Slashdot Mirror
EFF: Trust Twitter — Not Apple Or Verizon — To Protect Your Privacy
tdog17 writes "Verizon and MySpace scored a zero out of a possible six stars in a test of how far 18 technology service providers will go to protect user data from government data demands. Twitter and Internet service provider Sonic.net scored a perfect six in the third annual Electronic Frontier Foundation 'Who Has Your Back?' report. Apple, AT&T and Yahoo ranked near the bottom, each scoring just one star. 'While we are pleased by the strides these companies have made over the past couple years, there’s plenty of room for improvement. Amazon holds huge quantities of information as part of its cloud computing services and retail operations, yet does not promise to inform users when their data is sought by the government, produce annual transparency reports, or publish a law enforcement guide. Facebook has yet to publish a transparency report. Yahoo! has a public record of standing up for user privacy in courts, but it hasn't earned recognition in any of our other categories. Apple and AT&T are members of the Digital Due Process coalition, but don’t observe any of the other best practices we’re measuring. ... We remain disappointed by the overall poor showing of ISPs like AT&T and Verizon in our best practice categories.'"
EFF never said "Trust Twitter — Not Apple Or Verizon — To Protect Your Privacy"
The EFF ranks these companies based on what they say they do for privacy. Nobody knows what they actually do. For all we know, Twitter may be an FBI/CIA front, or bound by some gag order. You can't trust online providers at all, and any use of an online service is a calculated risk, trading some privacy for some utility. Publishing this kind of nonsense, the EFF does more harm than good, by giving users a false sense of privacy and security.
This says I should trust google with all my data hahahaha Seriously? What the fuck.
This isn't who to trust, this is who is the least worst when it comes to handing over your information to the government or various corporate interests using the government as their proxy (RIAA, etc.).
Nothing in this report accounts for how the companies themselves treat your private data, just how they respond to requests from law enforcement.
none of it, not even slashdot either
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
See US appeals court rules prosecutors can demand Twitter account information and people encounter many more problems using twitter.
"Nobody wants to read insightful, factual stories about actual things"
You are wrong. Indeed there are many who only want to by lead by the nose and trust the media in what they are told, watch American Idle and be happy.
But there are just as many - if not more that see the fraud. There's not many around here though. That's why I like to poke the stick in one in a while to see what bites.
I mean can't you see the bias, the obvious stinking lying agenda driven bias of the media pushing socialist policies and socialists onto the public like flies attracted to shit? You very well know what the reaction to these facts would be if the parties were reversed.
I am just calling for some actual reporting and actual journalism - politics aside, how can you argue against that?
That means "Trust Apple and Verizon less than you would trust Twitter... if you trusted Twitter".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This says I should trust google with all my data
Actually, it says that Google is better than Microsoft or Facebook at protecting user's data from government requests, and much better than Apple or Amazon (to pick a few). Trust is not implied; companies are scored on items on which they should be distrusted. Google scores nearer the better end of that scale than Microsoft or Facebook, and companies like Apple (unsurprisingly) are among the worst.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
While I agree the US MSM are pathetic I got 36,000+ hits on google news searching on "Tsarnaev" and "Saudi", I read about it last week from Australia, I'm not even that interested in the story so it's hardly a fucking secret.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Really? Their packaging is rarely larger than the item it encases by half an inch to an inch in each dimension. What makes you think they're high on the list of over packagers?
Because their boxes are seriously overbuilt. The box an iPhone comes in is very nice but is far more robust and expensive packaging than is actually required for the purpose of safely conveying the product to customer's hands. They use it for marketing and to convey a sense of quality but there is no question that they over package their products.
I really appreciate the assurances of random anonymous giggling internet tough guys.
They really help me sleep at night.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Why should Twitter waste effort sending any private data to the government when the government can just easily hack Twitter accounts?
bio->bi_end_io(bio, error);
We shouldn't have to trust anyone, anyone who says "trust me" is immediately suspect, right up there with the people who say "to tell you the truth" before a sentence.
Even it I trusted 'now' that may change, based on who bought them out, which governments co-opted them or if my, or their, ideals change.
Its like any relationship, things change and often not for the better.
People still use MySpace?
From TFA: Requiring warrants before delivering content; telling users about government requests for their data; publishing reports that list agencies that made requests; publishing guidelines they have for responding to government requests; going to court to fight for users privacy; lobbying Congress to establish privacy rights by joining the Digital Due Process coalition.
Looking at the report, it's not clear that the EFF actually knows about the first two. For example, Amazon could require warrants for every data request. What they seem to be saying is that Amazon does not publish that it requires warrants. Nor does it promise to tell users that the government has requested data. This is because Amazon does not publish guidelines they have for responding to government requests. This blocks them from getting the first two stars, even if their behavior is otherwise.
What do we know about Amazon? They don't publish transparency reports or formal guidelines about how they respond to law enforcement requests. They have defended user privacy in court (one case cited). They have joined the Digital Due Process coalition (which gives them credit for lobbying Congress).
Nobody wants to read insightful, factual stories about actual things,
No, it's like pop music. The demographic that is most profitable is idiots, therefore most of the industry is geared to compete for that idiot demographic. With music, most of the people buying has been tweens and teenagers who have nothing better to do with their time and listen to whatever shit their friends are listening too. It's convenient to the music industry too, because bands and singers which are nothing more than a face and a good producer are cheaper: you can make the next one hit wonder and pay them nothing. Musicians who you would describe as real artists with talent, they usually aren't willing to whore themselves out for 15 seconds of fame and a really small paycheck.
With news geared towards the masses, it has been discovered that people who tune in every night and spend money whatever they see ads for, those people dislike challenging journalism, they like stories that confirm their own beliefs and what they think is true. They like simple moral outrage. Which is easier and cheaper to do than real journalism anyway. They can make a better profit by going after those people, so they do.
It says nothing about the whole population, it only is an indication of profitability.
IIRC someone or some entity was storing all the tweets anyway. You have no privacy there to protect - it's explicitly public. It's almost like the EFF is trolling for the government in this case - put your private life out there in public so the government won't even have to ask anyone to violate your privacy to investigate you ;-)
I'm not sure I fully agree. If their product came damaged because of cheap packaging, the world would be up in arms about a $500+ device being damaged during shipping.
Apple could use considerably less expensive packaging and still keep the product safe. In a past life I owned a company that shipped about 10,000 custom packages a year. I know from first hand experience that Apple's packaging is more than is necessary to keep the product (reasonably) safe. While it is very nice, Apple's packaging is done the way it is for marketing.
Also, Apple packaging is mostly just cardboard which is easy to recycle.
Just because something can be recycled doesn't mean one should use more of it. The phrase "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" indicates the order in which those things should be done. It's better to Reduce than the Reuse and better to Reuse than Recycle. Apple could easily reduce their cardboard use by using thinner cardboard while still keeping their products intact for delivery. Since the boxes are so nice they also could offer to reuse them if you drop them off at one of their stores. Paper making is a nasty, wasteful process which consumes copious energy and water and recycling paper is only marginally less so.
And I'm sure Apple has done the analysis to ensure that if they could use thinner cardboard, they would to save money. Because when you're selling 100M+ of a device, saving 1 cent on cheaper cardboard is a reduction of $1M. And we know how Apple prides itself on its margins.
As for wastefulness of paper - note that making electronics involves using tons of nasty chemicals and poisons, tons of water and lots of energy as well.
You realize by putting Apple in the title (presumably to troll us, since it wasn't the two that were ranked the bottom) guarantees that no one will click the link?
The pro-apple people will dismiss it and go right to comments. The apple-haters never read these articles, just post crap that wasn't in the article (and get modded 5).
The uninterested parties skip them over.
And those driven completely insane try to talk sense . . . oh wait. Noooooo!
And I'm sure Apple has done the analysis to ensure that if they could use thinner cardboard, they would to save money.
I'm sure they have as well and they've chosen to use thicker cardboard than necessary for marketing reasons. It takes a little searching to find but Apple has admitted publicly that their packaging is very much overbuilt to convey an image of quality from the moment you get your hands on the box. It's actually quite a clever detail and my guess is that they believe (perhaps rightly) the perception of quality is worth more revenue than the cost savings from using only the minimum amount of packaging required.
As an example, the last time I bought a phone from Apple it was shipped to me direct from the factory. They could have packaged it in the box that it shipped in but instead they packaged the phone's box inside another box which is wasteful. I understand why they did it but that does not mitigate the fact that they used more packaging that was actually necessary. The very nice iPhone box was entirely unnecessary in that case and served no functional purpose regarding delivery.
As for wastefulness of paper - note that making electronics involves using tons of nasty chemicals and poisons, tons of water and lots of energy as well.
Very true but largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't follow that just because the electronics were toxic to produce that somehow mitigates the environmental impact of paper production. That's like saying we should ignore a misdemeanor because the same person committed a felony as well. Apple could reduce their paper usage but has chosen not to do so for marketing reasons.