Slashdot Mirror


Siri Keeps Your Data For Two Years

New submitter LeadSongDog writes with news that Apple has provided information on how long it holds onto voice search data used by its digital assistant software Siri. Speaking to Wired, an Apple representative said the data is kept for two years after the initial query. "Here’s what happens. Whenever you speak into Apple’s voice activated personal digital assistant, it ships it off to Apple’s data farm for analysis. Apple generates a random numbers to represent the user and it associates the voice files with that number. This number — not your Apple user ID or email address — represents you as far as Siri’s back-end voice analysis system is concerned. Once the voice recording is six months old, Apple “disassociates” your user number from the clip, deleting the number from the voice file. But it keeps these disassociated files for up to 18 more months for testing and product improvement purposes." This information came in response to requests for clarification of Siri's privacy policy, which was not very clear as written. The director of privacy group Big Brother Watch said, "There needs to be a very high justification for retaining such intrusive data for longer than is absolutely necessary to provide the service."

124 comments

  1. Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long are the backups of these systems kept for? Do they require a subpoena to get those backups, or will Apple cheerfully hand it over to any agency that asks?

    1. Re:Backups by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      or will Apple cheerfully hand it over to any agency that asks?

      If you need to ask, you can probably already figure out the answer.

    2. Re:Backups by mr100percent · · Score: 0

      Well, considering how the DEA is complaining that they can't read encrypted iMessages, and Apple got rid of google maps as default partly because google kept demanding more personallly identifying user data, I don't think we should assume Apple always rolls over on stuff like this.

    3. Re:Backups by Branciforte · · Score: 1

      > "google kept demanding more personally identifying user data"

      Do you actually have any evidence to back that up?

      As far as I know, Google wasn't getting much out of the deal. Apple was getting all of Google's map data and Google was getting some data about traffic patterns. Google wanted more branding. Apple wanted turn-by-turn directions, something that Android used to distinguish itself as better than Apple.

      Where are you getting this story that Google was demanding more personal info from Apple?

  2. No Biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Big Brother will come along at least once during that period so you can rest assured knowing it's stored for eternity.

  3. "Very High Justification" by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    is unfortunately in the eye of the beholder... The US government's reliance on it's ability to access private data has helped so much with the Boston suspects, we will wrest these gains into the intrusion of privacy from their cold, dead hands.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:"Very High Justification" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Joking I hope? We have no idea how they claim to have found these guys yet.

      The Government has relied on people turning in pictures and information "as far as we know" and did not find these guys by spying. I'm not claiming the Govt won't use that as an excuse, I'm saying it's untrue so you should not buy it if they do.

  4. Be careful what you ask Siri! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Siri, how much fuel oil should I mix with 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate?"

    1. Re:Be careful what you ask Siri! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      about a pint, but it's not critical. And AN comes in 50 pound sacks. 25 lb marks you as a newb.
      But nitromethane works better.

    2. Re:Be careful what you ask Siri! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if he's making one for now and one for later?

    3. Re:Be careful what you ask Siri! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh.. good point.. if you were making many for now, mixing in one big batch works better, but yes, if one for this week and another for next week, you'd want to do it separately.

      Would Siri know to ask you?

    4. Re:Be careful what you ask Siri! by Wowsers · · Score: 1

      Siri says "Let me check for the answer.. while I inform the FBI of your request."

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
  5. Comparison with Google search? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone have the timeline for Google's disassociation and destruction of search queries? I'm curious how Apple's policies compare against those.

    1. Re:Comparison with Google search? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Well, you can disable Google saving your search at all... so there is that.

    2. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone have the timeline for Google's disassociation and destruction of search queries?

      There isn't one. And for the comment that you can disable tracking, all that does is segment your google-userid from the searches when search activity is logged into the system. The rest of the potentially identifying information is saved, just like if you didn't log into Google-whatever before searching.

    3. Re:Comparison with Google search? by fazey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean google has an option to hide your search history from you?

    4. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what I can tell, disabling Google History doesn't seem to come with a promise that Google doesn't keep that data somewhere else. What they say they'll do is stop using your History to present targeted advertising for you across their services, or you can choose to delete individual items from your search history, that way they aren't considered when it comes to determining your interests and the like. What they very carefully seem to avoid saying is that they completely delete your queries from all of their systems, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're still using them in some sort of anonymized form for product improvement purposes, tracking trends, or other things of that sort.

    5. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I've been searching since I made the comment, and the best I've found so far is this thread where a Google rep confirms that for every image search they keep a thumbnail of the item that was clicked on, as well as the IP address for 9 months (after which it gets anonymized), and identifying information for the cookie associated with you for 18 months (after which it gets anonymized and the IP address gets partially destroyed). What that means is that they never fully destroy the data, and that if the query was self-identifying in some way, someone could still tie all of the queries you made together since they would still be associated with the cookie data, even if that cookie data is no longer associated with you.

      Take it with a grain of salt, however, since that's from back in 2011. As we all know, these tech companies have made big strides to protect our privacy better since then. Wait, no, I have that backwards.

    6. Re:Comparison with Google search? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Anyone have the timeline for Google's disassociation and destruction of search queries? I'm curious how Apple's policies compare against those.

      Well Google saves your searches against your Google account if you have one. And they save them for years. So it's a whole different ballgame.

    7. Re:Comparison with Google search? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Well, you can disable Google saving your search at all... so there is that.

      No you can't. You *may* be able to stop them associating them with your account. But they still save the searches.

    8. Re:Comparison with Google search? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, turning off search history doesn't even do as much as you say. They still use everything you enter into their services, every keystroke, how long you spent looking at a page, when you searched and from where. They use all of that and more to target ads (which many of us never see anyway thanks to Adblock Plus).

      Turning off search history hides this data from YOU. They still have it. They still have it associated with your account, and even if you are logged out it's associated with your IP address. Since they know your IP address when you're logged out as well as when you're logged in, ALL your queries are associated with your account if you've ever logged in from that IP. Even "anonymous" users who have no account with Google have shadow profiles associated with their IPs and search patterns. And it's safe to assume given how cheap storage space is that this data is retained forever. I'd be surprised if Google has ever deleted any of their search records since they created the company.

      The only way you can be anonymous with Google is to use a proxy while searching. I suggest using TOR when you want your searches to be anonymous, or use Duckduckgo.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    9. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Google ads are white listed for me.
      Plain text. On topic. Unintrusive and helps out the company giving me good free shit.
      Every great once in a while I actually click on an ad because it is something I want.

      Of all ads on the internet. Google ads cause me the least pain.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:Comparison with Google search? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perfectly reasonable. Myself, I've never seen an advertisement that was legitimately helpful. I'm dubious that there ever could be such a thing because advertising is fundamentally an adversarial relationship between the advertiser and the target of the ad (you): you have money that you want to keep, or get the most value for when you do spend it; they want to give you as little as possible while taking as much of your money as they can. You are fighting each other, you have competing interests. You can see why there's a huge incentive for them to lie, or get as close to lying as they legally can, and emotionally manipulate you in their pursuit of your dollars. I find attempts at such manipulation repugnant, which is probably why I walk around most of the day with a mild nauseated sensation. Still, I'd choose that over the syrupy haze of blissful ignorance.

      Google's official ads might be the least intrusive, but their disguised ads are rather pernicious, IMO. For example, every product you are shown when using Google Shopping is a paid product advertisement, every single product. They are ALL ads, and nowhere is this disclosed clearly. They are trying to pass it off as a store like Amazon (which has plenty of hidden ads too, but they at least make a passing nod towards identifying them) but it's more like the yellow pages. You have to pay Google for your product to appear there.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    11. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ask you a question, how long until the query is disassociated and destroyed?

    12. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up but I blew the opportunity when I made a stupid comment above...

    13. Re:Comparison with Google search? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      No, you have the option of not tying your google searches to a user a account and a specific name but if you think that save you then you don't belong in public.

    14. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's official ads might be the least intrusive, but their disguised ads are rather pernicious, IMO. For example, every product you are shown when using Google Shopping is a paid product advertisement, every single product. They are ALL ads, and nowhere is this disclosed clearly. They are trying to pass it off as a store like Amazon (which has plenty of hidden ads too, but they at least make a passing nod towards identifying them) but it's more like the yellow pages. You have to pay Google for your product to appear there.

      :blink: Really? I mean, I believe you, but I had assumed that data was autogenerated by scraping e-commerce websites. I would expect the content to be higher quality if it's actually given to Google. Of course, that's just me expecting way too much of e-commerce websites.

    15. Re:Comparison with Google search? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      "or use Duckduckgo"

      here's another one to use; I've been using it for about a month and like it. Combines ixquick with Google results, and offers additional goodness, such as SSL, no cookies, proxy. (One search engine I miss is Kartoo - if it was still around it would be great along with this kind of anonymized, trackless search.) It also avoids handing over referrer info - which can be used to track you regardless of IP, depending on your settings.

      https://startpage.com/

    16. Re:Comparison with Google search? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, disabling Google History doesn't seem to come with a promise that Google doesn't keep that data somewhere else.

      I am pretty sure, based on experiences I've spelled out on Slashdot before, Google never actually deletes anything. When you select "delete" they basically just make it unavailable to you.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    17. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      It used to be that way. They changed it last year or the year before to the paid-ad model.

    18. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing I won't remember this question by next week and I won't remember who wrote it in about 5 minutes. So, less than five minutes for disassociation, and less than a week for data destruction.

    19. Re:Comparison with Google search? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      And I on the other hand have seen many advertisements that have been entertaining, amusing, funny and interesting.

      That's legitimately helpful enough for me, even if I never intend to buy their products:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDGrfhJH1P4
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDncfptDjPU
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw

      --
    20. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Branciforte · · Score: 1

      Google had to make a choice with Shopping.

      1) Allow absolutely everyone to register for free. Then put up with all the spammers who place fake products and prices in order to get people to their sites.
      2) Charge a tiny fee that prevents spammers from overrunning the place.

      This was similar to the idea that charging a penny per email would run spammers out of business. Only, there is no way to charge for email, given the way the Internet works. But, there was the opportunity to do it with Shopping.

      It's not like product providers pay more to appear more often. It is a single, small fee that is the same for everyone. It won't keep out anyone legitimate. Just the spammers.

      Must the same way that you must pay a tiny fee to put a listing in the classified section of the newspaper. Otherwise, if it were free, it would quickly be overrun by crap and spam.

    21. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Anyone have the timeline for Google's disassociation and destruction of search queries? I'm curious how Apple's policies compare against those.

      Going by this, not until somebody actually forces them.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    22. Re:Comparison with Google search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly think so. Thanks

  6. Siri sucks! Stop making it better! by Maxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My guess is the overlap between "people who complained Siri wasn't accurate" and "people who dont want apple keeping any Siri data so they can make it better" is pretty close to perfect.

    Google reads your mail. Apple listens to your ravings. Don't like it, don't use it. And they only keep 'your' (ie identifable) data 6 months.

    1. Re:Siri sucks! Stop making it better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is the overlap between "people who complained Siri wasn't accurate" and "people who dont want apple keeping any Siri data so they can make it better" is pretty close to perfect.

      Google reads your mail. Apple listens to your ravings. Don't like it, don't use it. And they only keep 'your' (ie identifable) data 6 months.

      I think the backlash against Siri is that it at launch was heralded as this amazing revolution, that didn't half live up to its promises. Trying to say that others had similar voice search tech around the time of Siri launch was instant down-vote to oblivion. This was revolutionary and couldn't be compared to anything else.

    2. Re:Siri sucks! Stop making it better! by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yeah, I find myself not minding this so much. I do think electronic records should somehow "sunset" at some point, even if it's after a few years, for various reasons. However, I don't see what the big deal is whether Apple retains the data for 1 month vs. 6 months vs. 2 years.

      When I used Siri for the first time and realized it was sending my questions to a datacenter somewhere, I had an immediate reaction of "that's a bit creepy and disconcerting." But once the data is sent out to the datacenter for processing, you've already opened the door for the data to be misused. Once you assume that the data will be stored for some amount of time, you increase the chances for the data to be misused. But if you extend the time that the data is stored for a for months or a year, I don't feel like you're greatly increasing your exposure.

      What holding on the data actually does is it gives Apple some time to process and analyze the data, improving the speech recognition and heuristic models. I'd expect them to want to keep it for a couple years, especially since Siri is new and they're probably still developing their methods for analyzing the data. In this sort of situation, having more data means being able to create a more accurate analysis.

    3. Re:Siri sucks! Stop making it better! by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Well...it's a voice recording, so it's still somewhat identifiable even if they don't store any further information with it...

    4. Re:Siri sucks! Stop making it better! by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it's a lot easier to change your IP than your voice....

      even if they eventually remove all personally-identifying info from a query, getting a voice match on all your searches will last as long as they keep them.

    5. Re:Siri sucks! Stop making it better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an opt out? Companies could collect data from individuals who want to help improve the product, but those that don't want to share their data should be able to opt out. Seems pretty simple.

  7. Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by mtb_ogre · · Score: 1

    It's becoming exceedingly difficult to keep your search history private. All the major search companies keep it, Apple keeps Siri searches, etc. DuckDuckGo I believe keeps things as anonymous as you can get. There are also some hacks you can do if you are careful, privacy mode/ incognito is a start, but even then it's easy to tip your hand. If you are truly doing something crazy, use a bootable USB and do your searches from a random public wifi hotspot.

    1. Re:Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by tftp · · Score: 2
    2. Re:Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Your ISP will rat you out.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by cffrost · · Score: 2

      StartPage

      (Also known as Ixquick) is good, as is DuckDuckGo, for those who value privacy.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Your ISP will rat you out.

      Pray tell how, unless the ISP is capable of a MITM attack on an SSL connection.

    5. Re:Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your guilty just because you used startpage.

    6. Re:Google keeps voice searches for 2 years also... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Your guilty just because you used startpage.

      You could say that about using Tor or FreeNet. However search engines are a commodity, and anyone can use StartPage without a complicated setup; it's just a Web site. It's even in the list of search engines that IE asks you to select from, right out of the box. Install fresh Windows, select the search engine, and you are done. If that is suspicious, you are in a good company.

  8. Rotten to the core. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am getting tired of Apples continuing Privacy abused, first they sell their customers to the highest bidder now this.

    Even Siri was ruined with advertising http://www.inquisitr.com/256025/steve-wozniak-says-apple-ruined-siri-technology-after-acquisition/ "Steve says he initially loved Siri because it could accurately answer questions such as “What are the five largest lakes in California?” and “What are the prime numbers greater than 87?” . To which Wozniak replied, “It’s incredible. It’s like it understands ‘greater than.’”

    Wozniak also notes that his former question about California Lakes now brings up lakefront properties while his question about prime numbers now displays information about prime ribs."

    There EULA's have got so abuse they are subject to ridicule by South Park http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumancentiPad in HumancentiPad

    Three words "Don't be Evil"

    1. Re:Rotten to the core. by Megahard · · Score: 1

      Wolfram Alpha answers both questions accurately. I don't know why anyone would prefer Siri over other tools for answering encyclopedic questions.

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    2. Re:Rotten to the core. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      I just tried both of those and was given correct answers with no ads. The prime number question gave results from Wolfram Alpha.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Rotten to the core. by Megahard · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just tried it with Siri and it also punts to Wolfram Alpha so the answers are identical. There's no lakefront properties.

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    4. Re:Rotten to the core. by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      question about prime numbers now displays information about prime ribs."

      In Siri's defense, prime rib is pretty damn awesome

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Rotten to the core. by sosume · · Score: 0

      At least they provide a longer data retention than guarantee on their products.

    6. Re:Rotten to the core. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      I am getting tired of Apples continuing Privacy abused, first they sell their customers to the highest bidder now this.

      Honest question: when did Apple sell anything related to their customers to the highest bidder? I can't find any information about anything along those lines, yet I've seen you repeat it at least twice in here.

    7. Re:Rotten to the core. by tftp · · Score: 1

      Honest question: when did Apple sell anything related to their customers to the highest bidder? I can't find any information about anything along those lines

      As if you would normally find information about such transactions plastered all over the town? As if you'd normally find any business contract between corporations published for everyone to see?

      These deals are signed in boardrooms, by VPs and above, and they stay among that crowd. Even if an IT worker at some point sets up a link between databases, or sends tapes over, he does not necessarily know what those databases contain. Even if he knows that "some data" is sent to "strategic partners," what can he do about that?

    8. Re:Rotten to the core. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three words "Don't be Evil"

      From one of Slashdot's biggest Google fanboys Tuppe666

      Hint: Google's voice search also stores it for 2 years. How long do they keep your search history for? Not only that, but Apple isn't using any of the info to target ads.

      You are tiring.

    9. Re:Rotten to the core. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Horseradish is what you put on Prime rib. Not Apple(sauce).

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:Rotten to the core. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      the fact that there is no proof of transactions must be EVIDENCE that such transactions are occuring behind closed doors! Quick, someone fetch my my tinfoil hat!

    11. Re:Rotten to the core. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need more than hearsay evidence for such a claim. Not denying it's possible, but you provide nothing but your opinion and hypothesis.

    12. Re:Rotten to the core. by node+3 · · Score: 0

      I am getting tired of Apples continuing Privacy abused, first they sell their customers to the highest bidder now this.

      Bullshit. You've been past "getting tired of Apple" for ages. This is just the "reason du jour" for you to spew your hatred.

    13. Re:Rotten to the core. by node+3 · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's just entirely made up. Thanks for the clarification.

    14. Re:Rotten to the core. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, my favorite Siri-choke is sunrise/sunset.

      Ask Siri "What time is sunset?" and Siri will tell you. Ask Siri "What time was sunrise?" and Siri will say something to the effect that it can't tell you the weather in the past. Ask Siri "What time will sunset be next Tuesday?" and it will say something to the effect that it doesn't know how to get the weather that far ahead.

      Huh? What does sunset have to do with weather? Well, Siri gets sunrise/sunset information from the same place as the weather. Sort of an "almanac" section.

      The sad part? If you say "Wolfram, what time was sunset?" it will go search Wolfram-Alpha and tell you sunrise/sunset information for anywhere in the world on any date that you like.

    15. Re:Rotten to the core. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Siri story in the link was from June 2012. You do know software can be improved. Or do you think Steve Woz was lying.

    16. Re:Rotten to the core. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      He's claiming elsewhere that it was a $400B deal.

      Not only would a deal like that have to be disclosed in SEC filings (i.e. it wouldn't stay private), but if Apple had sold their customer's data to Google for that price, it would have bankrupted Google dozens or hundreds of times over, since they have nowhere close to that much money on hand. Google's market cap is only around $250B at the moment, so Google could literally sell itself to Apple (assuming it magically gained control of those shares) and still come up $150B short of the claims this yahoo is making.

    17. Re:Rotten to the core. by tftp · · Score: 1

      He's claiming elsewhere that it was a $400B deal.

      That is indeed ridiculous. I would easily accept a $40M deal. A $400M deal would be already very hard to imagine; many *companies* aren't worth that much. Normally a CEO can work with 20-30 million USD with relative ease - such as acquire small companies or making deals of this sort; but anything beyond that triggers a completely different set of procedures.

    18. Re:Rotten to the core. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The Siri story in the link was from June 2012. You do know software can be improved. Or do you think Steve Woz was lying.

      Well, Siri used Wolfram Aplha before Apple bought it, it uses it now, and there is no indication that it stopped using it any time in between. So even if the problem Woz claims actually existed, it was with Wolfram Alpha, and not with Siri, let alone with Apple "ruining" it.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  9. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by tom17 · · Score: 0

    I have not read one of these posts yet. Is it worth it or is it just drivel?

  10. Sample data... by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone I've ever spoken to or read about in the field of voice recognition tells me that having samples of people's voices is critical to improving it... and getting those samples (mainly the raw quantity of samples) is the biggest problem they face.

    So it doesn’t surprise me at all that anyone keeps a massive archive of samples... the sample data can be critical in improving voice recognition.

    As an aside: Google Voice's voice mail feature does more or less the same thing... and the reasoning is the same also: More sample data means better voice recognition.

    I can't help but shake my head at the comparison:

    Google samples user voices, reads (and transcribes) voice mail, reads your email, your stock information and then feeds it into their advertising engine, and does this for four years and counting; reaction: Meh...

    Apple samples voices, anonymizes it, uses it it improve voice recognition over a period of two years; reaction: EVIL! APPLE MUST DIE!

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:Sample data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple samples voices, anonymizes it, uses it it improve voice recognition over a period of two years; reaction: EVIL! APPLE MUST DIE!

      ...

      Please explain how, precisely, Apple manages to "anonymize" a particular vocal pattern, without destroying the audio quality?

    2. Re:Sample data... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Anonymized voice sample you say? "Voice Print Identified" I say. Hell, I create my own image and speach recognition software from scratch, and I don't need all those fucking samples. I just need to run the samples through my algorithms at most twice -- Once, then again to test if the changes were beneficial or not. If I have a constant stream of users (new samples), and I'm smart -- read: Not fucking daft -- then I can just run the samples through once, and let the users of the system rate the samples in order to rate the sub-systems' efficiency and promote or demote the changes, meanwhile saving a fortune on voice data storage costs. (I use genetic algorithms, so the +1 ratings lead to more "breeding" advantage when spawning the next generation -- no need for data samples, just continued use.)

      Now, I suppose the longer I keep that data the more tests I can run, but think about it really: Which human is going to verify if the algorithm is producing a better match for tons of fucking voice data? No. That's fucking dumb -- That's not what happens to improve the system. That means paying tons of people to listen to the service and re-rate the output after changes have occurred. To improve the system you can collect a SMALL representative sample of those voice recordings to use as a test data set. You have a human transcriber convert those select recordings into actual text. Then you use them as the dataset -- AND YOU CAN KEEP ONLY THOSE on file. It could be totally opt in thing "[_] Improve Siri by Saving Your Search". There's no reason to keep the entire fucking database of voice recordings. That's assinine, it's not helping anyone, except maybe the feds, and the data storage requriements are stupidly taxing for no other really beneficial reason.

      If you compare two voice samples you can damn well verify they came from the same person or not. It's called Voiceprinting -- Like Fingerprinting. And as the "anonymized" AOL search data debacle proved: You can't really anonymize search data.

    3. Re:Sample data... by cffrost · · Score: 1, Troll

      Apple samples voices, anonymizes it, uses it it improve voice recognition over a period of two years; reaction: EVIL! APPLE MUST DIE!

      Please explain how, precisely, Apple manages to "anonymize" a particular vocal pattern, without destroying the audio quality?

      It just works. Still not convinced? Think different.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Sample data... by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Voice prints are a real thing, of course; my point isn't that it's not possible to identify people from a voice sample.

      My point is that Apple doesn't make its money by selling you, me, and everyone else to the highest bidder, nor does its business have any real advantage in profiling us. Apple's business isn't advertising, it's selling hardware. (The flop that is iAd notwithstanding)

      Google, on the other hand, is entirely different: Their entire revenue stream is from collecting our personal information, categorizing and analyzing it, and then selling or otherwise making that data useful to its actual customers, ie. its advertisers.

      Hell, I create my own image and speach recognition software from scratch, and I don't need all those fucking samples. I just need to run the samples through my algorithms at most twice -- Once, then again to test if the changes were beneficial or not

      If you honestly believe that, then you've never spent even a minute actually learning the basics of speech recognition, let alone the level of complexity involved in modern algorithms. Signal processing isn't like database programming, where you get a nice result that fits into a box, and can easily reduce unwanted side effects.

      Also keep in mind, there's a difference between "automatic speech recognition" - where whole sentences are parsed and understood (such as used with Siri or Google , versus "discrete speech recognition" where very limited actions are understood (like older cell phones when you spoke "dial ").

      The problem is that while you might have improved the recognition for one specific sample, you've now made it considerably worse for another... so you have to build up a massive library of samples to do regression testing. One of the biggest challenges in speech recognition over the years is the utter lack of sample data for a wide populace, coupled with computers that are unable to hold enough samples in memory to do any meaningful comparisons.

      We've only recently started to see speech recognition of that calibre, and even then, it's accomplished by sending a recording off to a datacenter so fraking huge that it'd easily sit at the top of the TOP500 supercomputer list if their owners bothered to run linpack on it. It's no coincidence that it's also only been in the past couple of years speech recognition has become anything more than a lame joke.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:Sample data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Google is free. And in return you give up your privacy.

      Apple is NOT free. And in return you give up a large chunk of money AND your privacy.

      One of these is a really shitty deal.

    6. Re:Sample data... by jonwil · · Score: 2

      The issue isn't that they retain the voice samples, its that they store user information for 6 months when they dont need to store user information for longer than it takes to complete the query and return the results.

    7. Re:Sample data... by mattr · · Score: 1

      Anonymize means to make anonymous. Not the vocal pattern. Simply the user id is not tied to it after 6 months.
          A corpus (large body of annotated text and/or voice) is a necessary part of natural language recognition, which is a type of artificial intelligence, but usually you tell me people that is what will happen to the data.
            The 6 month window during which you ID is tied to your voice record, is likely very useful for AI such as being able to understand a given person's accent better, or perhaps providing context (they know your email and surfing habits) to understand your query better (perhaps if you are travelling, you want to know about a train schedule, etc.).
            However it also means law enforcement could: easily read all the searches a user has done; force collection with ID beyond 6 months; automatically scan siri requests to fish for suspicious activity; or even tick the checkbox that turns your phone into a 24x7 eavesdropping device based on those automated scans, which of course are becoming more intelligent thanks to having all this corpus data and economic activity (cashflow) attached to this business of making AI smarter for mobile devices.

    8. Re:Sample data... by mattr · · Score: 1

      well they probably would want to keep the data as a corpus of text that can be further analyzed or used to guide further searches. It's just that it can be quite abused... and many people these days would rather have the data deleted immediately rather than improve a service that is less than crucial to one's life, so far.

  11. They make data anonymous after 18 months by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and have since 2007 These two great blog posts cover the details "Taking steps to further improve our privacy practices" http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/taking-steps-to-further-improve-our.html and "
    How long should Google remember searches? " http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/how-long-should-google-remember.html an example from it "By anonymizing our server logs after 18-24 months, we think we’re striking the right balance between two goals: continuing to improve Google’s services for you, while providing more transparency and certainty about our retention practices." Google are suprisingly forthcoming about how and what they do with your data, which clashes sharply with Apple(pretend the don't) or Microsoft(who run hate campaigns)

    1. Re:They make data anonymous after 18 months by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      While I'm glad that they make that public, what they're NOT saying there is that they delete our data eventually. As such, if I make a query that can be tied back to me, my other queries can likely be tied back to me as well, since they'll share an anonymized ID between them.

      Granted, voice data is MUCH more sensitive than plaintext, but I'm still a bit disappointed that Google isn't promising to delete our queries entirely after a period of time, rather than merely anonymizing them. Anonymization is a good first step, but it shouldn't be the final one, and after two years, they should have gotten everything out of my query that they'll ever get.

    2. Re:They make data anonymous after 18 months by node+3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Google are suprisingly forthcoming about how and what they do with your data, which clashes sharply with Apple(pretend the don't) or Microsoft(who run hate campaigns)

      It's notable that you left out the part where both Apple and MS have better actual policies, and instead focus on the way they talk about them.

  12. Re:Apple sells its cutomers to advertisers by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    What are you talking about? If there was a $400B deal, I think we'd all have heard about it.

  13. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I'm not sure if this is a joke, so I'll answer honestly (if it is a joke, then I guess this just makes the butt of it, but oh well). This person posts completely off-topic rants about /etc/hosts, claiming persecution. If this showed up in your inbox, would you think twice before marking it "spam" and moving on to the next message?

  14. Re:Apple sells its cutomers to advertisers by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You're not only a liar, you're not a very good one. You have no grasp of large numbers. $400 billion is more than either company is worth.

  15. Siri's innactuarcies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So not only does she put the wrong things and is entirely useless, she remembers all the times she is wrong

  16. Is this a compliance issue? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    In reference to an earlier question about Google's data retention policies, one of the comments provided a great link to a 2007 Google blog post that describes why Google holds onto their data for 18 months before they anonymize it. One of the interesting things that was said was:

    However, we must point out that future data retention laws may obligate us to raise the retention period to 24 months.

    Given that the blog post was written back in 2007, isn't it now possible that 24 months is simply the earliest that a company like Apple is allowed to delete the query, given the various data retention regulations that are in place around the world? That they disassociate it after 6 months still puts them ahead of Google's 18 months, though voice data is significantly less anonymous than the text of a query, generally speaking, so that they keep it at all is not something I like the idea of.

  17. Regression testing by Bogtha · · Score: 1

    If I were in charge of Siri, I'd do the same thing. That kind of real-world data is vital for regression testing. If you don't have a strong corpus of sample data, when you make changes to the code, you've got no idea if what you are doing is improving the situation for some cases, while damaging them for others. You would see people complaining about things like "Well Siri used to work for X query but now it doesn't". When you have this data, you can update the code, run the test suite, and see if it fails a large number of existing cases.

    If Apple do anything to mitigate this, it will probably be some form of opt-out, but they are unlikely to make it the default, because I would imagine that building a corpus of representative speech from a thousand different accents talking about tens of thousands of different subjects is nigh on impossible otherwise, especially as jargon comes and goes so quickly these days.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Regression testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    2. Re:Regression testing by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      That kind of real-world data is vital for regression testing. If you don't have a strong corpus of sample data, when you make changes to the code, you've got no idea if what you are doing is improving the situation for some cases, while damaging them for others

      Aaaand, unless you run ALL those data samples back through the system in front of a HUMAN, then you STILL have "no idea if what you are doing is improving the situation" at all. So, the point still stands: Keeping a sampling of the data is acceptable. Keeping the lot of it isn't helping anyone you actually want to help -- Least of all the developers. Hell, they could improve the service immensely by simply dropping the data storage requirments!

      The reason they keep this data is not to improve the fucking system. It's likely in order to comply with government demands. Don't kid yourself.

    3. Re:Regression testing by Bogtha · · Score: 2

      Aaaand, unless you run ALL those data samples back through the system in front of a HUMAN, then you STILL have "no idea if what you are doing is improving the situation" at all.

      Yes, you do. Have you ever used Siri? There are several places where you can reliably determine that recognition was successful, due to manual confirmation or subsequent actions. For instance, if I ask Siri to remind me to do something at 9 o'clock, it might ask me if I mean 9am or 9pm. Anybody who answers either way instead of cancelling is confirming that the initial recognition of it being a request for a reminder at 9 is correct, which can be recorded as a positive result without human intervention by Apple.

      Apple can store this information for thousands of accents, and when they make changes to Siri's code, they can run them against these samples to confirm that they aren't, say, inadvertently breaking reminders for people with Brummie accents when they are trying to improve reminders for people with New York accents.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:Regression testing by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If I were in charge of Siri, I'd do the same thing.

      And I suppose, if you were writing a web browser, it would upload screenshots of sites visited, to help your team ensure proper rendering?

      I think the point is not that the recordings are useful (or not), but that it is invasive to record voices talking to Siri.

      And especially since it is not well advertised -- the argument can easily be made that not everyone has necessarily given their consent (especially, if, for example, a friend uses your phone, and puts some searches to Siri, without acknowledging or agreeing to any Apple terms).

      Apple should safeguard privacy by (1) limiting the number of samples taken to a small percentage, e.g. 1% of searches to Siri.

      (2) Anonymizing the data immediately, not retaining a random number -- that way the recording could not be used against the user - no link at all to the device or user.

      (3) Review all samples, and have a technician immediately delete/expunge any sample containing any hint of private or personal information, before reviewing the entire sample.

      (4) Provide an assurance of security and safeguarding of the data.

  18. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by tom17 · · Score: 0

    Not a joke. It's just that sometimes I have seen people respond to it and it makes me wonder if it's worth spending the 5 mins to read through it.

    But no, as you suggest, every time I see it I scroll past it as I cba. But that people mention hosts files in it, I can't help but wonder if there is anything interesting in it. I can't see how a hosts file could relate to propaganda.

    Additionally, simply reading it would answer my question and, possibly, be quicker than asking like this. Problem is, I just really CBA :)

    Was not a joke :)

  19. Don't like it? Don't use it. by whargoul · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't like it? Don't use it.

    1. Re:Don't like it? Don't use it. by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Don't like it? Don't use it.

      I don't, and I don't. But other people I care about do. Should I ignore the misdeeds simply because the victim isn't me?

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    2. Re:Don't like it? Don't use it. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But are they really victims? We can tell them how much info Apple/Google/etc gathers on them but if they don't care or think its worth it what's the big problem? Most people don't care about such stuff.

      It's like a friend eating his favourite fried chicken at his favourite dining place. It's bad for his health but is he a victim?

      --
  20. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by DougOtto · · Score: 0

    Seems you should learn how the internets work.....

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
  21. Apple sells it users to Google/Yahoo/Microsoft!? by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    "Could A Yahoo-Apple Deal Spell Trouble For Google?" http://www.webpronews.com/iphones-and-ipads-could-soon-get-a-big-dose-of-yahoo-2013-04 its a great article, about Yahoo! (Who share there data with Microsoft) and Apple, but from the Article...although its common news "An analyst at Macquarie Capital estimated that Google was making $1.3 billion annually in paid search revenue from iOS devices. Macquarie speculated that Google returned about $1 billion of that to Apple as part of the agreement that made Google the default search engine on the Safari browser.Another financial analyst has come up with a similar annual estimate of the value of Google’s default iOS search deal with Apple: $1 billion. Morgan Stanley’s Scott Devitt is responsible for the new estimateDevitt disagreed with Macquarie, arguing that the structure of the relationship is probably not a “revenue sharing” deal but instead a straight fee-per-device payment from Google to Apple. Devitt believes that Google pays Apple roughly $3.20 per iOS device, which would avoid the accounting issues arising from a revenue sharing agreement."

  22. Apple sells your data to Google for $3.20 by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    save them for years. So it's a whole different ballgame.

    I know your Angry with Apple and confused right now, You bought an Apple phone and Apple still sold you to Google. You paid a mark-up of 50% on a $650 phone just to be sold for a measly $3.20, who would have thought you were so cheap.

    1. Re:Apple sells your data to Google for $3.20 by node+3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know you're grasping for straws. You're angry that someone somewhere bought an Apple phone and is happy with it.

      Google is horrible on privacy. How you constantly feel the need to defend Google by bashing Apple is, at least, entertaining. Especially since Apple is nowhere near as much of a privacy concern. So instead, what? You tell people how they should feel about spending their own money? Don't you think people know how much they spend, and when they spend it willingly, they find it to be a good value, and that your opinion on the matter doesn't amount to jack shit?

    2. Re:Apple sells your data to Google for $3.20 by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Confused little Google apologist aren't you.

  23. Speech recognition that works by oergiR · · Score: 1

    A "high justification"? How about speech recognition that actually works?

    Training speech recognisers requires data. The biggest reason why speech recognition has improved in the recent years: lots of data.

    Speech recognition in the cloud has given companies like Apple and Google a reason/excuse to gather masses of training data. They have put it to good use: speech recognition is much better than it was. If you like speech recognition, use it, meanwhile donating your data and helping the rest of us. If you don't, don't use it. As long as users are aware of this, I don't really see the problem.

    1. Re:Speech recognition that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , I don't really see the problem.

      Hey, then all is fine. Thank's for sharing your wisdom.

  24. Poetic by froth-bite · · Score: 2

    somewhere in a data warehouse with only a few humans, there are millions of disassociated voices crying out to be heard. "But it keeps these disassociated files for up to 18 more months for testing and product improvement purposes."

    --
    In NSA America social networks join you!
  25. Re:WHY NOT DISPROVE MY POINTS THEN... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey man, I know this is important to you, but maybe you should talk to someone outside of the internet about it? I mean, you sound really batshit insane.

  26. Re:WHY NOT DISPROVE MY POINTS THEN... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seriously, as a professional troll, i have to say if they're getting you to do all this crazy stuff then they won.

  27. Why save it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does apple need to save siri data at all beyond processing time?
    The concern with siri vs search engine queries is that siri is being used to enter and queries personal data. Possibilities is balances of accounts, passwords, contract or business deals, anything you do on an ipad or iphone - its not just "search for clowns" etc.
    A random number is only a random number - it still is linked to your phone somewhere or the service would work. Your phone is linked to your account, so the data IS linked direct to your personal account! Its irrelevant if they store a random number with it, when that random number is linked to you anyway!
    Apple can still track everything about its users, including their search queries, plans, business data and anything else they type or say into the ispy products.
    Apple have an appalling record for privacy, as seen in the past with the itune debacle, gps tracking data, and now personal searches, queries, data, and other ,what should be, secure data etc
    Google at least gives the option to turn off the tracking and are open about the information they have on you!

    1. Re:Why save it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does apple need to save siri data at all beyond processing time?

      Two reasons, one good, one bad. Engineers use it to improve the quality of the product. The more real data they get, the less they have to rely on speculative data. They become aware of the ways customers use the product that they didn't anticipate and change the service to improve. Marketers also use this data. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were selling the same data to advertisers that the engineers use to upgrade the products they make. 2 birds, one stone. They wouldn't even need it to associate to user's data; the number of particular requests, the vernacular used, the time of day, the location, all could be useful to marketers without having to know which person did what. That would be worth more money, of course, but not necessary to make metric shitloads of money while not compromising privacy, which can sometimes cost metric shitloads of money.

      A random number is only a random number - it still is linked to your phone somewhere or the service would work.

      You made that up. You don't have any evidence that the random number is linked to your phone. Cynically, yes it's likely. But if the Apple ID or email address is associated to the random number and the random number is disassociated from the voice files, then so do the Apple ID or email address. That's basic algebra. Look...

      Its irrelevant if they store a random number with it, when that random number is linked to you anyway!

      In fact you missed the part of TFS where it says, "Once the voice recording is six months old, Apple “disassociates” your user number from the clip, deleting the number from the voice file." Bye bye association between you and the data they say is for testing.

      Google at least gives the option to turn off the tracking and are open about the information they have on you!

      Option to turn off tracking? Don't use Siri. Open about the information? Are you high? The first 2 lines of TFS: "...Apple has provided information on how long it holds onto voice search data used by its digital assistant software Siri. Speaking to Wired, an Apple representative said the data is kept for two years after the initial query." Yeah when I need to hide some really super big ultra private computer security secret I tell Wired just to be safe. Fucking douche. I don't even like Apple but you made me defend them because you're so fucking dumb.

  28. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by WGFCrafty · · Score: 0

    Alexander Peter KowalskI and anyone arguing with him are insane. I saw their crazy tirades once and googled his name, and HOLY SHIT. This guy has mini battle raging all over many sites for some of the most inane shit you can think of. He meticulously catalogs the people who have crossed him and works to MAKE SURE everyone understands they are fools.

    Now, they well be fools, but by his meticulous and obsessive actions Kowalski (APK) has proved without a shadow of doubt his absolutE insanity. I haven't even argued with this guy so don't think I'm part of these internet crusades. All this I've found by googling his name. The trove of flaming and incomprehensible obsessive agression is humongous and both funny, and pathetic to varying intense degrees. Just google if you are curious about the kinds of crazy that are out there.T

  29. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by WGFCrafty · · Score: 0

    See my above post. I'm convinced APK is serious, he has got battles raging everywhere, meticulously catalogued, yet he thinks this is proof of his knowledge and experience, not obsessive insanity. And making that point doesn't make him reconsider, it incites him. He also seems to think what looks like many multiples of people saying this are one or a few people who are out to get him. Just read my post and google Alexander Peter Kowalski.
    t

  30. Re:WHY NOT DISPROVE MY POINTS THEN... apk by WGFCrafty · · Score: 0

    I have to say it makes you both fucking nuts.

  31. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    Is it really Alexander Peter Kowalski? Or just an imposter?

  32. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    That's also possible.

  33. So it's not actually anonymous by PartyBoy!911 · · Score: 1

    As the map you voice recordings to an id and map that id to your apple id, I find it very strange they can claim it's anonymous!

    From a better article:
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/04/apple-remembers-where-you-wanted-to-get-drunk-for-up-to-2-years/

    Muller pointed out, however, that the identifiers are deleted immediately—"along with any associated data"—when a user turns Siri off on his or her device. (You can do this by going to Settings > General > Siri on a supported iOS device.)

    If you can delete the identifiers and associated data when disabling Siri, it is not anonymous.

    Also voice recognition has been working fine for many years now, if they want to find your voice clips it shouldn't be much trouble.

  34. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

    * POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

    Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

    Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

    Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

    If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

    I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

    Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

    Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

    I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

    If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

    You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusiv

  35. Re:Protect your data with custom HOST file... apk by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Make a GUI / Visual Basic / etc.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  36. Re:Apple sells it users to Google/Yahoo/Microsoft! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    And yet, NONE of that says anything about Apple selling their customer's data to Google or anyone else, which is what you've been alleging all along. Google paying Apple for the right to be the default search engine on iOS does not mean that Apple is giving them customer data (Apple's customer is the user, after all, so it's not in their best interests to sell that data), especially so when you consider that the user is fully capable of changing their search engine in the settings for iOS. The only data Google is getting is the data they collect themselves, which is no different than how it is if I use google.com. If I use google.com in Safari or Internet Explorer, that doesn't mean that Apple and Microsoft are being paid by Google for my information.