This goes back to what many have said years ago. If a service is free, you are the product. Google. Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. I know some (for example TechDirt) take this as a "pithy" view, but it still very true. Using traditional media is an anachronism when applied to digital on-line media.
Each of these are supported by collecting as much personal information about you as they can and targeting specific ads (be it political or products) at your eyes. It is time for people to start realizing just how complete the personality models of these companies are and start thinking about putting limits on how much data can be collected and just how it is shared and used.
Tim Cook said that. He said Apple didn't make money selling user information like FB and Google.
I very seriously doubt he said that because it simply isn't true. It could be the way some folks re-phased it and then interpreted it perhaps but not what he actually stated IMO. I don't believe he ever accused Google of selling user information altho if you and others wanted to think that he wasn't going to interfere.
You went from “it simply isn’t true” to “IMO” in the space of a paragraph. That’s a record, even for you.
“I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information,” said Cook. “They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”
Well, that certainly sounds like a man who doesn’t sell his customers’ data. Do you have any reliable evidence that proves that Apple is selling its customers private info?
He also does NOT claim that Google does, which of course he wouldn't contrary to perhaps popular belief here. Claiming he did simply isn't true. He may have been a master marketer but he didn't outright lie AFAIK. Neither Google nor Apple sells private info.
This goes back to what many have said years ago. If a service is free, you are the product. Google. Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. I know some (for example TechDirt) take this as a "pithy" view, but it still very true. Using traditional media is an anachronism when applied to digital on-line media.
Each of these are supported by collecting as much personal information about you as they can and targeting specific ads (be it political or products) at your eyes. It is time for people to start realizing just how complete the personality models of these companies are and start thinking about putting limits on how much data can be collected and just how it is shared and used.
Tim Cook said that. He said Apple didn't make money selling user information like FB and Google.
I very seriously doubt he said that because it simply isn't true. It could be the way some folks re-phased it and then interpreted it perhaps but not what he actually stated IMO. I don't believe he ever accused Google of selling user information altho if you and others wanted to think that he wasn't going to interfere.
Actually that’s exactly what Cook said — if the service is free, you’re the product. And he clearly took a swipe at Google and it’s entire business model of doing just that.
"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realise that when an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product," wrote Cook, rehashing a frequently used Internet maxim.
Ok time to defend your corporate overlord google for reasons only you know...go!
Once again we see the wisdom in Apple's commitment to user privacy and data security.
Yet at the same time, I suspect FB will not really end up being hurt *unless* laws are passed that limit their ability to collect and share user data. In the absence of new laws, I don't think FB will be hurt because most FB users don't care enough about this sort of thing to actually reduce their use of FB. I suspect the average FB user is pretty different from the average Apple customer.
Yes, mostly agree. Apple's got much to gain from a public discussion of data privacy. This news and new EU data privacy law coming into effect (in May?) will raise consciousness among ordinary users, the sort who don't even know about say toggling geo coordinates of pictures. These headlines won't go away anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
Also benefits Apple as it pushes services. Apple's ecosystem can charge more for advertisements than say Android rival, even if users opt out of micro targeting (as will be an option with EU).
This goes back to what many have said years ago. If a service is free, you are the product. Google. Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. I know some (for example TechDirt) take this as a "pithy" view, but it still very true. Using traditional media is an anachronism when applied to digital on-line media.
Each of these are supported by collecting as much personal information about you as they can and targeting specific ads (be it political or products) at your eyes. It is time for people to start realizing just how complete the personality models of these companies are and start thinking about putting limits on how much data can be collected and just how it is shared and used.
Tim Cook said that. He said Apple didn't make money selling user information like FB and Google.
I very seriously doubt he said that because it simply isn't true. It could be the way some folks re-phased it and then interpreted it perhaps but not what he actually stated IMO. I don't believe he ever accused Google of selling user information altho if you and others wanted to think that he wasn't going to interfere.
Actually that’s exactly what Cook said — if the service is free, you’re the product. And he clearly took a swipe at Google and it’s entire business model of doing just that.
"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realise that when an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product," wrote Cook, rehashing a frequently used Internet maxim.
Ok time to defend your corporate overlord google for reasons only you know...go!
Sorry, still not seeing where he mentions Google. I think now you're making stuff up about Google selling personal data and blaming the claim on Mr. Jobs. Why would you do that? If he actually accused Google of doing so that would make him a bald-faced liar, but you want to ascribe it to him anyway just to make a point? Darn silly on your part and counter-productive to cast him in an unfavorable light.
Should Apple really be taking billions off Google in return for making their search engine the default on Safari? Apple itself may not be selling not the surfing habits of its customers, but, ignoring the laughable situation of Android users providing some little value that Google has to pay to track someone else's user base, is it right that Apple provides a paid gateway for Google to track and sell our surfing habits?
One to ponder I’m sure.
Anyway, last week I said that Apple should relax some of its privacy rules because they can gather useful information without flogging it to anyone with an open chequebook. In light of this Facebook screwup, I was clearly wrong: it’s not about me trusting Apple to do the right thing; it’s about Apple not wanting to find itself in a position where it has to ask itself if it has done the right thing.
On google alliance, I've pondered that too. Significant enough that more info should be made public. Traffic Acquisition Costs of interest to Google shareholders too. I limit my use of Spotlight search on Apple machines since I don't know Google's exact involvement (despite Gator's thoughtful reply some months ago).
On your second point: I've been changing too. With Apple news, and now the greater push into magazines, video, etc. it seems too great an opportunity for Apple to miss. Ads of course can be informative and offer great deals. Sometimes in fashion, ads can be as interesting as editorial. I'd rather Apple reap rewards of its user base, by well-chosen ads. Porsche can pay Apple to hit iPhone X and iMacPro users while they peruse Forbes, for instance.
In addition, it's symbiotic with building a smarter intelligent agent. Knowing your personal needs, desires, habits, intelligence, and emotion-- that's a picture that could evolve from either extreme: whether personal agent by your side, or a monolith FB database throwing pitches at you. Assuming Apple can fortify the smarts of Siri in five years or so, all things equal, I'd rather build trust with an improved Siri than an omniscient Google or Facebook.
Isn't choice something like that classic 1984, redux?
I love how everyone is up in arms over the faceybook and cambridge analytica... while Equifax slides on by like yesterday's fart in the wind.
There's a difference. Equifax had user data stolen by unknown actors. Facebook ether gave user data away, sold it, or looked the other way while known actors helped themselves.
As I have always been suspecting since day 1 I got on FB in early 2000, nothing was free but user information trade off. That's why I kept all personal information offline. My FB account contain only fake info about me: phone number, birthday, home address, employment...whatever. I never trusted FB from day 1 and I'm glad that I didn't.
Ditto. I have a FB account only because you need to be signed in to see some pages. But they have absolutely no genuine information on me and I'm going to keep it that way.
Don't be so sure. They collect various information and user data on Facebook members (and reportedly on non-members too?) from most major websites including this one last I checked. In addition if you have any friends at all they may well have posted a pic or several that include you in them, subsequently tagged and logged as being you.
And the biggie: They also have sharing agreements with the biggest data aggregator of all, Acxiom who knows exactly who you are: where you live, what you earn, where you shop, what you've purchased, who your children are, where you were born and where your siblings live, the size of your home, where the bedrooms, living room and kitchen are located, what political affiliation you have, the church you attend (if you do), what traffic tickets you ever been given, what insurance claims you've ever made, in some cases what medication you have been prescribed and the doctor you visited, and a plethora of other personal information. All in all if you have a Facebook account, even one that you imagine is anonymous, they might know exactly who you are despite your best intentions. https://www.acxiom.com/news/acxiom-becomes-audience-data-provider-facebook-marketing-partner-program/
This is why, if you wish to be anonymous somewhere online, you must be anonymous everywhere online. It's very easy for data aggregators to piece together all the breadcrumbs you've left "anonymously" with those you've left under your RL identity. I have an ancient FB account under a pseudonym that routinely shows me advertisements for things I've viewed on Amazon, where my RL identity is known. If FB doesn't see through my pseudonym, I'm sure someone does.
This goes back to what many have said years ago. If a service is free, you are the product. Google. Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. I know some (for example TechDirt) take this as a "pithy" view, but it still very true. Using traditional media is an anachronism when applied to digital on-line media.
Each of these are supported by collecting as much personal information about you as they can and targeting specific ads (be it political or products) at your eyes. It is time for people to start realizing just how complete the personality models of these companies are and start thinking about putting limits on how much data can be collected and just how it is shared and used.
Tim Cook said that. He said Apple didn't make money selling user information like FB and Google.
I very seriously doubt he said that because it simply isn't true. It could be the way some folks re-phased it and then interpreted it perhaps but not what he actually stated IMO. I don't believe he ever accused Google of selling user information altho if you and others wanted to think that he wasn't going to interfere.
What Timmy said:
“You are not our product,” says Cook. “I think everyone has to ask, ‘How do companies make their money?’ Follow the money. And if they’re making money mainly by collecting gobs of personal data, I think you have a right to be worried and you should really understand what’s happening with that data.”
he is counting on people to reach their own conclusion using basic reasoning. Given how targeted and specific profiles can be specified. Google absolutely sells private data.
Store broke long while ago. Guess now have an employee of the company to speak out, which is good. Facebook is a very noisy platform. Give it a couple of decades and the planet may grow up a little. We need a Duck-duck-go social network. Path tried it, but someone may eventually succeed.
There is already "Gab" which is pretty much unmonitored. I do not and never will use Facebook. Never liked their data collection and sharing policies.
I love how everyone is up in arms over the faceybook and cambridge analytica... while Equifax slides on by like yesterday's fart in the wind.
Half the country has been permanently put at risk and inconvenienced by the Equifax hack. You'd think Washingtonian creatures would be all over hammering Equifax and demanding heads roll... but no!
I love how everyone is up in arms over the faceybook and cambridge analytica... while Equifax slides on by like yesterday's fart in the wind.
There's a difference. Equifax had user data stolen by unknown actors. Facebook ether gave user data away, sold it, or looked the other way while known actors helped themselves.
I don't think it's particularly difficult to argue that Equifax also gave user data away, given their stunningly poor security practices (surrounding much more critical information). Actually, no... it's not even "user data", at least with Facebook people can opt out of using their service.
And Equifax's behavior surrounding their breach (from trying to hide it, to not notifying people affected by it, to trying to make money off of it by signing people up for their credit monitoring service) makes this Facebook / Cambridge Analytica thing look rather pedestrian in comparison.
I love how everyone is up in arms over the faceybook and cambridge analytica... while Equifax slides on by like yesterday's fart in the wind.
And this will be forgotten just as quickly.
Sad, but true. Facebook tweaks a place in the human psyche that trumps logical perspective. It creates a synthetic sense of connectedness and community in cyberspace that replaces what most people used to experience in meatspace. This is one of the reasons why people, especially but not exclusively children, appear addicted to their connected devices. In fact, they are addicted to social media because it replaces the psychological rewards that used to occur through physical human interactions with synthetic ones, just like opioids create a physical addiction by replacing the naturally occurring endorphin generation with drug induced endorphin generation. Addicts will sell their sole for the next fix and social media apps keep their users on a constant drip to maintain the reward cycle they crave. Casting aside personal privacy and safety concerns is a no brainer- especially when the logical parts of the brain are no longer in the feedback loop.
They need to probe more than Facebook. At this stage it is clear that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on need to be regulated.
This is especially true since personal data is being misused and they are choosing who and what speech to endorse. When you decide to start denying and banning access to certain customers, regulation is necessary. When there are allegations of everything from fake news to electoral manipulation, then at a minimum there needs to be some oversight.
Comments
Neither Google nor Apple sells private info.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/29/apple-tim-cook-google/
https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/tim-cook-to-google-users-youre-not-the-customer-youre-the-product-594242
"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realise that when an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product," wrote Cook, rehashing a frequently used Internet maxim.
Ok time to defend your corporate overlord google for reasons only you know...go!
Also benefits Apple as it pushes services. Apple's ecosystem can charge more for advertisements than say Android rival, even if users opt out of micro targeting (as will be an option with EU).
On google alliance, I've pondered that too. Significant enough that more info should be made public. Traffic Acquisition Costs of interest to Google shareholders too. I limit my use of Spotlight search on Apple machines since I don't know Google's exact involvement (despite Gator's thoughtful reply some months ago).
On your second point: I've been changing too. With Apple news, and now the greater push into magazines, video, etc. it seems too great an opportunity for Apple to miss. Ads of course can be informative and offer great deals. Sometimes in fashion, ads can be as interesting as editorial. I'd rather Apple reap rewards of its user base, by well-chosen ads. Porsche can pay Apple to hit iPhone X and iMacPro users while they peruse Forbes, for instance.
In addition, it's symbiotic with building a smarter intelligent agent. Knowing your personal needs, desires, habits, intelligence, and emotion-- that's a picture that could evolve from either extreme: whether personal agent by your side, or a monolith FB database throwing pitches at you. Assuming Apple can fortify the smarts of Siri in five years or so, all things equal, I'd rather build trust with an improved Siri than an omniscient Google or Facebook.
Isn't choice something like that classic 1984, redux?
“You are not our product,” says Cook. “I think everyone has to ask, ‘How do companies make their money?’ Follow the money. And if they’re making money mainly by collecting gobs of personal data, I think you have a right to be worried and you should really understand what’s happening with that data.”
he is counting on people to reach their own conclusion using basic reasoning. Given how targeted and specific profiles can be specified. Google absolutely sells private data.
Half the country has been permanently put at risk and inconvenienced by the Equifax hack. You'd think Washingtonian creatures would be all over hammering Equifax and demanding heads roll... but no!
And Equifax's behavior surrounding their breach (from trying to hide it, to not notifying people affected by it, to trying to make money off of it by signing people up for their credit monitoring service) makes this Facebook / Cambridge Analytica thing look rather pedestrian in comparison.
https://www.androidcentral.com/you-cant-trust-facebook
Their takeaway? Don't trust anyone...
This is especially true since personal data is being misused and they are choosing who and what speech to endorse. When you decide to start denying and banning access to certain customers, regulation is necessary. When there are allegations of everything from fake news to electoral manipulation, then at a minimum there needs to be some oversight.