How Apple iCloud Private Relay works

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 589member
    DNS queries, huh? 

    Yeah, that's a no-go for me, unfortunately.  I don't want DNS queries bypassing my Pi-hole or DNS servers.  (Yes, I have my own DNS servers, probably not a use case for most people, but when you've got a few racks of servers in the home office....)

    If that's a feature I can disable, it sounds interesting.
    dewmebeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 22 of 34
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 589member
    flydog said:
    DAalseth said:
    rob53 said:
    We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not.
    When Judge Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court he was asked about a right to privacy. He said that there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. He didn’t say in relation to this or that issue. There was none at all, period. When questioned further on this point he doubled down on that assertion. Now Bork did not make it to the Court, but several of his law clerks and students have made it into Federal courts and I think at least one has made the high court as well. 

    Yes Virginia, there IS a deliberate and coordinated war on the right to privacy. 
    Mr. Bork must not be familiar with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  

    He's aware of them.  But controlling women's bodies is one of the main goals of the RWNJs, and he's happy to overlook them to further that goal.
    williamlondonhlee1169mattinoz
  • Reply 23 of 34
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,833member
    maestro64 said:
    The only question why would you want your VPN traffic to run through Apple’s relay service as they suggest, it’s just another layer of latency you have to deal with,  

    Both of these items were addressed in the article.
    1. Private Relay is being designed to _not_ slow down traffic. Yes, there might be some latency added, but it would likely be neglible for the vast majority of use cases.
    2. Any traffic being passed through an existing VPN would not use Private Relay at all.

    williamlondonhlee1169watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 34
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,260member
    rob53 said:
    I have to wonder if the US government will look at this feature as "yet another" anti-competitive attempt at locking in Apple users. I'm sure 99.99% of Apple users will enjoy this default capability but there will be companies, like @22july2013 mentioned, who won't like it and will go crying to their lobbyists to force the government to stop it. The interesting thing is this feature is something that would actually help secure Apple users web activity and therefore their information, which is something we've been trying to do for decades. Now that it's finally happening, along with the potential for encryption keys, thank you @robaba, our own government thinks Apple is getting too powerful. Of course they are and we love it! We want security whether we know it or not and that's what bothers our government as well as all others. This will make it even more difficult for the NSA, FBI and radical police agencies to sniff our absolutely valid computer use in an attempt to profile every US citizen. This is not a conspiracy theory, we've been seeing it in everyone's news articles. We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not. Way to go Apple!

    With domestic terrorists -- such those who invaded our capitol -- becoming the nation's #1 Threat, maybe that surveillance needs to be increased to insure our national security.

    It is those domestic terrorists, insurrectionists and other criminals who need to fear government surveillance.  Those loyal to the country and obeying its laws have only fear the domestic terrorists, insurrectionists and criminals - not our government who is charged with protecting us from such low lifes
    Just yesterday Biden disagreed with you, saying to his military that the environment was the USA nation's #1 threat. I guess this is the foundation Biden will use to defund the military along with the police.

    When you say "domestic terrorists", I presume you are alluding to Antifa and BLM who assault innocent people and violently invade police stations and burn down entire city blocks. Cause I can't think of any other active domestic terrorists. And for me those are foreign terrorists since I'm not American.

    LOL....   So you change the topic from terrorism to climate change -- then pretend that it was black people instead of white supremacists who attacked and invaded our Capitol intent on tearing down our democracy.

    That's typical.
    edited June 10 hlee1169Dogperson
  • Reply 25 of 34
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,511member
    rob53 said:
    I have to wonder if the US government will look at this feature as "yet another" anti-competitive attempt at locking in Apple users. I'm sure 99.99% of Apple users will enjoy this default capability but there will be companies, like @22july2013 mentioned, who won't like it and will go crying to their lobbyists to force the government to stop it. The interesting thing is this feature is something that would actually help secure Apple users web activity and therefore their information, which is something we've been trying to do for decades. Now that it's finally happening, along with the potential for encryption keys, thank you @robaba, our own government thinks Apple is getting too powerful. Of course they are and we love it! We want security whether we know it or not and that's what bothers our government as well as all others. This will make it even more difficult for the NSA, FBI and radical police agencies to sniff our absolutely valid computer use in an attempt to profile every US citizen. This is not a conspiracy theory, we've been seeing it in everyone's news articles. We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not. Way to go Apple!

    With domestic terrorists -- such those who invaded our capitol -- becoming the nation's #1 Threat, maybe that surveillance needs to be increased to insure our national security.

    It is those domestic terrorists, insurrectionists and other criminals who need to fear government surveillance.  Those loyal to the country and obeying its laws have only fear the domestic terrorists, insurrectionists and criminals - not our government who is charged with protecting us from such low lifes
    Just yesterday Biden disagreed with you, saying to his military that the environment was the USA nation's #1 threat. I guess this is the foundation Biden will use to defund the military along with the police.

    When you say "domestic terrorists", I presume you are alluding to Antifa and BLM who assault innocent people and violently invade police stations and burn down entire city blocks. Cause I can't think of any other active domestic terrorists. And for me those are foreign terrorists since I'm not American.

    LOL....   So you change the topic from terrorism to climate change -- then pretend that it was black people instead of white supremacists who attacked and invaded our Capitol intent on tearing down our democracy.

    That's typical.
    Stop calling me American when you say "our democracy." Learn to read my posts. I just told you I'm not American. Secondly, you're the one who raised the topic of "#1 threat", not me. I was just correcting your mistake.
  • Reply 26 of 34
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,251member
    flydog said:
    DAalseth said:
    rob53 said:
    We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not.
    When Judge Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court he was asked about a right to privacy. He said that there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. He didn’t say in relation to this or that issue. There was none at all, period. When questioned further on this point he doubled down on that assertion. Now Bork did not make it to the Court, but several of his law clerks and students have made it into Federal courts and I think at least one has made the high court as well. 

    Yes Virginia, there IS a deliberate and coordinated war on the right to privacy. 
    Mr. Bork must not be familiar with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  
    I'm quite sure he was aware of them.

    As a refresher - the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, assembly and religion. It says nothing about privacy.
    The third amendment refers to quartering soldiers. Again, not directly related to privacy.
    The fifth amendment protects due process, self incrimination, etc. Not privacy.
    The fourteenth amendment pertains to citizenship, and limits states' abilities to limit rights. 

    That leaves the fourth and ninth amendments. Bork specifically addressed the 9th amendment in his confirmation hearings and elsewhere. The ninth amendment is one that has vexed scholars almost since the constitution was written. Bork's interpretation is that it simply delegates to the states rights that are not ascribed to the federal government in the constitution. There are differing views but to say that it generically gives a right to privacy is generally incorrect.

    Finally, the fourth amendment - unreasonable search and seizure. This is the closest the constitution comes to a right to privacy, and courts have varied in what constitutes a search (phone taps, etc) through the years, but they have universally held that this right is not absolute. Notably, in the text, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation." The constitution clearly recognizes that search and seizure can be appropriate within certain confines. I have yet to see any 4th amendment interpretation or ruling related to Facebook or Google data scraping.

    williamlondongatorguyibill
  • Reply 27 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    MplsP said:
    flydog said:
    DAalseth said:
    rob53 said:
    We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not.
    When Judge Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court he was asked about a right to privacy. He said that there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. He didn’t say in relation to this or that issue. There was none at all, period. When questioned further on this point he doubled down on that assertion. Now Bork did not make it to the Court, but several of his law clerks and students have made it into Federal courts and I think at least one has made the high court as well. 

    Yes Virginia, there IS a deliberate and coordinated war on the right to privacy. 
    Mr. Bork must not be familiar with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  
    I'm quite sure he was aware of them.

    As a refresher - the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, assembly and religion. It says nothing about privacy.
    The third amendment refers to quartering soldiers. Again, not directly related to privacy.
    The fifth amendment protects due process, self incrimination, etc. Not privacy.
    The fourteenth amendment pertains to citizenship, and limits states' abilities to limit rights. 

    That leaves the fourth and ninth amendments. Bork specifically addressed the 9th amendment in his confirmation hearings and elsewhere. The ninth amendment is one that has vexed scholars almost since the constitution was written. Bork's interpretation is that it simply delegates to the states rights that are not ascribed to the federal government in the constitution. There are differing views but to say that it generically gives a right to privacy is generally incorrect.

    Finally, the fourth amendment - unreasonable search and seizure. This is the closest the constitution comes to a right to privacy, and courts have varied in what constitutes a search (phone taps, etc) through the years, but they have universally held that this right is not absolute. Notably, in the text, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation." The constitution clearly recognizes that search and seizure can be appropriate within certain confines. I have yet to see any 4th amendment interpretation or ruling related to Facebook or Google data scraping.

    Very well argued sir.
  • Reply 28 of 34
    laytechlaytech Posts: 236member
    I agree with Rob53. This is what users want, this is want people need. We want choice, and whether we want to share our data or not. I have zero to hide, so it I snot about trying to hide anything, this is about not wanting some company's algorithm snooping on me, trying to build a profile about me, and try and guess what I want to buy next. Governments can get all the information they want about me, I care little but I just do not want to be snooped on by some profiteering organisation. 
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 34
    I wonder if Apple has really considered how much data they'll be transiting.

    I remember when Apple had to change the way remote desktop worked because it required too much data transiting though their servers - and that was just remote desktop users (a very small minority).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 34
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,511member
    I wonder if Apple has really considered how much data they'll be transiting.
    I remember when Apple had to change the way remote desktop worked because it required too much data transiting though their servers - and that was just remote desktop users (a very small minority).
    There are 170 million iCloud users who pay Apple for iCloud. Therefore the number of users using Private Relay will be less than that. Since Private Relay requires an opt-in (doesn't it?), the number of users will start around 10 million and probably reach 100 million. Not everyone will opt-in.

    I googled how much broadband data the average American household uses per day, and it said 10GB. Seems a little high to me.

    Multiply those 10M by 10G/day and you get 100 Petabytes per day. You're right, that's a lot.

    Combine that with Apple's new iCloud HSV service level which provides an unlimited amount of HSV data, and the numbers go up.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 34
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,092member
    eriamjh said:
    Does it say that data from the iPhone is encrypted to the ingress server?   I don’t see the word encrypted anywhere in the article. 
    Isn’t HTTPS encrypted by definition? 

    This is about personal identification and tracking, not encryption. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 34
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 622member
    gatorguy said:
    Google won’t be copying this feature because Google’s raison d’être is to profit from your identity.
    Google already offers much of the same. See Google One VPN.

    One important note: While your internet and cell provider and any third parties will no longer be able to track you, Google themselves will continue to receive account data unless you turn off syncing for their services. Definitely extra steps to take if your privacy from everyone is important. AFAICT they offer the same level of privacy but don't make it clear and easy to do so.

    Apple apparently turns syncing off automatically with theirs?
    EDIT: Perhaps not entirely?

    I've used Google's VPN on my smartphones and Pixelbooks for some time now, and one minor plus is quickly toggling the VPN off if it interferes with a particular service I want to connect to, and it does happen. I also use Google Fi on one smartphone which offers major privacy protection over a typical cell provider and defaults to Google's VPN.
    VPN is not the same as relay.  Google (the VPN provider) knows who you are (you signed in with an account) AND where you're going - that's valuable information for them to collect.

    Relay - the ingress knows who you are, but not where you're going.  The egress knows where you're going, but not who you are.  This is a very important & distinct difference.
    edited June 14 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    nicholfd said:
    gatorguy said:
    Google won’t be copying this feature because Google’s raison d’être is to profit from your identity.
    Google already offers much of the same. See Google One VPN.

    One important note: While your internet and cell provider and any third parties will no longer be able to track you, Google themselves will continue to receive account data unless you turn off syncing for their services. Definitely extra steps to take if your privacy from everyone is important. AFAICT they offer the same level of privacy but don't make it clear and easy to do so.

    Apple apparently turns syncing off automatically with theirs?
    EDIT: Perhaps not entirely?

    I've used Google's VPN on my smartphones and Pixelbooks for some time now, and one minor plus is quickly toggling the VPN off if it interferes with a particular service I want to connect to, and it does happen. I also use Google Fi on one smartphone which offers major privacy protection over a typical cell provider and defaults to Google's VPN.
    VPN is not the same as relay.  Google (the VPN provider) knows who you are (you signed in with an account) AND where you're going - that's valuable information for them to collect.

    Relay - the ingress knows who you are, but not where you're going.  The egress knows where you're going, but not who you are.  This is a very important & distinct difference.
    https://www.makeuseof.com/can-you-trust-google-vpn/
    Covers both sides of it. 
    edited June 14
  • Reply 34 of 34
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 622member
    gatorguy said:
    nicholfd said:
    gatorguy said:
    Google won’t be copying this feature because Google’s raison d’être is to profit from your identity.
    Google already offers much of the same. See Google One VPN.

    One important note: While your internet and cell provider and any third parties will no longer be able to track you, Google themselves will continue to receive account data unless you turn off syncing for their services. Definitely extra steps to take if your privacy from everyone is important. AFAICT they offer the same level of privacy but don't make it clear and easy to do so.

    Apple apparently turns syncing off automatically with theirs?
    EDIT: Perhaps not entirely?

    I've used Google's VPN on my smartphones and Pixelbooks for some time now, and one minor plus is quickly toggling the VPN off if it interferes with a particular service I want to connect to, and it does happen. I also use Google Fi on one smartphone which offers major privacy protection over a typical cell provider and defaults to Google's VPN.
    VPN is not the same as relay.  Google (the VPN provider) knows who you are (you signed in with an account) AND where you're going - that's valuable information for them to collect.

    Relay - the ingress knows who you are, but not where you're going.  The egress knows where you're going, but not who you are.  This is a very important & distinct difference.
    https://www.makeuseof.com/can-you-trust-google-vpn/
    I'm surprised Google implemented the features mentioned in the article - good for them!  So Google doesn't know the "who", but they still know the "where you're going".  That's still valuable to them.

    The summary of the article is, "Can you trust Google?"  And the article conclusion is, "we advise considerable caution."
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.