Companies that collect data, the way Google collects your Google Home mic recordings, Nest videos, and other data, routinely lose it, hand it over to police--in ways that innocent users have lost their jobs over--and mistakenly leave it open for hackers to access.
Any evidence that Google has done either of the two things in bold?
This is done via the spy chips imbedded in the google servers :-)
Depends on what DED means by "routinely". Perhaps the word doesn't mean the same thing to him as it does for most of us. The English language does have its subtleties.
There was a reported incident related to a fire at a data center where Google admits something like .01% (don't remember the exact number) of user data stored there was irretrievably "lost" a few years ago. I wouldn't call that "routinely" but ...
Companies that collect data, the way Google collects your Google Home mic recordings, Nest videos, and other data, routinely lose it, hand it over to police--in ways that innocent users have lost their jobs over--and mistakenly leave it open for hackers to access.
Any evidence that Google has done either of the two things in bold?
This is done via the spy chips imbedded in the google servers :-)
Companies that collect data, the way Google collects your Google Home mic recordings, Nest videos, and other data, routinely lose it, hand it over to police--in ways that innocent users have lost their jobs over--and mistakenly leave it open for hackers to access.
Any evidence that Google has done either of the two things in bold?
This is done via the spy chips imbedded in the google servers :-)
I don't get it.
That was a joke on the Bloomberg "rice chip" report about Apple servers awhile back.
Yes, and if he follows his typical MO, he will try to refute a few critiques through deflection, give up, then repost the same spin in his next "Editorial"(he literally copy and pasted sections from his article yesterday). He rarely addresses the actual points being brought up without trying to move the goalposts. Check out the comments sections of his "Editorial" from yesterday to see the same pattern.
Savvy move, IF one can pinpoint the blame for any privacy slip and therefore shift to Apple TV to get wholly within protected ecosystem. Case in point: Last night I was searching in private mode using Safari iOS 12.3 iphone X on Duck Duck Go. Everytime I clicked on a link (for fish sauce) I was served an advertisement, based on past browsing history days ago (cat scratching issue). Even though I keep in phone in private dark mode and use DDG, someone was tracking! When one small banner ad exploded and took up 80 percent of real estate I cut short my search. Looked up DDG on Wiki and see they still make big claims but are allied with Yahoo and Bing. But I'm not sure who to blame really. DDG? ATT my provider? Siri who I've given much tracking leeway? How do I (and Apple) prevent in future? It's a dystopia come true, when ads takeover and infringe on productivity. Most of time I switch off Javascript on mobile, but not last night.
You may want to enable Limit Ad Tracking to opt out of targeted advertising. By default targeted advertising is enabled. You won't be able to get rid of ads entirely. They just won't be targeted to your interests. I'd also recommend resetting your Advertising Identifier first, then enabling Limit Ad Tracking. Understand that apps that don't use Apple's ad platform aren't affected by Limit Ad Tracking unless they track you using Apple's Advertising Identifier. If they track using other software, all bets are off. Separately, you may want to turn off Location Based Apple Ads, also enabled by default. Relevant info found here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
Yes, and if he follows his typical MO, he will try to refute a few critiques through deflection, give up, then repost the same spin in his next "Editorial"(he literally copy and pasted sections from his article yesterday). He rarely addresses the actual points being brought up without trying to move the goalposts. Check out the comments sections of his "Editorial" from yesterday to see the same pattern.
If you had a valid point or concern, you could just say what it was rather than making a generalized personal attack that demands somebody else spend time researching what your point must be and then an argument showing why it is invalid, while you jump to another generalized personal attack.
That's a pretty well established pattered among the 10 people who show up and post negative insults in the comments of every AI article.
Thank you. Indeed it was turned on, so I turned it off and reset. (To others, this toggle is found at bottom of "Privacy." ) If this was the source, I suppose that makes Apple the culprit. That giant ad was crazy, horrifying, very un-apple like. Reminded me of searching years ago on my friends Windows PC. I hope Tim Cook codifies and pledges to his heavily invested customers that Apple will defend against such "abuses." And let customers easily tailor their ad intake. I live in a heavily marketed zip code. Even public buses have giant billboard ads for condoms. AR opens whole world of advertising. (Glad none on Apple's Statue of Liberty) Lay out some guidance to your sucessors Mr Cook, while you can think clearly. AI might help by a series of pieces. What does EFF think? Harvard group? IEEE or ACM Subgroup, Cato, etc etc.
Yes, and if he follows his typical MO, he will try to refute a few critiques through deflection, give up, then repost the same spin in his next "Editorial"(he literally copy and pasted sections from his article yesterday). He rarely addresses the actual points being brought up without trying to move the goalposts. Check out the comments sections of his "Editorial" from yesterday to see the same pattern.
If you had a valid point or concern, you could just say what it was rather than making a generalized personal attack that demands somebody else spend time researching what your point must be and then an argument showing why it is invalid, while you jump to another generalized personal attack.
That's a pretty well established pattered among the 10 people who show up and post negative insults in the comments of every AI article.
You literally reposted the section of your article from yesterday where you referred to Samsung smart tv OS as inscrutable. You never explained how clicking one button, scrolling to an app, and clicking another button is "inscrutable". You then went on and said that it was the "nexus" of the OS and the app was the issue, when the apps behavior is the same in tvOS. I didn't feel the need to rehash the conversation over again, as you are once again deflecting. Here is an article from Toms Guide's if anyone wants a more impartial guide to the various smart tv OS's.
Yes, and if he follows his typical MO, he will try to refute a few critiques through deflection, give up, then repost the same spin in his next "Editorial"(he literally copy and pasted sections from his article yesterday). He rarely addresses the actual points being brought up without trying to move the goalposts. Check out the comments sections of his "Editorial" from yesterday to see the same pattern.
If you had a valid point or concern, you could just say what it was rather than making a generalized personal attack that demands somebody else spend time researching what your point must be and then an argument showing why it is invalid, while you jump to another generalized personal attack.
That's a pretty well established pattered among the 10 people who show up and post negative insults in the comments of every AI article.
DED pieces welcome differentiators for AI, perhaps why the lightning rod effect. ;-) Seriously, this guy relibly delivers insights, and is recently widening his reportsge.
Yes, and if he follows his typical MO, he will try to refute a few critiques through deflection, give up, then repost the same spin in his next "Editorial"(he literally copy and pasted sections from his article yesterday). He rarely addresses the actual points being brought up without trying to move the goalposts. Check out the comments sections of his "Editorial" from yesterday to see the same pattern.
If you had a valid point or concern, you could just say what it was rather than making a generalized personal attack that demands somebody else spend time researching what your point must be and then an argument showing why it is invalid, while you jump to another generalized personal attack.
That's a pretty well established pattered among the 10 people who show up and post negative insults in the comments of every AI article.
Criticising your approach is not a personal attack. Though you clearly take criticism far too personally.
Why would I trust Apple’s privacy and security claims when iOS explicitly ignores my many correctly-chosen settings that should block downloading of iTunes content via cellular data connections? I’ve seen others complain about this, date-stamped to three years ago. I’ve only just realized it is happening to me. I’ve reported it, but Apple don’t tend to fix bugs I report (and I’ve reported many to them by now).
Yes, I’m certain I’ve set the phone settings correctly. Cellular data is switched off for all music and iTunes apps and functions *that users can control*. “System services” still shows iTunes/Music is consuming cellular data, and you cannot disable “system services” from using cellular.
Music not on my phone, but in my iTunes account, downloads and plays on my phone while the phone is wrongly selected by my car’s audio system via Bluetooth (Mazda’s car computer system is garbage; no matter how many times I set my iPhone 4 to “audio only” and my iPhone 6s to “phone only”, it randomly changes configuration and tries to play music on my iPhone 6s, which Apple then has determined MUST download music via cellular because WiFi isn’t available... I don’t want music on that phone!!!!).
No amount of user effort will stop this from happening. This is clearly faulty behavior that Apple have no interest in correcting, just as they have no interest in correcting the countless other bugs and flaws that get no media attention. AI: do your duty as “media” and call them out!
The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data. That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t. So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain. So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
Apple is not selling user data anymore than Google is AFAIK. Anything they happen to have stored regarding the personal "you" is safely and reliably stored and not sold to others. You do accurately note that when it comes to advertising both companies put you in a package of Advertising ID numbers, not names and addresses, which you can change or entirely opt out of at any time. Any access to "you" is anonymized at least by the principles themselves.
The whole "you're being sold" conversation as it concerns Apple specifically (and Google too) is in general a FUD campaign.
There really are companies out there selling the real you, personal details and all: Credit bureaus who sell more than a credit rating, insurance brokerages who sell claims histories and specifics of home, auto, boat, or whatever else you have of insurable value, state licensing agencies who sell driving records and ownership registrations among other stuff, even the principle CC licensing agencies like Visa and Mastercard who sell personal purchase histories. Oh and don't forget your bank, brokerage and pharmacy and until at least the past few weeks your cell carrier. EVERYONE seems to be in on it.
Worries about an ad placement seem kind of petty don't they?
"The whole "you're being sold" conversation as it concerns Apple specifically (and Google too) is in general a FUD campaign."
It's what happens when one is behind with respect to Cloud / AI / ML. And Apple is definitely lagging Google in this context
The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data. That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t. So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain. So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
Sorry, No
Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data = false
Digitaltrends.com on Apple: ” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB. may 23 2018”
Because when Apple’s MO and greatest source of revenue/profits is selling pricy hardware then they can push the privacy and security angle. Now that they’re moving in to subscription services they’ll do whatever is necessary to grow that business model. Also for all of Apple’s bravado around privacy they still take billions from Google for it to be the default search engine on iOS. And then most downloaded free apps are usually from Google or Facebook. Man DED is obsessed with Google. Is it possible for him to write an editorial that isn’t just a long way of saying Apple good, Google bad?
"Because when Apple’s MO and greatest source of revenue/profits is selling pricy hardware then they can push the privacy and security angle."
They didn't use the privacy / security angle because of pricy hardware but because they're getting roasted in the next important battleground that is cloud / AI / ML / ambient computing. Hopefully the new AI SVP and the team that he's building will help alleviate that but right now Apple is significantly behind.
The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data. That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t. So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain. So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
Sorry, No
Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data = false
Digitaltrends.com on Apple: ” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB. may 23 2018”
Exactly. If Dan were right then iOS wouldn’t need this screen:
The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data. That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t. So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain. So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
Sorry, No
Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data = false
Digitaltrends.com on Apple: ” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB. may 23 2018”
It’s well known that Apple sells ad space in the App Store and in News—there are clearly marked ads!—these involve customized segments based on interest and location. If you buy ads as an App Store advertiser, for example, you can target regions or people who have bought games for example.
That’s not that same thing as
“Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data”
Or your really carried away Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data. That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t. So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain. So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
Sorry, No
Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data = false
Digitaltrends.com on Apple: ” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB. may 23 2018”
Not to defend DED, but that quote from Digitialtrends does not support your assertion. You said: "...Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data." That's not true at all. Apple does sell ad spaced based on anonymized, aggregated data. They don't sell the data. The advertisers have no idea who you are. If we are going to represent facts, we need to represent facts factually. Selling data (as you claimed) and selling ad space based on data is not a distinction without a difference. Those are two entirely different things. The fact that Apple collects and uses data for targeted advertising is not a secret. They tell you they do it. They tell you here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 ; as well as in their overall privacy policy. The problem is Apple uses privacy so effectively as a marketing tool, people far too often confuse and conflate their marketing with their actual policy.
The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data. That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t. So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain. So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
Sorry, No
Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data = false
Digitaltrends.com on Apple: ” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB. may 23 2018”
Not to defend DED, but that quote from Digitialtrends does not support your assertion. You said: "...Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data." That's not true at all. Apple does sell ad spaced based on anonymized, aggregated data. They don't sell the data. The advertisers have no idea who you are. If we are going to represent facts, we need to represent facts factually. Selling data (as you claimed) and selling ad space based on data is not a distinction without a difference. Those are two entirely different things. The fact that Apple collects and uses data for targeted advertising is not a secret. They tell you they do it. They tell you here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 ; as well as in their overall privacy policy. The problem is Apple uses privacy so effectively as a marketing tool, people far too often confuse and conflate their marketing with their actual policy.
Comments
There was a reported incident related to a fire at a data center where Google admits something like .01% (don't remember the exact number) of user data stored there was irretrievably "lost" a few years ago. I wouldn't call that "routinely" but ...
Relevant info found here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
Hope that helps.
If you had a valid point or concern, you could just say what it was rather than making a generalized personal attack that demands somebody else spend time researching what your point must be and then an argument showing why it is invalid, while you jump to another generalized personal attack.
That's a pretty well established pattered among the 10 people who show up and post negative insults in the comments of every AI article.
If this was the source, I suppose that makes Apple the culprit. That giant ad was crazy, horrifying, very un-apple like. Reminded me of searching years ago on my friends Windows PC.
I hope Tim Cook codifies and pledges to his heavily invested customers that Apple will defend against such "abuses." And let customers easily tailor their ad intake. I live in a heavily marketed zip code. Even public buses have giant billboard ads for condoms. AR opens whole world of advertising. (Glad none on Apple's Statue of Liberty) Lay out some guidance to your sucessors Mr Cook, while you can think clearly. AI might help by a series of pieces. What does EFF think? Harvard group? IEEE or ACM Subgroup, Cato, etc etc.
You literally reposted the section of your article from yesterday where you referred to Samsung smart tv OS as inscrutable. You never explained how clicking one button, scrolling to an app, and clicking another button is "inscrutable". You then went on and said that it was the "nexus" of the OS and the app was the issue, when the apps behavior is the same in tvOS. I didn't feel the need to rehash the conversation over again, as you are once again deflecting. Here is an article from Toms Guide's if anyone wants a more impartial guide to the various smart tv OS's.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartest-smart-tv,review-5986.html
Yes, I’m certain I’ve set the phone settings correctly. Cellular data is switched off for all music and iTunes apps and functions *that users can control*. “System services” still shows iTunes/Music is consuming cellular data, and you cannot disable “system services” from using cellular.
Music not on my phone, but in my iTunes account, downloads and plays on my phone while the phone is wrongly selected by my car’s audio system via Bluetooth (Mazda’s car computer system is garbage; no matter how many times I set my iPhone 4 to “audio only” and my iPhone 6s to “phone only”, it randomly changes configuration and tries to play music on my iPhone 6s, which Apple then has determined MUST download music via cellular because WiFi isn’t available... I don’t want music on that phone!!!!).
No amount of user effort will stop this from happening. This is clearly faulty behavior that Apple have no interest in correcting, just as they have no interest in correcting the countless other bugs and flaws that get no media attention. AI: do your duty as “media” and call them out!
It's what happens when one is behind with respect to Cloud / AI / ML. And Apple is definitely lagging Google in this context
” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB.
may 23 2018”
They didn't use the privacy / security angle because of pricy hardware but because they're getting roasted in the next important battleground that is cloud / AI / ML / ambient computing. Hopefully the new AI SVP and the team that he's building will help alleviate that but right now Apple is significantly behind.
That’s not that same thing as
“Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data”
Or your really carried away Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.
You are wrong.
..and it's OK to defend DED when he's right.