Hacks targeting Chinese iCloud users prompt Apple CEO Tim Cook to meet China's vice premier

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,741member
    splif wrote: »
    Nope wrong again. (from FTC.gov) (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented) it was $22.5 million Google paid.

    <p style="color:rgb(50,50,50);margin-bottom:1em;">Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting.  Google exploited an exception to the browser’s default setting to place a temporary cookie from the DoubleClick domain.  Because of the particular operation of the Safari browser, that initial temporary cookie opened the door to all cookies from the DoubleClick domain, including the Google advertising tracking cookie that Google had represented would be blocked from Safari browsers.</p>

    <p style="color:rgb(50,50,50);margin-bottom:1em;">The FTC charged that Google’s misrepresentations violated a settlement it reached with the agency in October 2011, which barred Google from – among other things – misrepresenting the extent to which consumers can exercise control over the collection of their information. </p>

    Read it again, paying particular attention to the paragraph preceeding your clip.

    "In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google’s DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads.

    According to the FTC’s complaint, Google specifically told Safari users that because the Safari browser is set by default to block third-party cookies, as long as users do not change their browser settings, this setting “effectively accomplishes the same thing as [opting out of this particular Google advertising tracking cookie].” In addition, Google represented that it is a member of an industry group called the Network Advertising Initiative, which requires members to adhere to its self-regulatory code of conduct, including disclosure of their data collection and use practices.


    had they simply bypassed the setting without offering Safari users faulty advice on how to avoid ad tracking they'd have come away with no compalint from the FTC. It wasn't the tracking, it was telling Safari users not to change anything to avoid it when in truth they should have gone to Google Ad settngs to opt-out. For the FTC that was failing to disclose their data collection practices despite an earlier FTC settlement that required clear disclosure.

    Bypassing=OK
    Misleading Safari users on how to opt-out was not.
  • Reply 62 of 75
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Read it again, paying particular attention to the paragraph preceeding your clip.



    "In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google’s DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads.



    According to the FTC’s complaint, Google specifically told Safari users that because the Safari browser is set by default to block third-party cookies, as long as users do not change their browser settings, this setting “effectively accomplishes the same thing as [opting out of this particular Google advertising tracking cookie].” In addition, Google represented that it is a member of an industry group called the Network Advertising Initiative, which requires members to adhere to its self-regulatory code of conduct, including disclosure of their data collection and use practices.




    had they simply bypassed the setting without offering Safari users faulty advice on how to avoid ad tracking they'd have come away with no compalint from the FTC. IfIt wasn't the tracking, it was telling Safari users not to change anything to avoid it.



    Bypassing=OK

    Misleading Safari users on how to opt-out was not.

    Yes & they circumvented (or bypassed) that setting. I guess that somewhere in your head the other way (your spin) is less intrusive & ethical? Are you trying to say they did not know what they were doing? I guess the FTC just threw in this line to muddy up there own explanation:

    Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. 

  • Reply 63 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,741member
    splif wrote: »
    Yes & they circumvented (or bypassed) that setting. I guess that somewhere in your head the other way (your spin) is less intrusive & ethical? Are you trying to say they did not know what they were doing? I guess the FTC just threw in this line to muddy up there own explanation:
    Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. 

    ...after telling users they didn't need to opt-out via Google Ad settings. According to Google the user cookie settings in Safari accomplished the same thing, which it did not. If your really are interested in what I thought of Google's bypassing why not actually read what I posted in this thread alone?

    Quote:
    "There was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to respect the user wishes, unfortunately in my opinion."

    and
    "If they (government) aren't going to put teeth in it why bother with a voluntary request (to block cookies)? For show.

    and
    "FWIW it doesn't make it right when user settings are ignored but it is what it is."

    :\
  • Reply 64 of 75
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,294member
    splif wrote: »
    Yes & they circumvented (or bypassed) that setting. I guess that somewhere in your head the other way (your spin) is less intrusive & ethical? Are you trying to say they did not know what they were doing? I guess the FTC just threw in this line to muddy up there own explanation:
    Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. 

    Don't give up, certain Google trolls advocates, that insist on spending their time on an Apple fan site, always ready to step in to try to counter any anti-Google thoughts, need to be schooled. Google f$%^*ing sucks so keep up the good work. Or just add him/ her to your block list like I did. :D

    I keep trying to imagine what on earth could ever coax me to spend time on an Assdroid site, posting anytime an anti Apple comment came up. I can't, not even money would make me stoop that low. :no:
  • Reply 65 of 75
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I keep trying to imagine what on earth could ever coax me to spend time on an Assdroid site, posting anytime an anti Apple comment came up. I can't, not even money would make me stoop that low. image

     

    It's a considerable waste of time on his behalf but I suspect it may be all he has.

     

    Did you know he had the gall to call ME a troll the other day?

     

    How the f*ck does an Apple enthusiast on a Apple website qualify as a troll from somebody who, by his own admission, doesn't own an iPhone, iPad, or Mac?

     

    He's f*cking deluded.

  • Reply 66 of 75
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 112member
    tzeshan wrote: »

    Commie here much?

    I said you are immature because you still think people can be completely believable.  Have you asked your girl friend whether she loves you? lol
    I answered in the other post.
    I am not located within China.  Are you? 
  • Reply 67 of 75
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member



    The topic is ethics in relation to China, nice attempt at a deflection though.  Dare I mention Apple allowing user data to be stored on servers in China, accompanied by the outright lie that the principle reason is to improve the performance of it's cloud services.

  • Reply 68 of 75
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     



    The topic is ethics in relation to China, nice attempt at a deflection though.  Dare I mention Apple allowing user data to be stored on servers in China, accompanied by the outright lie that the principle reason is to improve the performance of it's cloud services.




    I daresay it's more ethical for Apple to allow local user data to reside on Chinese servers than if Apple had housed the data on their own servers and let the Chinese be responsible for decisions they make, rather than be complicit with divulging the sensitive data from Apple's own servers.

     

    Apple cannot change the country of China any more than a Chinese company could change the NSA's spying on the entire world.

  • Reply 69 of 75
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    ...after telling users they didn't need to opt-out via Google Ad settings. According to Google the user cookie settings in Safari accomplished the same thing, which it did not. If your really are interested in what I thought of Google's bypassing why not actually read what I posted in this thread alone?



    Quote:

    "There was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to respect the user wishes, unfortunately in my opinion."



    and

    "If they (government) aren't going to put teeth in it why bother with a voluntary request (to block cookies)? For show.



    and

    "FWIW it doesn't make it right when user settings are ignored but it is what it is."



    image

    You seem to have issues with comprehension. There is more than one deceptive action that Google used to track users without there knowledge or permission in the FTC ruling. One of which was circumventing user settings. That is why there are phrases such as "in addition to" used by the FTC. It really doesn't matter what your thoughts are on the issue because you are attempting to dilute any unethical behavior on Googles part. We are talking about ethics here. So, you really have no thoughts on ethical behavior on this issue or you would defend them instead of acting like you work in PR for Google.

  • Reply 70 of 75
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     



    The topic is ethics in relation to China, nice attempt at a deflection though.  Dare I mention Apple allowing user data to be stored on servers in China, accompanied by the outright lie that the principle reason is to improve the performance of it's cloud services.


    So, ethics can only be brought up on your terms? Anyway the article had nothing to do with this statement:

    Your post: "You don't expect Apple to display the backbone and ethical fortitude of Google do you?  There's no 45% profit in that."

    So, who is deflecting here?

  • Reply 71 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,741member
    splif wrote: »
    You seem to have issues with comprehension. There is more than one deceptive action that Google used to track users without there knowledge or permission in the FTC ruling. One of which was circumventing user settings. That is why there are phrases such as "in addition to" used by the FTC. It really doesn't matter what your thoughts are on the issue because you are attempting to dilute any unethical behavior on Googles part. We are talking about ethics here. So, you really have no thoughts on ethical behavior on this issue or you would defend them instead of acting like you work in PR for Google.
    700

    O.M.G.

    What Google did in bypassing user settings was not ethical IMO. Nor do I necessarily believe it was an accident despite Google's claims. Wrong. Period.

    It does not change the fact that Google was not fined by the FTC for bypassing the setting. There's nothing illegal aboutg doing so and so it's not uncommon for other companies to still do so. They got nailed for failing to properly disclose their data collection policies, specifically how to opt out of it.

    Claiming otherwise is also wrong. Period.
  • Reply 72 of 75
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post









    O.M.G.



    What Google did in bypassing user settings was not ethical IMO. Nor do I necessarily believe it was an accident despite Google's claims. Wrong. Period.



    It does not change the fact that Google was not fined by the FTC for bypassing the setting. There's nothing illegal aboutg doing so and so it's not uncommon for other companies to still do so. They got nailed for failing to properly disclose their data collection policies, specifically how to opt out of it.



    Claiming otherwise is also wrong. Period.

    Now we are talking about ethical behavior, correct? Which is what I posted to begin with. I did not mention illegal behavior. I did not mention the FTC case in my original post. You bought all of the into the conversation to dilute the distinction between ethical & unethical behavior. So you agree with me that it was unethical behavior & they circumvented the user settings (unethical not illegal). What the hell is the rest of your post for? It's just noise.

  • Reply 73 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,741member
    :no:
    Go back and read my first post
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182981/hacks-targeting-chinese-icloud-users-prompt-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-meet-chinas-vice-premier/40#post_2625546
    It's plain from your reply that you didn't, and still may not, understand what prompted the FTC action. I tried to explain what the $17M (?) fine was for since you and a lot of others thought it must be for illegally ignoring the browser settngs, thus the FTC fine. It isn't and there's companies/advertisers that still ignore it. YOU think it's unethical, I think it's unethical. Some others may disagree and perhaps even have what they feel are valid reasons. Yahoo is one of those taking the time to explain their action.
    http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-abandons-track-citing-lack-industry-standard-190290

    Keep in mind too that blocking 3rd party cookies doesn't accomplish a whole lot anymore. Web beacons, pixel tags and other tracking mechanisms have largely replaced their usefulness. Apple themselves use those newer trackers for that matter.
    splif wrote: »
    Now we are talking about ethical behavior, correct? Which is what I posted to begin with. I did not mention illegal behavior. I did not mention the FTC case in my original post. You bought all of the into the conversation to dilute the distinction between ethical & unethical behavior. So you agree with me that it was unethical behavior & they circumvented the user settings (unethical not illegal). What the hell is the rest of your post for? It's just noise.
  • Reply 74 of 75
    www.unlock-icloud.com
    The software decodes the iCloud lock first with the file method, if the files are not found, the wifi AES cloned request decrypt is used, and this give us 100% success rate.For this iCloud unlock, you dont need to exploit the bootrom, to open the phone case, to insert r-sim, x-sim or others, the software work with sim inserted or without sim.The program make on host computer two modiffication only: install webservice and write a line on host file with apple DNS and credentials.
Sign In or Register to comment.