Like?!? He IS a whining child. I can't wait until my FB account deletion becomes permanent on Feb. 6th.
Wait, who am I kidding? I'm sure they're not really going to "delete" the content of my account. They'll probably keep it, and continue monetizing it somehow.
They use privacy as an advertising message which means they think consumers value it and it gives them a market advantage.
Facebook on the other hand think their customers like invading users privacy so that is the advertising message they have been paying for on full pages in newspapers.
Is this the only post addressing the issue of privacy @ Apple...? This suggests iMessage data is encrypted on Apple servers: support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202303 and yet... www.howtogeek.com/710509/apples-imessage-is-secure...-unless-you-have-icloud-enabled/
I have long asked if S/MIME for Mail could be made easier 'for the rest of us' having set it up (iOS/macOS) yet finding few willing to invest the effort...
Another possible concern: www.howtogeek.com/709693/why-you-should-delete-emails-instead-of-archiving-them/
"In the USA, emails are considered “abandoned” after 180 days. The government can look at these emails without a warrant thanks to the Electronic Communications Protection Act, a law passed in 1986 when electronic communications were very different."
First you can not steal what was freely given to you. Next he was only able to use peoples private information because most people do not care about their privacy and what FB and others were doing with information.
Sure you can, and that’s what he’s doing, because of lack of transparency about the amount of personal data being traded. Agree a lot of people would keep using FB because they don’t care, but a lot of people keep using because they aren’t aware of the trade offs.
Apple isn’t saying you can’t use FB, they are just pushing for transparency so the customer can make an informed decision.
“ Zuckerberg argued that, by default, Apple's Messages app stores non encrypted "backups of your messages." This means, he said, that, "Apple and governments have the ability to access most people's messages."
Where did he get this? The freaking FBI is actually arguing for a back door. What’s he talking about? Just make sh*t up Mark.
Here’s an idea. Pull FB out of the App Store and tell your users that they have to users they have to use the web app. That’ll teach Apple. Oh, wait FB doesn’t pay Apple anything.
First you can not steal what was freely given to you. Next he was only able to use peoples private information because most people do not care about their privacy and what FB and others were doing with information.
Sure you can, and that’s what he’s doing, because of lack of transparency about the amount of personal data being traded. Agree a lot of people would keep using FB because they don’t care, but a lot of people keep using because they aren’t aware of the trade offs.
Apple isn’t saying you can’t use FB, they are just pushing for transparency so the customer can make an informed decision.
If you share your private thoughts with your neighbor and he then sells your private thought to your other neighbors, not sure what they would pay, this not stealing since you freely share it. Now if you wrote down your private thoughts and put them in a safe in your house and your neighbor came and took them out of the safe, then it was stolen.
I used that example since you can consider your phone a safe in your house. Apples does not want someone going into your safe and pulling out information. But they can not stop you from freely sharing information if that is your choosing.
Being aware is the responsibility of the individual, educating yourself is the most powerful thing you can do. To many people walk around being with the ignorance is bliss attitude and then get pissed off at everyone else because they did not know and want to sue. This is no different than the people who use a credit card and then do not pay and get upset when the CC companies comes after them and their assets and then want the government to protect them. If you talk to some of these people they half heartily will said they did not realize they had to pay it back or they should not have to pay the 25% interest since they never read the terms & conditions. We are all paying for the people who want to be ignorant and not pay thus the reason for 25% interest rates.
As long as people are not held to being responsible for themselves and their own action then companies like FB can take advantage of them. Not that the govern does not have role in society like ensure we have safe roads to drive on our food supply is safe, today those are need. If people stopped using FB is would just go away and we are no worse or better off, society keeps moving forward. There is no human life requirement to have FB.
"So when it comes to what matters most, protecting people's messages, I think that [our] WhatsApp is clearly superior," Mark Zuckerberg continued. "I do want to highlight that we increasingly see Apple as one of our biggest competitors.
I think that the facts speak for themselves...
Several independent reviews have indicated that Facebook Messenger is the worst violator of consumer privacy with 135 (one hundred and thirty five) consumer data points being vacuumed up by Facebook.
WhatsApp is a whole lot better, gobbling up only 25 (twenty five) consumer data points from usage of the app.
iMessenger is not wholly innocent in this regard as it pulls 4 (four) consumer data points which Apple arguably probably already has from your iCloud and Apple ID (i.e. email address, phone number, device id, and search history).
Signal needs 1 (one) item about you to work - your phone number. Researchers say, unlike other messaging apps, Signal makes no attempt to link your phone number to your identity.
The sad thing is that many Facebook users really don’t care about privacy or security. I really don’t know why Zuckerberg is whining so much about this, unless he’s worried about being picked on by his industry peers. I guess he’s sick of sitting at the kiddie table and wants to be able to sit with the adults. Problem is, he’s not ready yet to be considered an equal to executives like Tim Cook. Sorry Mark, you can’t buy respect.
First you can not steal what was freely given to you. Next he was only able to use peoples private information because most people do not care about their privacy and what FB and others were doing with information.l
Sure you can, and that’s what he’s doing, because of lack of transparency about the amount of personal data being traded. Agree a lot of people would keep using FB because they don’t care, but a lot of people keep using because they aren’t aware of the trade offs.
Apple isn’t saying you can’t use FB, they are just pushing for transparency so the customer can make an informed decision.
If you share your private thoughts with your neighbor and he then sells your private thought to your other neighbors, not sure what they would pay, this not stealing since you freely share it. Now if you wrote down your private thoughts and put them in a safe in your house and your neighbor came and took them out of the safe, then it was stolen.
I used that example since you can consider your phone a safe in your house. Apples does not want someone going into your safe and pulling out information. But they can not stop you from freely sharing information if that is your choosing.
Being aware is the responsibility of the individual, educating yourself is the most powerful thing you can do. To many people walk around being with the ignorance is bliss attitude and then get pissed off at everyone else because they did not know and want to sue.
You make some important points. Agree 100% people should be doing more homework. But most people don’t have the desire or understanding of tech people like us who read AI. Maybe you’re an 88 year old convalescent and just want to view pictures of you great grandkids as sent to you. Or you’re in a third world country where everyone you know conducts business and transactions using FB to the point you consider the internet to be FB. Or you’re a 13 year old who wants to keep in touch with friends. Nobody is looking out for these people, and I would argue they don’t have the capacity to look after themselves, so FB exploits. That covers a massive group of FB users. Apple shedding light is a great move, but way short of what should be happening to keep FB from free reign to exploit data of users without their knowledge.
Honestly, Facebook should just update the privacy information about their app rather than making getting into a big fight with Apple over it. Then, if the press comes to them about it, Facebook can point out privacy settings you can configure to reduce sharing.
A low-drama matter-of-fact approach just seems so much more useful to Facebook, as well as all the smaller apps Zuckerberg claims to be fighting for, than this open fight in the media that Facebook can only lose. His audience consists almost entirely of people who don't care that they collect information on them (and wouldn't care about the nutrition labels) or who do care and will be more leery of using Facebook products, and more inclined to use Apple products, or at least look quite favorably at privacy nutrition labels, as a result. I can't imagine how deluded Zuckerberg must be to see his current strategy as having a chance of winning, or even being useful to his interests. He is raising the ire of both users and regulators, and dramatically increasing the visibility and the public and regulator appreciation, of Apple's approach. And for what?
Then, I don't think I have ever seen much evidence of wisdom in most of Facebook's various strategies. They lucked into a market with a mediocre product that is still kind of mediocre, but that benefited from the actually crappy products that predated them (and News Corp's dramatic missteps). And in social media, a mediocre (but not actually crappy) product that hits the benefit of the network effect earlier beats anything that comes later.
Wow. Zuckerberg is astonishingly tone-deaf when it comes to discussions of privacy. You know how you can tell when a company is really serious about their customers' privacy? When the freakin' government complains—not in the courts*, but in the media—that the mean ol' company won't give them backdoor access to spy on their customers.
* Yes, the FBI has tried to compel Apple to build in backdoor tech into their devices, but so far the courts have ruled in favour of Apple, if I recall correctly. Basically a company can't be forced to build tech for the government.
I can't wait for anti-trust rulings force Facebook to let go of WhatsApp and Instagram. I mean, I hope this happens.
Finally, I hate that Apple is always lumped in with Google and Facebook when Big Tech is brought up in discussions/debates about anti-trust and monopoly power. Apple is definitely a major player in consumer tech, but it is by no means a monopoly in any sense of the word. Apple rules its own ecosystem, but nothing more. Google, on the other hand, own the search engine space and have tremendous power over services. Facebook owns social media. Both Google and Facebook use their power to exploit consumers; in fact, in Google and Facebook's business models, the consumer is the product. Apple, on the other hand, uses its power to protect its customers.
I indeed often wonder about this as well. Apple has a vertical monopoly on the iOS ecosystem, but it is much less of a monopoly than any of the game consoles, web apps could be reasonably powerful these days, and you can easily choose not to use Apple's products either collectively or individually. And absolutely none of their products have a particularly huge market share. They deserve anti-trust scrutiny to be sure, and should perhaps be looked at for some of their App Store policies and pricing structures, and their reluctance to improve interoperation with non Apple products deserves much more attention than it currently receives. But, they are the least problematic of the current big consumer tech companies. Amazon, Google, and Facebook are far more problematic across a far greater number of their businesses. At least Netflix is no longer a monopoly concern. Media streaming is now entirely dominated by large companies, but at least there are a half dozen of them.
Apple does make an absurd percentage of all profits directly from phone sales, but there is no law against that if they are not also the majority of sales. Apple's high prices leave plenty of financial wiggle room for a competitor to beat them with a good enough or better ecosystem at a lower price. The problem there is that Google effectively owns the only viable alternative, and that alternative is almost completely dependent on advertising. That makes Apple's task of maintaining its high margins far too easy. It isn't Apple's fault that the incompetent Steve Ballmer was running Microsoft at the time it could have owned a large piece of this market using a combination of Apple's and Google's approaches.
Zuk is full of crap. And Apples “nutrition” labels are all but worthless. How many people act in them?! I should be able to turn off/on any of those tracking and identifiers. WFT is “ask not to track?”, how about “disable tracking”!! Apple likes to play the nobility card, but they could do A LOT more for the privacy of users and apps.
Apple does what they can in the app infrastructure. Apps are pretty effectively sandboxed, and phones don't provide by default a particularly usable identifier. But, applications do need to be able to share some data and it is pretty difficult to completely lock down data that could be used to link data to a user. Heck, servers can read the IP address and parts of the hardware address of a phone because that is built into internet infrastructure. That's enough for tracking and sharing between services and companies can then happen on the backend in a way that Apple could not possibly prevent through any technological infrastructure Apple could build.
Apple also cannot control the flow of information between apps and internet servers, because that information is encrypted within the app and even if it weren't the formats of the network interactions can be proprietary so what could Apple use to block the transmission of any data that the app knows? About the best that can be done from Apple's side is to request details on information sharing from the developer and then do some manual audits on some percentage of apps to determine whether these details appear to be correct. And indeed, this is indeed exactly what they are doing.
There is data that an app like Facebook uses that users have to grant access to, though, so some of the information in the nutrition labels has to be okayed by the user. Apple even reminds the user of some of this information sharing from time-to-time, requiring positive acknowledgement for that access to continue. Further, web-based services such as Facebook generally provide controls over how much data they actually collect and what they do with it. A nutrition label that lists what data could be shared does not necessarily tell a user how much control they have over that sharing. That is the one reasonable out that Facebook has: they can simply point out that the nutrition labels are a worst case and can point users, or reporters or regulators, at the many controls that are available to limit this sharing. Facebook going to war with Apple over this just seems idiotic and bolsters Apple's position more than it probably deserves while increasing media and regulatory scrutiny on themselves much more than would be likely from a drama free response.
Comments
Wait, who am I kidding? I'm sure they're not really going to "delete" the content of my account. They'll probably keep it, and continue monetizing it somehow.
This suggests iMessage data is encrypted on Apple servers: support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202303 and yet...
www.howtogeek.com/710509/apples-imessage-is-secure...-unless-you-have-icloud-enabled/
I have long asked if S/MIME for Mail could be made easier 'for the rest of us' having set it up (iOS/macOS) yet finding few willing to invest the effort...
Another possible concern: www.howtogeek.com/709693/why-you-should-delete-emails-instead-of-archiving-them/
"In the USA, emails are considered “abandoned” after 180 days. The government can look at these emails without a warrant thanks to the Electronic Communications Protection Act, a law passed in 1986 when electronic communications were very different."
Apple isn’t saying you can’t use FB, they are just pushing for transparency so the customer can make an informed decision.
I used that example since you can consider your phone a safe in your house. Apples does not want someone going into your safe and pulling out information. But they can not stop you from freely sharing information if that is your choosing.
Being aware is the responsibility of the individual, educating yourself is the most powerful thing you can do. To many people walk around being with the ignorance is bliss attitude and then get pissed off at everyone else because they did not know and want to sue. This is no different than the people who use a credit card and then do not pay and get upset when the CC companies comes after them and their assets and then want the government to protect them. If you talk to some of these people they half heartily will said they did not realize they had to pay it back or they should not have to pay the 25% interest since they never read the terms & conditions. We are all paying for the people who want to be ignorant and not pay thus the reason for 25% interest rates.
As long as people are not held to being responsible for themselves and their own action then companies like FB can take advantage of them. Not that the govern does not have role in society like ensure we have safe roads to drive on our food supply is safe, today those are need. If people stopped using FB is would just go away and we are no worse or better off, society keeps moving forward. There is no human life requirement to have FB.
But I disagree that Facebook is a "necessary evil for certain purposes".
I do not, and have not ever had a Facebook account, and never intend to. I don't find them necessary for any purposes.
What do you feel they are necessary for (honest question)?
A low-drama matter-of-fact approach just seems so much more useful to Facebook, as well as all the smaller apps Zuckerberg claims to be fighting for, than this open fight in the media that Facebook can only lose. His audience consists almost entirely of people who don't care that they collect information on them (and wouldn't care about the nutrition labels) or who do care and will be more leery of using Facebook products, and more inclined to use Apple products, or at least look quite favorably at privacy nutrition labels, as a result. I can't imagine how deluded Zuckerberg must be to see his current strategy as having a chance of winning, or even being useful to his interests. He is raising the ire of both users and regulators, and dramatically increasing the visibility and the public and regulator appreciation, of Apple's approach. And for what?
Then, I don't think I have ever seen much evidence of wisdom in most of Facebook's various strategies. They lucked into a market with a mediocre product that is still kind of mediocre, but that benefited from the actually crappy products that predated them (and News Corp's dramatic missteps). And in social media, a mediocre (but not actually crappy) product that hits the benefit of the network effect earlier beats anything that comes later.
Apple does make an absurd percentage of all profits directly from phone sales, but there is no law against that if they are not also the majority of sales. Apple's high prices leave plenty of financial wiggle room for a competitor to beat them with a good enough or better ecosystem at a lower price. The problem there is that Google effectively owns the only viable alternative, and that alternative is almost completely dependent on advertising. That makes Apple's task of maintaining its high margins far too easy. It isn't Apple's fault that the incompetent Steve Ballmer was running Microsoft at the time it could have owned a large piece of this market using a combination of Apple's and Google's approaches.
Apple also cannot control the flow of information between apps and internet servers, because that information is encrypted within the app and even if it weren't the formats of the network interactions can be proprietary so what could Apple use to block the transmission of any data that the app knows? About the best that can be done from Apple's side is to request details on information sharing from the developer and then do some manual audits on some percentage of apps to determine whether these details appear to be correct. And indeed, this is indeed exactly what they are doing.
There is data that an app like Facebook uses that users have to grant access to, though, so some of the information in the nutrition labels has to be okayed by the user. Apple even reminds the user of some of this information sharing from time-to-time, requiring positive acknowledgement for that access to continue. Further, web-based services such as Facebook generally provide controls over how much data they actually collect and what they do with it. A nutrition label that lists what data could be shared does not necessarily tell a user how much control they have over that sharing. That is the one reasonable out that Facebook has: they can simply point out that the nutrition labels are a worst case and can point users, or reporters or regulators, at the many controls that are available to limit this sharing. Facebook going to war with Apple over this just seems idiotic and bolsters Apple's position more than it probably deserves while increasing media and regulatory scrutiny on themselves much more than would be likely from a drama free response.