Maybe we could use this approach to stop traffic cameras for being used.
Actually I find some of those arguments somewhat amusing - people claiming that a radar gun used to measure their speed is a violation of their privacy. Guess what - when you are using a public roadway it is not a private matter.
In this case I would think the key would be "collecting" if there is no evidence that any of the personal data ever ended up anywhere that was outside of the users own personal device(s) - then Apple is not in fact "collecting" anything - case closed.
Maybe we could use this approach to stop traffic cameras for being used.
Actually I find some of those arguments somewhat amusing - people claiming that a radar gun used to measure their speed is a violation of their privacy. Guess what - when you are using a public roadway it is not a private matter.
In this case I would think the key would be "collecting" if there is no evidence that any of the personal data ever ended up anywhere that was outside of the users own personal device(s) - then Apple is not in fact "collecting" anything - case closed.
That has already been fought and settled. Similarly, there were lawsuits against Google because when they were driving around doing their street level photos, they caught people doing things that were not particularly pleasant or perhaps embarrassing. Several lawsuits were filed and Google didn't lose any, AFAIK. The basic principle is that when you do something on a public street, you have no expectation of privacy.
The use of your personal computer in your own home is an entirely different matter. You have an expectation of privacy in your own home and Google has clearly violated it a number of times (see the above articles).
You are correct that if the personal data does not end up anywhere but your own computer that the harm is substantially reduced, but that does not mean that the violator gets off scot-free. There are specific laws that may apply, as well. In the end, when the user selects 'do not store any cookies', their wishes should be respected.
There's plenty more - those are just from the first 15 or so Yahoo! hits.
Oh thank you very much, I knew about these I thought there were some seriuos new examples that I missed. Buzz is no more, the creep was fired and charged by police that did that thing with the teen sites and the Canadian thing was a mistake that was rectified quickly. I don't trust any online service that's why I encrypt all data that is uploaded to the cloud plus all personal emails to my familiy and never use social networking sites.
That's fine. As long as Google, Facebook, et. al. are also brought to trial over this (and their other data thefts). Otherwise it's hypocrisy.
This is a class action suit brought on by private lawyers not some DOJ investigation. You sound like a kid who got caught doing something and his friends got away with it. But mommy they did it to, no one likes a tattle-tell honey.
Oh thank you very much, I knew about these I thought there were some seriuos new examples that I missed. Buzz is no more, the creep was fired and charged by police that did that thing with the teen sites and the Canadian thing was a mistake that was rectified quickly. I don't trust any online service that's why I encrypt all data that is uploaded to the cloud plus all personal emails to my familiy and never use social networking sites.
If you knew about those examples (which were just the tip of the iceberg, btw), why did you say that you have been searching for evidence of Google's privacy violations and couldn't find any?
The fact is that Google's privacy violations are well documented. Their IP violations (like the now-defunct Google Books fiasco) are even better known.
Judge Grewel, the same judge who recommended sanctions on Samsung for destroying email's in the Apple/Samsung case is now questioning Apple's truthfulness in this location lawsuit over a similar issue of e-mails not being produced as ordered.
" Apple must show in detail how it’s complying with court orders to turn over evidence in a privacy lawsuit, a judge ruled, saying he can no longer rely on what the company tells him in the case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal in San Jose,California, issued the order after the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed Apple withheld documents it had previously been ordered to produce. Apple is accused in the lawsuit of collecting data on the locations of customers through iPhones, even after the device’s geo-location feature was turned off.
Grewal, saying he had already “refereed” the dispute, said it was “unacceptable” that Apple waited more than three months to verify whether it complied with his November order to turn over documents.
“Luckily for the plaintiffs, Apple has provided more than enough evidence itself to suggest to the court that it has not fully complied with the court’s order,” Grewal wrote in the March 6 order. “In light of Apple’s performance in this case, the court cannot rely on its representations that this time it really has or will produce all responsive documents.”
Apple’s resistance in the case is increasingly producing orders from Grewal that are forcing it to reveal inner workings that the company normally goes to great lengths to hide.
‘Wrong Hands’
Apple is also accused in the lawsuit of failing to tell customers that its iOS operating system allowed third parties to collect and monitor personal information from iPhones and iPads without their consent. Apple said in a court filing it has closely guarded some documents in the case because it and millions of its customers might be harmed if the information were “inadvertently released to the public or fell into the wrong hands.”
At a March 5 hearing before Grewal, Ashlie Beringer, a lawyer for Apple, said the company’s failure to produce e-mails from Steve Jobs and other senior executives in violation of Grewal’s November order was a “mistake.”
"Beringer said she and her team of lawyers reviewed more than 8,000 e-mails over the previous weekend and determined that they should turn over messages involving Apple’s late co-founder Jobs, Phil Schiller, its marketing chief, and Scott Forstall, the former head of mobile software, among others."
"In Grewal’s order, plaintiffs lawyers also won the right to see Apple documents concerning its process of reviewing applications for its mobile devices. The company redacted the information in part, it said, because the information is “incredibly sensitive and valuable and is a closely guarded trade secret,” according to a court filing.
Phillip Shoemaker, Apple’s Director of App Review, submitted a filing in the case last month explaining how disclosure of the review process would jeopardize Apple and “create real risk” to millions of users of its products, according to the filing."
There's apparently a whole lot going on here besides a simple location suit. No doubt AI will post a story up on this at some point.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?
The difference, of course, is that Google really does violate users' privacy. Apple does not - regardless of the false accusations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The difference, of course, is that Google really does violate users' privacy. Apple does not - regardless of the false accusations.
Can you show me where. I've been searching about this but all I can find is just speculation for both parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Can you show me where. I've been searching about this but all I can find is just speculation for both parties.
You obviously haven't looked very hard:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1733123/google-confirms-privacy-violations
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-cops-a-plea-with-ftc-on-privacy-violations/1568
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11577588
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_privacy_violation_buzz_ftc.php
There's plenty more - those are just from the first 15 or so Yahoo! hits.
Maybe we could use this approach to stop traffic cameras for being used.
Actually I find some of those arguments somewhat amusing - people claiming that a radar gun used to measure their speed is a violation of their privacy. Guess what - when you are using a public roadway it is not a private matter.
In this case I would think the key would be "collecting" if there is no evidence that any of the personal data ever ended up anywhere that was outside of the users own personal device(s) - then Apple is not in fact "collecting" anything - case closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Maybe we could use this approach to stop traffic cameras for being used.
Actually I find some of those arguments somewhat amusing - people claiming that a radar gun used to measure their speed is a violation of their privacy. Guess what - when you are using a public roadway it is not a private matter.
In this case I would think the key would be "collecting" if there is no evidence that any of the personal data ever ended up anywhere that was outside of the users own personal device(s) - then Apple is not in fact "collecting" anything - case closed.
That has already been fought and settled. Similarly, there were lawsuits against Google because when they were driving around doing their street level photos, they caught people doing things that were not particularly pleasant or perhaps embarrassing. Several lawsuits were filed and Google didn't lose any, AFAIK. The basic principle is that when you do something on a public street, you have no expectation of privacy.
The use of your personal computer in your own home is an entirely different matter. You have an expectation of privacy in your own home and Google has clearly violated it a number of times (see the above articles).
You are correct that if the personal data does not end up anywhere but your own computer that the harm is substantially reduced, but that does not mean that the violator gets off scot-free. There are specific laws that may apply, as well. In the end, when the user selects 'do not store any cookies', their wishes should be respected.
Hehe, mo.
Oh thank you very much, I knew about these I thought there were some seriuos new examples that I missed. Buzz is no more, the creep was fired and charged by police that did that thing with the teen sites and the Canadian thing was a mistake that was rectified quickly. I don't trust any online service that's why I encrypt all data that is uploaded to the cloud plus all personal emails to my familiy and never use social networking sites.
This is a class action suit brought on by private lawyers not some DOJ investigation. You sound like a kid who got caught doing something and his friends got away with it. But mommy they did it to, no one likes a tattle-tell honey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
This is a class action suit brought on by private lawyers not some DOJ investigation.
Yes. And? You're saying private lawyers couldn't sue Google over their blatantly illegal actions?
You sound like a kid who got caught doing something and his friends got away with it. But mommy they did it to, no one likes a tattle-tell honey.
That the drugs acting up again?
If you knew about those examples (which were just the tip of the iceberg, btw), why did you say that you have been searching for evidence of Google's privacy violations and couldn't find any?
The fact is that Google's privacy violations are well documented. Their IP violations (like the now-defunct Google Books fiasco) are even better known.
Judge Grewel, the same judge who recommended sanctions on Samsung for destroying email's in the Apple/Samsung case is now questioning Apple's truthfulness in this location lawsuit over a similar issue of e-mails not being produced as ordered.
" Apple must show in detail how it’s complying with court orders to turn over evidence in a privacy lawsuit, a judge ruled, saying he can no longer rely on what the company tells him in the case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal in San Jose,California, issued the order after the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed Apple withheld documents it had previously been ordered to produce. Apple is accused in the lawsuit of collecting data on the locations of customers through iPhones, even after the device’s geo-location feature was turned off.
Grewal, saying he had already “refereed” the dispute, said it was “unacceptable” that Apple waited more than three months to verify whether it complied with his November order to turn over documents.
“Luckily for the plaintiffs, Apple has provided more than enough evidence itself to suggest to the court that it has not fully complied with the court’s order,” Grewal wrote in the March 6 order. “In light of Apple’s performance in this case, the court cannot rely on its representations that this time it really has or will produce all responsive documents.”
Apple’s resistance in the case is increasingly producing orders from Grewal that are forcing it to reveal inner workings that the company normally goes to great lengths to hide.
‘Wrong Hands’
Apple is also accused in the lawsuit of failing to tell customers that its iOS operating system allowed third parties to collect and monitor personal information from iPhones and iPads without their consent. Apple said in a court filing it has closely guarded some documents in the case because it and millions of its customers might be harmed if the information were “inadvertently released to the public or fell into the wrong hands.”
At a March 5 hearing before Grewal, Ashlie Beringer, a lawyer for Apple, said the company’s failure to produce e-mails from Steve Jobs and other senior executives in violation of Grewal’s November order was a “mistake.”
"Beringer said she and her team of lawyers reviewed more than 8,000 e-mails over the previous weekend and determined that they should turn over messages involving Apple’s late co-founder Jobs, Phil Schiller, its marketing chief, and Scott Forstall, the former head of mobile software, among others."
"In Grewal’s order, plaintiffs lawyers also won the right to see Apple documents concerning its process of reviewing applications for its mobile devices. The company redacted the information in part, it said, because the information is “incredibly sensitive and valuable and is a closely guarded trade secret,” according to a court filing.
Phillip Shoemaker, Apple’s Director of App Review, submitted a filing in the case last month explaining how disclosure of the review process would jeopardize Apple and “create real risk” to millions of users of its products, according to the filing."
There's apparently a whole lot going on here besides a simple location suit. No doubt AI will post a story up on this at some point.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-08/apple-can-t-duck-giving-documents-in-privacy-lawsuit.html