We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency.
Transparency, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The above snippet from their response is the most revealing of the entire reply. Basically the gov't is saying, you can appease your customers by giving them a highly filtered list requests, but don't even think about revealing the damning stuff.
Let's say they aren't even able to look at any data unless the "algorithms" identify it as "suspicious". How long will it take by just random coincidence till some innocent person is "flagged" and has their world turned upside down, you know, like Steven Hatfill.
It's less likely that such a thing would happen these days because they wouldn't name someone until they have their data and know that the person is truly suspect or not. Likely because of what happened with Hatfill which was for the most part paranoid scare games by the media. Just like what the media is doing with Apple etc over this issue. All over a couple of slides taken out of context.
Transparency, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The above snippet from their response is the most revealing of the entire reply. Basically the gov't is saying, you can appease your customers by giving them a highly filtered list requests, but don't even think about revealing the damning stuff.
Not a shock since some of the data is likely linked to current investigations.
It's less likely that such a thing would happen these days because they wouldn't name someone until they have their data and know that the person is truly suspect or not. Likely because of what happened with Hatfill which was for the most part paranoid scare games by the media. Just like what the media is doing with Apple etc over this issue. All over a couple of slides taken out of context.
Hatfill was persecuted by the FBI because they were convinced he was guilty. Brandon Mayfield was persecuted because they were convinced he was involved in the Madrid bombings. They thought they were following the "evidence", despite the fact that it was bad. The fact that massive amounts of data are being sorted by computers to identify "suspects" increases the likelihood that incidents like these will happen with increasing frequency.
Big Data is a Big Problem, and, as we know, having a private company hold it is the same as the government holding it.
What do you think Google should do, instead of acting as a spy agency on behalf of the government?
I'm asking you because of your posting history that indicates Google is your role model, hypocrisy and all.
Google is not my role model at all. I mostly hate the way google is allowed to operate and be the only an effective monopoly in the search business. Secondly, my posting history does not at all show that Google is my role model....at all.
It's attitudes like this that show the real issue, no matter what Apple says, some folks will think they are lying. After all why would the newspapers write something that isn't 100% true. They are newspapers after all, they don't deal in rumor and speculation. They never have sources that lie or tell partial truths for a particular agenda. Etc. you can always trust everything you read in the newspapers.
Look, I just don't agree with what Apple is doing at any capacity. Let the government do it's own dirty work without their help at all.
Uh, yeah, right. Yet is is GE who pays nothing and their CEO is the Presidents "Jobs Czar." Nothing to see here...move along.
Exactly. We need to vote both parties out of office. We need some fresh younger blood running congress and the government. I think the people running our government are just too old for this time period and aren't doing a good job. The establishment parties serve themselves and not the citizens of the United States.
They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access
Did you not read the article or statement?
The whole PRISM scandal is about direct access to servers... Apple is completely denying that. Furthermore, they go on to say that they hand over data only when there's a court order ... this IS admitting they allow indirect access to some data.
Actually, "corrections" is ignorant or uninformed. The feds make exactly the same requests of your bank, as well. The banks are also forbidden by law to acknowledge the information program - which includes monthly reports on every account-holder.
If the US government a) collects taxes on foreign income and b) operates a global surveillance program, how would your fantasy of a draconian government NOT be able to syphon data from servers owned by a US corporation just because they were, say, installed in France?
And do you know that electricity for data centers costs twice as much in Europe as in the US? I'm glad you're not running Apple. You sound as superstitious and capricious in your strategies as the junta running Burma.
"US servers" are quintessentially different from servers in most other western countries in exactly the way we are talking about with this article and discussion. They are subject to the so-called "Patriot Act" and are available to the US government for scrutiny at almost any time. Most European countries and Canada will not allow the use of any software in government and education for example, if any part of that software or the data in it is present on American servers. This is because it cannot be guaranteed to be safe.
Data on servers in Sweden, France and all those other places is not subject to scrutiny by the US secret service. This is a huge issue for all non-Americans that Americans just don't seem to get.
If Apple really wanted to protect it's customers privacy, it would move it's servers out of the US. Or at least move the servers for non-US customers out of the US.
And which country do you suggest? Most spy even more on it's citizens than the U.S does.
Unless your account has been hijacked, it's hard to believe that statement.
Speaking of hijacked accounts, Twitter accounts get hijacked all the time and I've not yet seen a public outcry for them to fix the vulnerability that's being exploited.
Google is not my role model at all. I mostly hate the way google is allowed to operate and be the only an effective monopoly in the search business. Secondly, my posting history does not at all show that Google is my role model....at all.
Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.
Apple is quite obviously not "a spy agency acting on behalf of the government."
Also, the "dirty work" the government is doing is mostly routine law enforcement along with some efforts to stop terrorist plots.
There is not even a suggestion that the "government" is plotting to use clandestine technology to persecute some group of citizens. That's what the banks do, with immunity.
You are naive. The government is collecting information on every phone all made. For instance, the number making a call, who the number called, and how long the call was. You can tell a whole lot about a person just from that information. The government also revealed yesterday, it can at will listen in to phone calls. As far as Court requests go, you have no idea how many requests are related to terrorism as Apple is not allowed to tell you how many. Google along with Twitter is fighting to have that number revealed.
Companies like AT&T have had a history of just voluntarily giving the government access to its customers information without any Court order. When it does so, it is acting like a spy agency. When it receives a Court Order and it does not fight in Court, it is also capitulating to the government. Google routinely fights with the government over user privacy. Apple should do the same.
Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.
Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly when it had less than 90 percent of the PC market. In the US, Google has about 70 percent of the search market. Worldwide, Google has over 90 percent in many Countries, especially in Europe. I suspect that Google controls close to 90 percent of mobile advertising in the US.
Moreover, you do not have to sell something to have a monopoly. Google offers a search product. It uses this to sell ads. This product competes with products from Yahoo, Microsoft, along with a few other companies. These also wish to sell ads.
Peopl, do not feel so safe because Apple said they have not been requested to allow the government access, Remember most all of your data goes through the phone companies and they have allowed the government access to their systems. The government also has access to the 7 major Internet service provided whichs moves all the traffic. therefore, if they want to know what you are doing they can monitor you prior to it ever hitting Apple servers. Sending texts and picture and stuff over the internet to apple or facebook or google is not encrypted data, thus very easy to capture and see what you are doing.
For those who do not know, all phone systems in service today have back doors in them to allow the government to listen in if they want. Unlike the past when it required the government and police to get phone company people involved, which took days to happen, now they can just connect and monitor as they like. It not like what you see on TV with all the great visuals of pin pointing someone location on a map, but it gives them enough information to so theirs.
Honestly, as people say if you not doing anything wrong why do you car, Also so what if they are collecting information, it is not having the information that is illegal, like knowing how to build a bomb, it is what you do with the information that is illegal. In this case if all the government is doing is using the information to catch terrorist fine, but as we all know, they will use the information for other purposes to which no one know what that will be.
Also, the government can be listening and watch anyone they like without court orders, as long as they do not file charges against you using that information without court order then you will never know. This is the piece people are concerned about, they can find out you doing something they do not like via these methods, inform the police to keep an eye on you and if the police then observe your illegal activity then they can arrest you and it required not mention of the illegal information gathering that did to clue them into you.
They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access (such as to non-Apple backups of the data) to all the information described and more. ....
This is incorrect. "Direct Access" in this case is not the opposite of "Indirect Access." Saying they "don't allow direct access" only means that the government has to make a formal request for information, "direct access" in the sense meant here, would be just letting the government look at whatever they want, whenever they want. You know, the way the telecom companies do.
In the case of Apple, you have further protection in that unlike other companies like Google, Facebook, etc. Apple will only give access if the request is formally made and it is a valid and legal request. They have said so explicitly. it says so in their user agreements specifically.
Most other companies when faced with a request like this from the government, will simply comply. The fact that those other companies don't specifically say anything about the legality of the request is your big clue. There is a big difference between these two stances in that a great deal of the time, lawyers, police officers, and government officials ask for things that they should not have and have no legal right to, but people give in because "they're the cops."
A lot of your post sounds extremely paranoid IMO also.
Comments
Quote:
We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency.
Transparency, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The above snippet from their response is the most revealing of the entire reply. Basically the gov't is saying, you can appease your customers by giving them a highly filtered list requests, but don't even think about revealing the damning stuff.
It's less likely that such a thing would happen these days because they wouldn't name someone until they have their data and know that the person is truly suspect or not. Likely because of what happened with Hatfill which was for the most part paranoid scare games by the media. Just like what the media is doing with Apple etc over this issue. All over a couple of slides taken out of context.
Not a shock since some of the data is likely linked to current investigations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
It's less likely that such a thing would happen these days because they wouldn't name someone until they have their data and know that the person is truly suspect or not. Likely because of what happened with Hatfill which was for the most part paranoid scare games by the media. Just like what the media is doing with Apple etc over this issue. All over a couple of slides taken out of context.
Hatfill was persecuted by the FBI because they were convinced he was guilty. Brandon Mayfield was persecuted because they were convinced he was involved in the Madrid bombings. They thought they were following the "evidence", despite the fact that it was bad. The fact that massive amounts of data are being sorted by computers to identify "suspects" increases the likelihood that incidents like these will happen with increasing frequency.
Big Data is a Big Problem, and, as we know, having a private company hold it is the same as the government holding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
What do you think Google should do, instead of acting as a spy agency on behalf of the government?
I'm asking you because of your posting history that indicates Google is your role model, hypocrisy and all.
Google is not my role model at all. I mostly hate the way google is allowed to operate and be the only an effective monopoly in the search business. Secondly, my posting history does not at all show that Google is my role model....at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
.
.... And of course with Apple's generous tax arrangements the Government has HUGE bargaining power to force Apple to do what it wants. ...
Uh, yeah, right. Yet is is GE who pays nothing and their CEO is the Presidents "Jobs Czar." Nothing to see here...move along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
It's attitudes like this that show the real issue, no matter what Apple says, some folks will think they are lying. After all why would the newspapers write something that isn't 100% true. They are newspapers after all, they don't deal in rumor and speculation. They never have sources that lie or tell partial truths for a particular agenda. Etc. you can always trust everything you read in the newspapers.
Look, I just don't agree with what Apple is doing at any capacity. Let the government do it's own dirty work without their help at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
Uh, yeah, right. Yet is is GE who pays nothing and their CEO is the Presidents "Jobs Czar." Nothing to see here...move along.
Exactly. We need to vote both parties out of office. We need some fresh younger blood running congress and the government. I think the people running our government are just too old for this time period and aren't doing a good job. The establishment parties serve themselves and not the citizens of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
Google is not my role model at all. I hate google with the notable exception of my hacky gmail account.
Unless your account has been hijacked, it's hard to believe that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access
Did you not read the article or statement?
The whole PRISM scandal is about direct access to servers... Apple is completely denying that. Furthermore, they go on to say that they hand over data only when there's a court order ... this IS admitting they allow indirect access to some data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
If the US government a) collects taxes on foreign income and b) operates a global surveillance program, how would your fantasy of a draconian government NOT be able to syphon data from servers owned by a US corporation just because they were, say, installed in France?
And do you know that electricity for data centers costs twice as much in Europe as in the US? I'm glad you're not running Apple. You sound as superstitious and capricious in your strategies as the junta running Burma.
"US servers" are quintessentially different from servers in most other western countries in exactly the way we are talking about with this article and discussion. They are subject to the so-called "Patriot Act" and are available to the US government for scrutiny at almost any time. Most European countries and Canada will not allow the use of any software in government and education for example, if any part of that software or the data in it is present on American servers. This is because it cannot be guaranteed to be safe.
Data on servers in Sweden, France and all those other places is not subject to scrutiny by the US secret service. This is a huge issue for all non-Americans that Americans just don't seem to get.
And which country do you suggest? Most spy even more on it's citizens than the U.S does.
Speaking of hijacked accounts, Twitter accounts get hijacked all the time and I've not yet seen a public outcry for them to fix the vulnerability that's being exploited.
Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Why do you "still think that"?
Apple is quite obviously not "a spy agency acting on behalf of the government."
Also, the "dirty work" the government is doing is mostly routine law enforcement along with some efforts to stop terrorist plots.
There is not even a suggestion that the "government" is plotting to use clandestine technology to persecute some group of citizens. That's what the banks do, with immunity.
You are naive. The government is collecting information on every phone all made. For instance, the number making a call, who the number called, and how long the call was. You can tell a whole lot about a person just from that information. The government also revealed yesterday, it can at will listen in to phone calls. As far as Court requests go, you have no idea how many requests are related to terrorism as Apple is not allowed to tell you how many. Google along with Twitter is fighting to have that number revealed.
Companies like AT&T have had a history of just voluntarily giving the government access to its customers information without any Court order. When it does so, it is acting like a spy agency. When it receives a Court Order and it does not fight in Court, it is also capitulating to the government. Google routinely fights with the government over user privacy. Apple should do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.
Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly when it had less than 90 percent of the PC market. In the US, Google has about 70 percent of the search market. Worldwide, Google has over 90 percent in many Countries, especially in Europe. I suspect that Google controls close to 90 percent of mobile advertising in the US.
Moreover, you do not have to sell something to have a monopoly. Google offers a search product. It uses this to sell ads. This product competes with products from Yahoo, Microsoft, along with a few other companies. These also wish to sell ads.
Peopl, do not feel so safe because Apple said they have not been requested to allow the government access, Remember most all of your data goes through the phone companies and they have allowed the government access to their systems. The government also has access to the 7 major Internet service provided whichs moves all the traffic. therefore, if they want to know what you are doing they can monitor you prior to it ever hitting Apple servers. Sending texts and picture and stuff over the internet to apple or facebook or google is not encrypted data, thus very easy to capture and see what you are doing.
For those who do not know, all phone systems in service today have back doors in them to allow the government to listen in if they want. Unlike the past when it required the government and police to get phone company people involved, which took days to happen, now they can just connect and monitor as they like. It not like what you see on TV with all the great visuals of pin pointing someone location on a map, but it gives them enough information to so theirs.
Honestly, as people say if you not doing anything wrong why do you car, Also so what if they are collecting information, it is not having the information that is illegal, like knowing how to build a bomb, it is what you do with the information that is illegal. In this case if all the government is doing is using the information to catch terrorist fine, but as we all know, they will use the information for other purposes to which no one know what that will be.
Also, the government can be listening and watch anyone they like without court orders, as long as they do not file charges against you using that information without court order then you will never know. This is the piece people are concerned about, they can find out you doing something they do not like via these methods, inform the police to keep an eye on you and if the police then observe your illegal activity then they can arrest you and it required not mention of the illegal information gathering that did to clue them into you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access (such as to non-Apple backups of the data) to all the information described and more. ....
This is incorrect. "Direct Access" in this case is not the opposite of "Indirect Access." Saying they "don't allow direct access" only means that the government has to make a formal request for information, "direct access" in the sense meant here, would be just letting the government look at whatever they want, whenever they want. You know, the way the telecom companies do.
In the case of Apple, you have further protection in that unlike other companies like Google, Facebook, etc. Apple will only give access if the request is formally made and it is a valid and legal request. They have said so explicitly. it says so in their user agreements specifically.
Most other companies when faced with a request like this from the government, will simply comply. The fact that those other companies don't specifically say anything about the legality of the request is your big clue. There is a big difference between these two stances in that a great deal of the time, lawyers, police officers, and government officials ask for things that they should not have and have no legal right to, but people give in because "they're the cops."
A lot of your post sounds extremely paranoid IMO also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btracy713
Lol move the servers out of the US?! You know how much lag that would cause not to mention the cost involved
Right because only the USA has any kind of decent Internet connections? WTF are you talking about?