Perhaps the biggest issue here is that Timmy is standing there in conferences and in front of politicians such as the EU parliament bragging over how serious Apple takes privacy, while at the same time knowing his company store their customers data with the same companies he gives flack for NOT taking privacy serious. It is, at best, hypocrisy, at worst, complete contempt of his customers.
I recommend you to read about encryption. Maybe education can subside some of your fears.
There is nothing about encryption at all in that post. It is about integrity, honesty, transparency and putting your money where your mouth is.
I can guarantee you, something like that would never have happened when I worked in the company; it had pride, integrity and preserving the brand reputation at the forefront of it's priorities. This issue is just another installment in a series that over time will ruin the customer trust in the company.
What I find funny about this is the fact that Apple doesn't charge a "premium" for iCloud, their price is the same as Google and cheaper than Dropbox or OneDrive.
This is just someone going after Apple because they know they have money, I doubt anything will come out of this.
What I find funny about this is the fact that Apple doesn't charge a "premium" for iCloud, their price is the same as Google and cheaper than Dropbox or OneDrive.
This is just someone going after Apple because they know they have money, I doubt anything will come out of this.
This has nothing to do with pricing or encryption.
What is has to do with is that a lot of the original (read Mac) customer base chose Apple because they specifically did not want anything to do with Microsoft and Google, and Apple gave them a viable alternative.
This same base often had to fight a tough struggle with corporate IT in their work environment to be able to use their alternative at the risk of getting fired (people actually did get fired). It was only after the iPhone was launched and top executives started bringing their iPhones to work there was a change as IT was ordered to support them.
Although no longer as visible most places this fight with corporate Microsoft-dominated IT still goes on. It also goes on in mobile operator companies who favor Android based devices.
So there is resentment when people find out that Cook's Apple sell them out the back door to "the enemy".
IANAL, but I have been asked to leave a Holiday Inn Express to avoid a drunken disorderly charge. Anywho. Funnily enough, the plaintiffs can use the exact argument you're incorrectly using to defend Apple: They never said they owned the servers housing the data. But did they imply it by stating: "When iCloud is enabled, your content will be automatically sent to and stored by Apple..."? It's an ambiguous statement that depends entirely on reader interpretation. In contract dispute, ambiguity favors the party who didn't write the contract. Also not helping Apple, the explicit (not ambiguous) nature of the Chinese agreement. They tell the Chinese user straight up - we're storing your data with these guys over here. Now that could be required legalese because they also store the encryption keys with the Chinese. Who knows. But they do something for the Chinese they don't do for other customers.
The encryption has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiffs were harmed. The harm is described in the article. The claim states they were denied their right to make an informed decision about paid iCloud services because they were denied relevant information: Apple stores customer data on 3rd part servers. Again, IANAL, but I think it's safe to say the plaintiff's lawyers are going to juxtapose Apple's shaded dig at Google (We don't sell your data. You are not the product) against Apple's willingness to store that customer data on the servers of the "data seller".
>>> It's an ambiguous statement that depends entirely on reader interpretation. No. There is no interpretation here. Apple hasn’t said with the words “stored by Apple” anything about WHERE it is stored. What you claim Apple made believe is just you wishful thinking.
>>> ...on the servers of the “data seller”. AWS does not sell or even use your data. Even Google is not selling your personal data. This is all your fears.
Thats why people are afraid of terrorism. Even though the even chance to be struck by a lightning is higher.
It’s just fear.
I attributed the statement (stored by Apple) from the filing to Apple in error. I don't do wishful thinking since I have no skin in the game. None of my data is store in iCloud. This is simply a tech topic that interested me.
I am fully aware Google does not sell data. That's why data seller is clearly in quotation marks. "Data seller" is a derision that references back to the previous sentence where I alluded to Apple throwing shade at Google with "We don't sell your data. You are not the product". If I'm not clear, it was me poking fun at Apple's seeming Google bad but we'll use them anyway stance. I have no fear since I am fairly certain Google does what they say they do with data. Selling ad space based on anonymized and aggregated data. Big whoop. I am comfortable enough with the veracity of Apple and Google regarding their statements about data use. Terrorism. tee hee.
Perhaps the biggest issue here is that Timmy is standing there in conferences and in front of politicians such as the EU parliament bragging over how serious Apple takes privacy, while at the same time knowing his company store their customers data with the same companies he gives flack for NOT taking privacy serious. It is, at best, hypocrisy, at worst, complete contempt of his customers.
I recommend you to read about encryption. Maybe education can subside some of your fears.
There is a common misconception that data, information, facts, and logic can triumph over emotion. It’s simply not true. Emotion trumps everything. Bad science is far less damaging than bad scientists.
Apple has given the public the impression they store data in their own datacenters, and as Apple provides these services around the planet and customers in different countries should be informed where their data actually is stored so they can make informed decisions if they want to use the service or not. It probably also has lead customers to believe they got an increased level of privacy (as spouted by Apple marketing), when in reality they got closer to Amazon Web Services, Google and Microsoft base level. If I knew my iCloud data was stored on Google servers, I would have ended the iCloud subscription immediately.
But of course for ex-Compaq Tim Cook, he don't see the difference.
I think you are confusing your interpretation of what Apple said. They never said they owned the servers that house iCloud data, plus they don’t go into detail with the public on what data is stored on those specific servers. Plus the fact that they use encryption which so far no one has been able to defeat makes it hard to present a case in which the plaintiffs or you were harmed.
I am not confusing anything. Apple has made multiple announcements of how they are building large data centers for iCloud and other services, and have even given tours of them for journalists.
It has been generally assumed that Apple mainly have been hosting iCloud on Microsoft Azure architecture, but the servers running it were fully deployed to Apple owned facilities and locations.
Data hosted in other cloud services will necessarily also end up in their backup systems where they never should have been. They can possibly also be decrypted there because Apple can decrypt iCloud hosted data and have done so in multiple cases for law enforcement. When the data end up in a third party backup system it can also be restored to a different location and potentially be compromised.
This is also about Apple's integrity and trustworthiness. They pretend to have a holier-than-thou stance on privacy, yet completely fail to inform the customers that their data might migrate outside Apple facilities. NOT good!
So much ignorance on parade. Apple holds the keys to their encryption, not the third parties. Apple has used third party storage for years and it was common knowledge; examples Azure and Amazon.
Nobody is pretending anything, Apple has a much better stance and track record on privacy than, say, the advertising company.
So, exactly how were the plaintiffs damaged? What a joke. If someone files a BS lawsuit like this, upon losing, they should be fully responsible for the defendant's legal fees. That would stop this garbage in its tracks.
Damages are fairly explicit they have their data stored with vendors they don’t trust or approve.
it is sort of like hiring a contractor to do major remodeling on your home. If you had expected him to the work and then find out he is sub contracting it out you are not going to be happy. If he informs you at the time of contract negotiations then you understand what is going on.
It is a question of ethics really and frankly Apple has been really going down hill recently when it comes to ethical behavior.
Uh that’s exactly what happens with general contractors — they hire their own subs, and most of the time the client is completely ignorant about it.
Really, how else is Apple going downhill ethically? Hosting siri requests that they already got permission for? Even if we conceded that was unethical (I don’t), what else ya got?
Perhaps the biggest issue here is that Timmy is standing there in conferences and in front of politicians such as the EU parliament bragging over how serious Apple takes privacy, while at the same time knowing his company store their customers data with the same companies he gives flack for NOT taking privacy serious. It is, at best, hypocrisy, at worst, complete contempt of his customers.
I recommend you to read about encryption. Maybe education can subside some of your fears.
There is nothing about encryption at all in that post. It is about integrity, honesty, transparency and putting your money where your mouth is.
I can guarantee you, something like that would never have happened when I worked in the company; it had pride, integrity and preserving the brand reputation at the forefront of it's priorities. This issue is just another installment in a series that over time will ruin the customer trust in the company.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Surely you realize there’s a difference between storing an encrypted blob of data, which you control and is unreadable by anyone else including the cloud company you’re warehousing it with, and another company who owns their own data and has their own customer policies with its collection and use, right? Is it too much to ask you to turn on the lightbulb in your head and realize that one can use Amazon’s data warehousing while also critiquing how Amazon makes use of Amazon customer data thru Amazon policies? (Tho honestly most/all of the criticism I’ve seen has been directed at Google and Facebook).
And are you implying you used to have something to do with Apple management?
What I find funny about this is the fact that Apple doesn't charge a "premium" for iCloud, their price is the same as Google and cheaper than Dropbox or OneDrive.
This is just someone going after Apple because they know they have money, I doubt anything will come out of this.
This has nothing to do with pricing or encryption.
What is has to do with is that a lot of the original (read Mac) customer base chose Apple because they specifically did not want anything to do with Microsoft and Google, and Apple gave them a viable alternative.
This same base often had to fight a tough struggle with corporate IT in their work environment to be able to use their alternative at the risk of getting fired (people actually did get fired). It was only after the iPhone was launched and top executives started bringing their iPhones to work there was a change as IT was ordered to support them.
Although no longer as visible most places this fight with corporate Microsoft-dominated IT still goes on. It also goes on in mobile operator companies who favor Android based devices.
So there is resentment when people find out that Cook's Apple sell them out the back door to "the enemy".
Gosh, I’d hate to see what happens when you find out Jobs accepted Microsoft investment and said “We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose,” as you’ll lose your mind.
I think one of the problems with what Apple is doing was illustrated when Bloomberg published the story about possible server corruption primarily on AWS (Amazon) servers -- and said that Apple may also have been affected.
Apple's response was: "We guarantee absolutely 100% that our iCloud servers were never impacted". But this illustrates the ludicrous nature of that statement: Since iCloud data was almost all stored on Amazon's servers, Tim had absolutely no way of knowing if those servers had been corrupted. None. Zero. Even if the story was proven to be false, Tim still cannot guarantee the integrity of servers he does not own and control.
I was taught a long time ago that nothing is completely safe -- if criminals want in badly enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough for them to make them go elsewhere. Apple has always projected that their security was the best around. But, since our iCloud data is sitting on Amazon servers, it is obviously no safer there than if it were stored on, well, an Amazon server.
While I admire Apple for having all or nearly all 100% renewable energy facilities, they should maybe focus more on developing their own facilities and get our data out of the hands of Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
Somehow, you’re missing the big picture. Let’s agree that the word “servers” mean computer hardware. Cloud software like AWS, AZURE, Oracle cloud services, IBMs cloud services are software. Apple hosts these companies’ cloud software on Apple-owned hardware in their data centers.
I think one of the problems with what Apple is doing was illustrated when Bloomberg published the story about possible server corruption primarily on AWS (Amazon) servers -- and said that Apple may also have been affected.
Apple's response was: "We guarantee absolutely 100% that our iCloud servers were never impacted". But this illustrates the ludicrous nature of that statement: Since iCloud data was almost all stored on Amazon's servers, Tim had absolutely no way of knowing if those servers had been corrupted. None. Zero. Even if the story was proven to be false, Tim still cannot guarantee the integrity of servers he does not own and control.
I was taught a long time ago that nothing is completely safe -- if criminals want in badly enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough for them to make them go elsewhere. Apple has always projected that their security was the best around. But, since our iCloud data is sitting on Amazon servers, it is obviously no safer there than if it were stored on, well, an Amazon server.
While I admire Apple for having all or nearly all 100% renewable energy facilities, they should maybe focus more on developing their own facilities and get our data out of the hands of Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
Somehow, you’re missing the big picture. Let’s agree that the word “servers” mean computer hardware. Cloud software like AWS, AZURE, Oracle cloud services, IBMs cloud services are software. Apple hosts these companies’ cloud software on Apple-owned hardware in their data centers.
I think one of the problems with what Apple is doing was illustrated when Bloomberg published the story about possible server corruption primarily on AWS (Amazon) servers -- and said that Apple may also have been affected.
Apple's response was: "We guarantee absolutely 100% that our iCloud servers were never impacted". But this illustrates the ludicrous nature of that statement: Since iCloud data was almost all stored on Amazon's servers, Tim had absolutely no way of knowing if those servers had been corrupted. None. Zero. Even if the story was proven to be false, Tim still cannot guarantee the integrity of servers he does not own and control.
I was taught a long time ago that nothing is completely safe -- if criminals want in badly enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough for them to make them go elsewhere. Apple has always projected that their security was the best around. But, since our iCloud data is sitting on Amazon servers, it is obviously no safer there than if it were stored on, well, an Amazon server.
While I admire Apple for having all or nearly all 100% renewable energy facilities, they should maybe focus more on developing their own facilities and get our data out of the hands of Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
Somehow, you’re missing the big picture. Let’s agree that the word “servers” mean computer hardware. Cloud software like AWS, AZURE, Oracle cloud services, IBMs cloud services are software. Apple hosts these companies’ cloud software on Apple-owned hardware in their data centers.
Pretty sure that's ass-backwards in every way.
AWS, Azure, Oracle Cloud and IBM Cloud are all IaaS offering, with software services built on top of them. None of them run in an Apple data centre as far as I'm aware, though the reverse is definitely true as iCloud has made a lot of use of AWS and Azure in the past.
If you really think about this, it is actually a good thing Apple is spreading it around verse having everything under one roof so to say. We have all seen Amazon services going off line and we have seen Apple services going off line as well. This way the not all the information and services are all in one place. This could be part of Apple disaster recovery plan. Apple has no obligation to notify the public how they mitigate risk of a disaster.
These idiot are suing over some perceive level or harm or lack of trust, when in fact Apple could be doing this to ensure the consumer and the company is protected. So they were harmed by be protected that could be an interest case to argue.
Er … no, I’m afraid Apple cannot be sued for your ignorance.
If you walked into court to sue your day loan company because they charged you a 1000% interest, do you think “I didn’t bother to check” is a defence? Nope, it ain’t.
If you had anything more than fake concern for where Apple was storing data then the information was easy enough to find. The reason you didn’t is because, aside from scoring troll points, you didn’t actually care.
No thought not. So why is it Apple’s fault you chose to bury your head in the sand?
Apple has made no secret that it uses a combination of its own servers (for iTunes, Messages, Apple Music) and third party servers (explicitly mentioned right there, for storage).
All of that is wrong. 1. Apple can be sued for someone perceived ignorance. We're commenting on an article that demonstrates exactly that. 2. Depending on the state, someone could definitely sue a pay day loan company for 1000% interest. Usury laws. 3. For the none techie, that info isn't easy to find and the relevant portion is 3/4 of the down a long scroll. 4. Apple didn't publicly acknowledge the use of Google, Amazon, and Microsoft's cloud service until last year. They were using them far longer.
I personally disagree with the lawsuit. But what you wrote is wrong.
Meh... Who cares it's encrypted. People don't realize it but when Amazon AWS experienced a US East data center outage half the Internet stopped working. Many companies host on AWS at least part of their infrastructure. Amazons most profitable business is AWS not retail. I believe I read somewhere that Apple pays Amazon like $30M/mo. That plus Google and Microsoft must be a considerable amount.
Being that Apple had disclosed this info long ago, the lawsuit is meritless.
That said, it's about time Apple builds out its own infrastructure and perhaps even offers it as a service to others as an additional revenue source.
I am not at all comfortable with my data on Google, Amazon, or MS servers. But there is nothing I can do about it. So in a way, I am thankful for this lawsuit. Hope it wakes up some thinking at Apple.
It's no good using the most secure devices when the company you trust is letting the less secure and less scrupulous out there hold your data for you. Yikes.
Why is Apple taking so long to build its iCloud infrastructure? I mean this is Apple for goodness sake. Anyway, I highly doubt this case will amount to anything but good luck to all the parties involved.
And are you implying you used to have something to do with Apple management?
I was one of the 33 world-wide product managers at the time with HW prototypes, beta HW including product that never got launched, all development project software versions, and 2 year product plans in my office.
Comments
It is about integrity, honesty, transparency and putting your money where your mouth is.
I can guarantee you, something like that would never have happened when I worked in the company; it had pride, integrity and preserving the brand reputation at the forefront of it's priorities. This issue is just another installment in a series that over time will ruin the customer trust in the company.
What I find funny about this is the fact that Apple doesn't charge a "premium" for iCloud, their price is the same as Google and cheaper than Dropbox or OneDrive.
This is just someone going after Apple because they know they have money, I doubt anything will come out of this.
What is has to do with is that a lot of the original (read Mac) customer base chose Apple because they specifically did not want anything to do with Microsoft and Google, and Apple gave them a viable alternative.
This same base often had to fight a tough struggle with corporate IT in their work environment to be able to use their alternative at the risk of getting fired (people actually did get fired). It was only after the iPhone was launched and top executives started bringing their iPhones to work there was a change as IT was ordered to support them.
Although no longer as visible most places this fight with corporate Microsoft-dominated IT still goes on. It also goes on in mobile operator companies who favor Android based devices.
So there is resentment when people find out that Cook's Apple sell them out the back door to "the enemy".
I am fully aware Google does not sell data. That's why data seller is clearly in quotation marks. "Data seller" is a derision that references back to the previous sentence where I alluded to Apple throwing shade at Google with "We don't sell your data. You are not the product". If I'm not clear, it was me poking fun at Apple's seeming Google bad but we'll use them anyway stance. I have no fear since I am fairly certain Google does what they say they do with data. Selling ad space based on anonymized and aggregated data. Big whoop. I am comfortable enough with the veracity of Apple and Google regarding their statements about data use. Terrorism. tee hee.
Nobody is pretending anything, Apple has a much better stance and track record on privacy than, say, the advertising company.
Uh that’s exactly what happens with general contractors — they hire their own subs, and most of the time the client is completely ignorant about it.
Really, how else is Apple going downhill ethically? Hosting siri requests that they already got permission for? Even if we conceded that was unethical (I don’t), what else ya got?
And are you implying you used to have something to do with Apple management?
Gosh, I’d hate to see what happens when you find out Jobs accepted Microsoft investment and said “We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose,” as you’ll lose your mind.
Also, newsflash - Samsung chips in every iPhone.
Ok, that doesn't mean a flaw in iCloud has been discovered. But spread iCloud data across multiple ☁️ contracted services isn’t a smart choice for the world's largest company. https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/09/aws-ebs-cloud-backups-leak/
AWS, Azure, Oracle Cloud and IBM Cloud are all IaaS offering, with software services built on top of them. None of them run in an Apple data centre as far as I'm aware, though the reverse is definitely true as iCloud has made a lot of use of AWS and Azure in the past.
These idiot are suing over some perceive level or harm or lack of trust, when in fact Apple could be doing this to ensure the consumer and the company is protected. So they were harmed by be protected that could be an interest case to argue.
I personally disagree with the lawsuit. But what you wrote is wrong.