't find anything to factually support it other than lawyer-speak? If Google really was selling personal information the lawyers would have come right out and plainly said so. That would be one huge industry-changing lawsuit worth untold billions. No beating around the bush with a vague term like "by-products".


If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.

In the meantime while you obsess over Google collecting and selling personal information you ignore the companies who really are doing so, Companies like Acxiom (enabled here at AI) and Epsilon and even credit reporting agencies like Experian that make a living from the sale of data. If you really believe that Google delivering targeted ads while keeping the data that enables it under lock and key should be a primary concern you're being incredibly naive.

Look beyond AI and do a little research of your own. With a simple search like "Worst dat brokers" you'll find sources of information like these:
https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-about-what-data-brokers-know-about-you
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-data-brokers-selling-your-personal-information/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/12/19/data-broker-was-selling-lists-of-rape-alcoholism-and-erectile-dysfunction-sufferers/

Pay attention as you read too. Not once will you find any of them claiming Google is involved in selling personal data. Not one of them. It's a imaginary story coming from those with an agenda to claim they sell your personal information. Google is not the enemy you should be watching if you're worried someone is selling details of your health, finances and family. Here's 20 that really are selling you out.
http://readwrite.com/2012/04/26/here-are-20-companies-who-sell-your-data-how-to-stop-them#awesm=~oI1nrxf5ycY6ea

You may not want to share any information with Google for any number of reasons including having no reason at all. Selling that personal data to the highest bidder shouldn't be one of them as it's imaginary FUD.

Apple is not doing this?

 

1. Street View: not just street mapping. After being sued by 38 states, Google admitted last March that its weird-looking cars outfitted with roof cameras facing four directions were not just taking pictures; they were collecting data from computers inside homes and structures, including “passwords, e-mails and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users,” the New York Times reported.

 

 

​Is Apple doing this?

But last fall, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh held that Google never told Gmail users that Google would create personal profiles and target users with ads. Nor did people who are not Gmail users, but who were writing to Gmail addresses, agree to let Google collect and parse their messages.

Did Apple do this?

3. Google Safari: not just hunting WiFi. Google’s court record includes more than just grabbing and snatching data. In early 2012, theWall Street Journal broke the story that its software was bypassing security settings for Apple devices using the Safari browser. “Google hated this [Safari’s anti-tracking features] and used a secret code to bypass this security setting,” the blog GoogleExposed wrote. “This exposed millions of Safari users to tracking for months without them even knowing about it.” In August 2012, the Federal Trade Commission fined Google $22.5 million, its largest civil fine, noting that Google also had violated previous privacy agreements.

 

Is Apple doing this?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS

post #140 of 154
There are plenty of webcams out there that will do what DropCam does. I have two D-Link cams that I can connect to remotely over the Internet. They can also be set to record to a dedicated security monitor device, a server or NAS box. Not sure why any company would pay $555M for it.
post #141 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post
 

Apple is not doing this?

 

1. Street View: not just street mapping. After being sued by 38 states, Google admitted last March that its weird-looking cars outfitted with roof cameras facing four directions were not just taking pictures; they were collecting data from computers inside homes and structures, including “passwords, e-mails and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users,” the New York Times reported.

 

 

​Is Apple doing this?

But last fall, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh held that Google never told Gmail users that Google would create personal profiles and target users with ads. Nor did people who are not Gmail users, but who were writing to Gmail addresses, agree to let Google collect and parse their messages.

Did Apple do this?

3. Google Safari: not just hunting WiFi. Google’s court record includes more than just grabbing and snatching data. In early 2012, theWall Street Journal broke the story that its software was bypassing security settings for Apple devices using the Safari browser. “Google hated this [Safari’s anti-tracking features] and used a secret code to bypass this security setting,” the blog GoogleExposed wrote. “This exposed millions of Safari users to tracking for months without them even knowing about it.” In August 2012, the Federal Trade Commission fined Google $22.5 million, its largest civil fine, noting that Google also had violated previous privacy agreements.

 

Is Apple doing this?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS

 

Apple just price fixes books and employee wages as well as hold your text messages hostage if you try to leave iOS. 

Is Google doing this?

 

Apple and Google both use less than ethical methods.  Apple isn't brought up with privacy concerns because they don't deal in services nearly as much as Google.  

post #142 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Apple just price fixes books and employee wages as well as hold your text messages hostage if you try to leave iOS. 
Is Google doing this?

Apple and Google both use less than ethical methods.  Apple isn't brought up with privacy concerns because they don't deal in services nearly as much as Google.  

Apple didn't fix prices. Google was also involved in the anti-poaching lawsuit.

Googles probably reads all your text messages.
post #143 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

 

Apple just price fixes books and employee wages as well as hold your text messages hostage if you try to leave iOS. 

Is Google doing this?

 

Apple and Google both use less than ethical methods.  Apple isn't brought up with privacy concerns because they don't deal in services nearly as much as Google.  

I thought we were talking about privacy issues?

"Apple isn't brought up with privacy concerns because they don't deal in services nearly as much as Google."

 

WTF does this have to do with them collecting private data from people's wifi, bypassing users security settings in an application that is not theirs, collecting data from individuals that do not use their Gmail service, collecting data from student emails? They have shown that their company culture seems to lean toward, let's do whatever we want until we get caught.

post #144 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post


Of course not. Even though Apple does the exact same thing, they do it with higher standards.

 

A classier, more sophisticated devil, talks with a British accent, walks with a golden leafed inlayed polished walking stick made entirely of Judas's spine, smokes the ashes of the fallen using a cigarette extender, wears the most expensive suits tailored and designed by Caraceni in Milan using only the finest skins from the sacrificed. :p 

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #145 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post
 

I thought we were talking about privacy issues?

"Apple isn't brought up with privacy concerns because they don't deal in services nearly as much as Google."

 

WTF does this have to do with them collecting private data from people's wifi, bypassing users security settings in an application that is not theirs, collecting data from individuals that do not use their Gmail service, collecting data from student emails? They have shown that their company culture seems to lean toward, let's do whatever we want until we get caught.

 

You listed multiple allegations against Google and then stated "Is Apple doing this?" to show how much more of a moral standard Apple has.

Companies that make different products will not necessarily have the same ethical issues.  A software company probably isn't going face allegations of child labor and sweatshops that a clothing company might.  It doesn't make the software company morally better because they may be facing allegations of corporate espionage or patent infringement or anti-poaching instead of labor violations.

 

Apple may not be painted with violating privacy issues as much as Google because they simply don't deal in that area as much.  I'll make the comparison that there were unfair worker related issues at Foxconn manufacturing plants which Apple gives business to.  Is Google doing this? No, but it doesn't mean Google is a better company in terms of morals.  

post #146 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

 

You listed multiple allegations against Google and then stated "Is Apple doing this?" to show how much more of a moral standard Apple has.

Companies that make different products will not necessarily have the same ethical issues.  A software company probably isn't going face allegations of child labor and sweatshops that a clothing company might.  It doesn't make the software company morally better because they may be facing allegations of corporate espionage or patent infringement or anti-poaching instead of labor violations.

 

Apple may not be painted with violating privacy issues as much as Google because they simply don't deal in that area as much.  I'll make the comparison that there were unfair worker related issues at Foxconn manufacturing plants which Apple gives business to.  Is Google doing this? No, but it doesn't mean Google is a better company in terms of morals.  

What total nonsense. What I listed were not allegations. They are facts.

Collecting WiFi data - they were caught & admitted to it.

Bypassing Safari's privacy settings - again caught had to pay a fine.

Non Gmail users & collecting data - Yup.

Student emails - caught & admitted to it.

There is a pattern of behavior here. You seem to want to ignore that. That's fine. That's up to you.

I don't have to ignore it. That's up to me.

post #147 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

What total nonsense. What I listed were not allegations. They are facts.
Collecting WiFi data - they were caught & admitted to it.
Bypassing Safari's privacy settings - again caught had to pay a fine.
Non Gmail users & collecting data - Yup.
Student emails - caught & admitted to it.
There is a pattern of behavior here. You seem to want to ignore that. That's fine. That's up to you.
I don't have to ignore it. That's up to me.

Apple convicted of price fixing.
Apple settled anti poaching case
Apple convicted of storing GPS location
Shrug.
post #148 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

 

You listed multiple allegations against Google and then stated "Is Apple doing this?" to show how much more of a moral standard Apple has.

Companies that make different products will not necessarily have the same ethical issues.  A software company probably isn't going face allegations of child labor and sweatshops that a clothing company might.  It doesn't make the software company morally better because they may be facing allegations of corporate espionage or patent infringement or anti-poaching instead of labor violations.

 

Apple may not be painted with violating privacy issues as much as Google because they simply don't deal in that area as much.  I'll make the comparison that there were unfair worker related issues at Foxconn manufacturing plants which Apple gives business to.  Is Google doing this? No, but it doesn't mean Google is a better company in terms of morals.  

 

Google utilise cheap Chinese workers to expand and deepen market influence. You're naïve if you think different.

post #149 of 154
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
Apple convicted of price fixing.

 

Which they didn’t.

 
 Apple convicted of storing GPS location

 

Of which absolutely nothing was done with the data.

 
Shrug 

 

Yes, you don’t comprehend anything in the slightest. We know already. Google is not Apple. Get over it. How someone could protect that nightmare of a company and still sleep at night is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #150 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post


Apple convicted of price fixing.
Apple settled anti poaching case
Apple convicted of storing GPS location
Shrug.

You seem to have a problem with definitions of words. (convicted, allegations)

"Apple was not convicted of price fixing they reached a settlement.

 

Apple has denied breaking any antitrust laws. We'll see.

 

Apple settled anti poaching case - So did Google & others

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403308,00.asp

 

Apple convicted of storing GPS location

 

Show me where Apple was convicted in the legal system of this.

post #151 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post
 

You seem to have a problem with definitions of words. (convicted, allegations)

"Apple was not convicted of price fixing they reached a settlement.

 

Apple has denied breaking any antitrust laws. We'll see.

 

Apple settled anti poaching case - So did Google & others

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403308,00.asp

 

Apple convicted of storing GPS location

 

Show me where Apple was convicted in the legal system of this.

I believe they settled a civil claim for ebook price fixing.  However a federal court ruled them guilty.

Storing GPS location data - They were fined in South Korea. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/us-apple-korea-idUSTRE7721O720110803.  So you are correct, convicted is not quite accurate regarding the location data storing.

post #152 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

I believe they settled a civil claim for ebook price fixing.  However a federal court ruled them guilty.

Storing GPS location data - They were fined in South Korea. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/us-apple-korea-idUSTRE7721O720110803.  So you are correct, convicted is not quite accurate regarding the location data storing.

Storing GPS location data -you seem to leave Google out of this.

 

Here is an article on Apple's latest privacy policy if you or anyone else is interested. It is not the same as Google's.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2366921/why-apple-really-cares-about-your-privacy.html

 

Apple's official privacy policy:

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

post #153 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post
 

Storing GPS location data -you seem to leave Google out of this.

 

Here is an article on Apple's latest privacy policy if you or anyone else is interested. It is not the same as Google's.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2366921/why-apple-really-cares-about-your-privacy.html

 

Apple's official privacy policy:

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

 

From Apple:

Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes.

 

From Google:

"We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances applies: With your consent, With domain administrators, For external processing, For legal reasons. "

(There is additional text describing each circumstance that I removed for length's sake)

 

"We may share aggregatednon-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites. For example, we may share information publicly to show trends about the general use of our services."

 

It would seem they only share aggregated data and nothing that would individually identify someone. Doesn't seem much different.

post #154 of 154
I think that's a good thing that Google/Nest acquired Dropcam, I guess they will put more effort in R&D and finally come up with a solution to the outdoor problem of the Dropcam. From now on I'm using an outdoor case from Dropcases but I am really looking forward to the outdoor Dropcam.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google-owned Nest to acquire connected security camera firm Dropcam for $555M