What makes people think there's an opt out for Google? This: https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922
In case you didn't know, Apple has one too.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Speaks on Importance of Privacy, Encryption at Champions of Freedom Event
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In case you didn't know, Apple has one too.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074
Let's be honest. This question is nothing but a false dichotomy.
I never claimed it was evidence of Google selling/distributing private data. I claimed it was evidence of Google abusing user trust buy ignoring their opt out request.
Read the article. This isn't about NSA requests. And it had nothing to do with Apple. It was about Google and Yahoo. It was about the NSA tapping directly into unencrypted data feeds between data centers. Not PRISM or National Security letters.
But that's not what you said. You said "there is zero evidence of either Google or Apple, or Microsoft abusing that trust. Neither of these companies have sold information to 3rd parties. Neither of these companies have leaked vast amounts of data."
Three statements. I refuted two of them. I agree with the third.
Instead of taking swipes at the competition for using different business models Cook should be going after the consumer who wants anything they can get for free and is willing to give up certain privacy or deal with ads to get the service for free. Also, considering Apple's business model is to profit from hardware sales it's easy for Cook to be all high and mighty about this. But it's not like Apple switched to hardware profit model to protect people's privacy. That's always been their business model.
First, Google cookies track a unique identifier that they generate for you across multiple websites. Over time, it is certainly possible to link this identifier to an individual identity, but generally they don't care. Advertisers just care about your characteristics and habits, not your name (ex. they care that id 1234 visited uhaul.com within the past 30 days to offer ads of moving companies, they don't care that id 1234 is James). Also, this unique identifier can be reset whenever you want, and starts the profile from a clean slate. Further, there is nothing wrong with using adblockers which are quite effective at blocking these sorts of tracking cookies. I use adgaurd, and it constantly blocks googles tracking cookies. While this isn't a perfect opt-out, it is still an opt-out of sorts. I can choose and control what data my computer accepts or rejects. An even more extreme would be to simply block all cookies.
Second, I think it is naive to assume the government isn't interested in you on the premise that you're not a criminal or terrorist. There are lots of criminal laws - unless you have memorized them all and take great care to avoid them, odds are you've broken a crime or two. It's likely deminimus, but a crime nonetheless. Inchoate crimes are particularly difficult to avoid. If a government collects a database of every instance everyone has committed a crime, no matter how minor, and the the government has the power to choose whether to prosecute it or not, the legislative and executive branches are essentially merged; the government can choose to haul anyone in for anything they want when it's convenient. This is of course extreme, but it highlights that there is a reason some rules exist only for the purpose of frustrating the government's ability to find crimes incentivizes the inefficient procedure of due process (4th Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule, for example). There are no similar rules under the Patriot Act - indeed it seems to be all about avoiding that pesky due process.
I can block Google cookies easily. As far as know, I'm not a criminal or terrorist either. But I'm sure some drunken texts or joke emails between friends could the linked together to form a basis to prosecute us for conspiracy or solicitation or something. Right now the government wouldn't bother. But in the future, who knows what their interest will be? The US government wasn't above that in 1942, that was pretty recent.
You're assuming the only way to stop terrorist attacks and child abuse is through a far reaching communications dragnet that invades the privacy of everyone everywhere. That's just not true. That might be easiest way, the most desirable way for law enforcement, but not the only way. And frankly, studies have shown it's not even the most effective way. It is possible to catch terrorist attacks and child abuse without compromising privacy.
Yes, and you're clearly wrong. Profit relates to EVERYTHING the business does. Advertising is not excluded.
Dig deeper. Everyone doing this is already farther into it than is acceptable. Google is far ahead of the pack, and has been pointed out, they've been fined for violations already, and this field is for all intents an purposes, brand new.As for that personal information, I'll ask you the same question that started the topic. What do you think Google does with that information that Apple doesn't do? Careful, your answer may reveal a profoundly poor understanding of how each of those businesses work.
People like to worry about what the Government might do in the future. Let's remember that private corporations that span the globe are not answerable to voters. Who knows what financial incentives they may have in the future?
100% of users don't need to be spied on just to catch the terrorists who plan their attacks via Calendar on their iPads.
The problem is that you have to block them at all. You're opted in unless you actively block them, and not just on one device, but every device you use. Even then, you need to constantly protect yourself. This in itself is offensive.
I'm not wrong. You however see no wrong in parsing my quote to suit your need. Even resorting to using part of a sentence that clearly shows exactly what I was talking about. Profit has nothing to do with the topic of the original discussion. Unbelievably, you can have discourse about business without profit being a part of the conversation. This is about privacy and data mining and advertising.
Nice bit of deflection here. I asked a specific question and you started metaphorically pointing at squirrels. That stuff doesn't even have anything to do with what you and I were discussing. What's next? Are you now going to tell me about marketshare being meaningless.
You are wrong. No discussion about what a business is doing with data is complete without profit as a significant part of it. And marketshare as it's routinely used is meaningless. Would you rather take in a hundred million dollars with $99,999,999 dollars in expenses and 90% of the market, or ten million with five million in expenses and 2% of the market? Profits are what matters in business.
I want people to recognize that putting in back doors means less security, not more. It means that anyone with money, from large corporations, to drug lords and terrorists can buy the services they need to get what ever information they want.
Using a calendar app? Would you like the world to know when you're leaving town? Texting your child sick at home on a school day? How would you like some criminal to know her location and that she's alone?
Last edited:
Yes, but note that in both cases you can only opt out of being presented with targeted ads. This does not mean that they stop collecting your data. They will still maintain detailed profiles about you that can be abused, subpoenaed or stolen.
Who says that Apple is doing the same thing? My understanding is that they are doing it quite differently.
Blocking cookies does not protect you from being tracked. These days the big tracking services use a variety of other techniques such as browser fingerprinting. Also some network providers use header insertion to inject trackers into your traffic (recently e.g. Verizon caught some flak for doing that). It's really no longer possible to use the Internet without being tracked.
By doing that, you actually prevent your opt-out choice from taking effect because Google uses cookies to signal to the web server that you don't want to be targeted.
But as mentioned above, none of this will prevent Google, Apple, Facebook, MS and hundreds of other companies from collecting your data.
You are confusing gross margin with net profit margin. On the last earning calls, Apple said iPhone's net profit margin is 41.5%, which factors in just about everything, including R&D and marketing cost.
I think you are confused. iPhone 6 gross margins were estimated at 41.5%. Apple doesn't report margins for individual products or product lines.
http://www.gforgames.com/gadgets/apples-iphone-6-profit-margin-all-time-low-45129/
Are you being genuine? I know you didn't include a sarcasm emoji but I honestly don't know if you're being serious. Apologies. I'm not doubting you per se, just my ability to discern if you're serious.
Okay, I'll bite. I'm always willing to learn something new. Please explain to me how profit plays a part in a discussion about Apple, Google, and their privacy and advertising practices. Both companies have very similar privacy policies and very similar advertising practices. Neither company shares customer data. Both companies mine their data to provide anonymous profiles for targeted advertising. That's what we were discussing. Where is the profit angle with this specific topic and these two specific companies?
Btw, I was using the marketshare comment to mock your deflection. Not as a topic of discussion. I'm starting to see the issue here.
I like obscurity and obfuscation, myself. I wanted to be a spy when I was young and first got online. Ever since, I've enjoyed making a cloak & dagger game out of entering information online. So far so good. No one has anything on me. Even the wikipedia page on me is completely incorrect.
Sarcasm?
Profit == Motivation.
Apple's practice is that your data is your data. They don't mine your pictures or your emails. In fact, they encrypt iMessages and FaceTime end to end with no back door, and so well that governments have complained. That's because hardware and software are their products and services.
Google's practice is that if they can access it, they can do what ever they like with it. Got free email on their servers? They can do what they like. Photos? They can mine those too. There's no way that isn't going to be abused at some point. That's all because with Google, you are NOT the customer. You're the product.
Now that's a convincing argument. I'm converted. You win.
I really wish that you could win that argument. It would be a much better world if Google weren't evil. I'm using Duck Duck Go, by the way, just to do my bit to limit their reach.
I actually think Software Services is what Apple needs to improve the most. I also think they arent releasing product fast enough. No new monitor or AppleTV in 3 years is really a bummer. I also think Apple should have their own Search Engine...why cede that ground to Google? Google doesnt cede hardware to Apple.