Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Tim Cook Makes Blistering Attack on the 'Data Industrial Complex' (techcrunch.com)
Apple's CEO Tim Cook has joined the chorus of voices warning that data itself is being weaponized against people and societies -- arguing that the trade in digital data has exploded into a "data industrial complex." From a report: Cook did not namecheck the adtech elephants in the room: Google, Facebook and other background data brokers that profit from privacy-hostile business models. But his target was clear. "Our own information -- from the everyday to the deeply personal -- is being weaponized against us with military efficiency," warned Cook. "These scraps of data, each one harmless enough on its own, are carefully assembled, synthesized, traded and sold. Taken to the extreme this process creates an enduring digital profile and lets companies know you better than you may know yourself. Your profile is a bunch of algorithms that serve up increasingly extreme content, pounding our harmless preferences into harm. We shouldn't sugarcoat the consequences. This is surveillance," he added. In a series of tweets, Cook added: It was an honor to be invited to ICDPPC 2018 in Brussels this morning. I'd like to share a bit of what I said to this gathering of privacy regulators from around the world. It all boils down to a fundamental question: What kind of world do we want to live in? GDPR has shown us all that good policy and political will can come together to protect the rights of everyone. We believe that privacy is a fundamental human right. No matter what country you live in, that right should be protected in keeping with four essential principles.
First, companies should challenge themselves to de-identify customer data or not collect that data in the first place. Second, users should always know what data is being collected from them and what it's being collected for. This is the only way to empower users to decide what collection is legitimate and what isn't. Anything less is a sham. Third, companies should recognize that data belongs to users and we should make it easy for people to get a copy of their personal data, as well as correct and delete it. And fourth, everyone has a right to the security of their data. Security is at the heart of all data privacy and privacy rights. Technology is capable of doing great things. But it doesn't want to do great things. It doesn't want anything. That part takes all of us. We are optimistic about technology's awesome potential for good -- but we know that it won't happen on its own.
First, companies should challenge themselves to de-identify customer data or not collect that data in the first place. Second, users should always know what data is being collected from them and what it's being collected for. This is the only way to empower users to decide what collection is legitimate and what isn't. Anything less is a sham. Third, companies should recognize that data belongs to users and we should make it easy for people to get a copy of their personal data, as well as correct and delete it. And fourth, everyone has a right to the security of their data. Security is at the heart of all data privacy and privacy rights. Technology is capable of doing great things. But it doesn't want to do great things. It doesn't want anything. That part takes all of us. We are optimistic about technology's awesome potential for good -- but we know that it won't happen on its own.
I like this attitude, at this rate my next phone my be an iPhone. At least they do more than lip service for this sort of thing.
Shorter Tim Cook "You can trust us, but don't trust our competitors."
Not a shocking position for a CEO to take I suppose.
Apple loves to control what its users do with its products, but the moment there is something like data that it can't control, they complain? I know that people love to hate various companies, from Microsoft to Facebook to Google, but NONE of them are as bad as Apple when it comes to trying to control the users.
Apple is the only one taking privacy at all seriously.
Even for determining how to make Maps better, Apple has said they don't sample whole routes, just fragments of routes to see how Maps is performing...
They also do things like keep Face and Touch ID all local on the device, nothing goes to Apple.
So once again, just what do you claim they are mining?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
10 Troll posts . . . that have no clue.
1) At very least, Apple is beating the drum, everyone else is saying don't worry
2) Apple has gone on record FOR protecting users, putting themselves in a spot where, if it's ever found out that they're lying, NO one will trust them
3) The comment about China? Let's see some sources that say what's provided to the government, and whether it's the carriers or Apple; don't forget, the biggest provider is owned by the government . . .
Get out of your basements, get some sun, it's 2018
No, Tim Cook just wants everyone to be locked into an Apple controlled environment, and other big businesses being out there stops him from being the one in charge of what they see, don't see, what programs/apps they can use, etc.
While we obviously can't know for sure, there so far hasn't been any evidence that Apple does this. They do collect data with respect to services that they specifically provide that requires them to use such data (eg: Siri, maps, etc) but I've read past reports from people who have wiresharked the traffic coming out of their iDevices and Apple was true to their word. iDevices did not send unnecessary data to Apple.
Nor is there evidence that they buy up data from elsewhere like Facebook or Google does.
They have positioned themselves as data privacy champions. If they were exposed as data miners of the likes of Google or Facebook, don't you think that exposing that hypocrisy would be massive news? I know I haven't seen any such news yet. Please feel free to link such news stories in case I simply missed them.
They're leasing you to the advertisers instead.
What exactly does that mean? It sounds great but what are you thinking is happening - if there's no transfer of data from Apple to advertisers, then how can you claim anything like "leasing" is occurring, which is just another form of buying... leasing is just another form of buying.
Remember, Apple's walled garden isn't to protect you, it's to cage you.
What are the reasons divers use shark cages I wonder.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is surveillance, plan and simple, just as he says.
Tim Cook, however, represents the same type of corporation as the ones he critizies. I suspect that he maybe would like to know everything about Apples' customers, too. And the potential Apple customers. And control their behaviour to purchase more Apple products and services. It is hard to distinguish any ernest concern for a surveillance society, from being upset for not having competitive technology in this field.
Data collection has come to be the new level of expectation for businesses. I saw Dragon's Den the other day, where some app developers, however brilliant in marketing and technology, were flamed for not collecting and monetizing on the user data.
It is ironic how the society that led the world in the fight against oppression and for freedom, now leads the world into a world of digital slavery...
doesn't matter what he wants. his point is still valid. quit trying to distract from the subject.
lots of that going on in this thread. sheesh. et tu, Slashdot?
At the end of they day the data is where the money is
How can you say that when Apple is the living proof that statement is wrong? Or at best partially correct.
Oh there is money in data to be sure. But that is not where even MOST of the money is. Apple has managed to amass more money than any other company with a philosophy of not selling data on customers, period.
Obviously it is possible to make money via a different path than selling data.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They have positioned themselves as data privacy champions.* If they were exposed as data miners of the likes of Google or Facebook, don't you think that exposing that hypocrisy would be massive news? I know I haven't seen any such news yet. Please feel free to link such news stories in case I simply missed them.
*Offer not good in the People's Republic of China.
I'm getting tired of people saying "[Noun] Industrial Complex" without apparently understanding the meaning of the original Military-Industrial Complex. That original phrase meant that the Military and Industry were in a Complicated relationship with each other. It's not talking about an "Industrial Complex" (whatever that is) run by or about the Military.
"Data Industrial Complex" implies that there's something separate from Industry called Data, and that Data and Industry are in a Complicated relationship with each other. That does not seem to be the the way it's used, though.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Apple could help enhance privacy for everybody : just make an iMessage client for Android and Windows. I am tired of relying on WhatsApp just because it is the greatest common denominator.
Third, companies should recognize that data belongs to users
This is the fundamental issue, and we went the wrong way back in the 1980's when companies starting building computer databases. Your electric bill and phone bill should be your data. Your bank account transactions should be your data. But we went the wrong way and decided that your bank account information really belongs to your bank, and they just license you to access it. Wrong wrong wrong, and it's going to be a really difficult slope to go back and fix that.
Troll harder.
If you can't use Duck Duck Go you probably can't tie your shoelaces. Targeting does the exact opposite of what you describe, it makes things harder to find since it burys more precise results under a mountain of "other users searched for blank instead" suggestions.
Want to look up a restaurant or business in another city on google, or search for an obscure name or term? Have fun having it "correct" your search and bombard you with advertisements for local stuff or shit you don't need. "Did you mean something completely unrelated because your search only represented 1%% of our users and we won't make any fucking money if you don't want what we're selling? We hope not because we're not bothering to show you the correct results!"
I much prefer a search engine which does exactly what I tell it to do. If I want to search for a foreign language word I don't want it to give me the local restaurant that happens to have the same name, or the paid for ads that appear absolutely all over the search results and dominate what I see. If I wanted that restaurant, I can easily type my city or the word restaurant and get exactly what I wanted.
You being a lazy piece of shit is what makes searching for obscure or even just slightly outside statistically normal things nearly impossible.
I guess if you only use the internet to find that same restaurant you've been to five times but keep forgetting about that's fine. Honestly there is benefit to both, but the few times I've actually found google to be helpful can probably be counted on one hand.
That sounds like China's problem to me, and doesn't negate the fact that Apple might be a better choice for pricacy-conscious people in much of the rest of the world.
It's so cool he says that given that Apple boasts the biggest margins in the industry only rivaled by the sellers of drugs and weapons.
And also, what's their fee on purchases in App Store? Something close to 30%? I would love to have a business like that.
I'm not downplaying his concerns about data mining but you cannot expect Facebook (LinkedIn/Twitter/Google/etc.) to offer their services completely for free - they want something in return and it's your data which you part with. Meanwhile you are free not to use Facebook ever or use it without giving FB any of your information.
If you're really paranoid and value your privacy, you don't have a smartphone. You don't use the Internet. You don't visit public places (CCTV everywhere). You don't fly. You may as well don't exist at all nowadays: if it's not for these large companies (your data-leaking friends have enough data on you anyways) then the government will keep tabs on you until you die.
Names and addresses of people who "WANT their data mined"
No people do not want their data mined. They don't want their data collected period. Point of fact, nobody asked them in the first place.
Moron.
Google, Facebook and other background data brokers that profit from privacy-hostile business models
It's worth noting that Apple sells thick-client product that are deeply threatened by thin-client cloud-based solutions like the products Google is selling. When you can buy a Chromebook for $250 that lasts for a decade, convincing people to drop $2000 on a Macbook becomes a much harder sell.
If you're Cook, your primary way to attack this market erosion is to seed doubt about data in the cloud.
Is this the power of the autism industrial complex?
Apple supports privacy now, they're a corporation. They're a couple bad quarters away from selling your info to Advertisers same as everybody else. You're safe so long as the profits from their hardware biz are strong, but that's not the most reassuring thing in the world...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am not always convinced Apple is sincere about any issue they bring up. Other then its a potential marketing angle they think is attractive. Notice that just as the privacy concerns are heightened in users minds. Apple just happens to come along and say they feel your concern. Yes, I do think there is a shred of sincerity from Tim Cook about privacy. But I also know how Apple probably thinks it can make some money from selling privacy now.
Okay. I will have to agree, but the content of his talk was spot on. Literally awesome. Thank ths stars Apple doesn't make all their money from data or no one in industry would be speaking up.
Data is better than money. It is power, from which you can generate money.
They're selling ads from their servers on behalf of advertisers.
Ok... but since Apple doesn't sell ads, just WTF are you talking about?
Hence "leasing", for a lack of a better term.
Hence "wrong" because you are wrong about Apple leasing data to third parties. They don't even have data to lease!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Name Check: to mention approvingly by name
I have to say that namecheck, press-ganged into a verb, with the mainsail of semantic drift inflated to a D cup, made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Perhaps "blamecheck" could step into the breech, initially sounding twice as hipster refurb, though about 10% as asinine.
Allright grandpa....I installed Bing for you.
I can't wait until he goes after Apple for their monopoly abuse, garbage quality standards, illegal labor practices, and price fixing. Oh wait...
Which is another form of selling your information.
Which Apple does not have since they do not collect it.
Your information is being provided to another party.
To who, and what exactly do you think Apple is selling since they do not collect information from me?
What a truly precious little snowflake you are....
What an ignorant child you are...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure we'll take his words to heart and make some smart decisions like we did with the MIC.
And just think of the possibilities of a combo.
Peter- "Oh, wonderful, we have to get these two together."
Egon - "I think that would be extraordinarily dangerous."
Only a matter of time.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Some tech economists crunched numbers and figured out that if you tried to self-host all of the services Google provides you for free, it would cost about 20K/yr .... Google is pretty much giving you 20k in services ....
Self-hosting cannot be comapred with Google hosting, as it ignores the economies of scale.
I don't mind the use of personalization if *I* control the personalization, not Google et al. I might want sites to know my favorite games but NOT my favorite underwear brand.
And your preferences don't have to be tracked via IP address or cookies. It could be more like a Favorites list which is shared only with sites you select (or wildcarded to all if you wish).
A standardized way to request , control, and suggest personal info can be created. For example, when you do a Google search, Google could list suggested personal meta-data you could supply to simplify your searches in the future. You can click and then enter the value (if relevant) and your browser saves it. You voluntarily select which personal attributes to supply info for, and also optionally limit which sites can know that info.
The industry can agree to standardize or at least not copyright preference tags (attribute names).
A dump of your "Personal Info Roster" may resemble:
Attribute: Approx_Birth_Year_Int
Value: 1970
Shared-With-Sites: * [all]
-----
Attribute: Likes_Computer_Games_Flag
Value: [N/A, existence is enough with "flag"]
Shared-With-Sites: * [all]
-----
Attribute: Gender_Male_Flag
Value: [N/A, existence is enough with "flag"]
Shared-With-Sites: google.com; bing.com; slashdot.com
-----
Attribute: Preferred_Programming_Languages_List
Value: Lisp; Go; COBOL
Shared-With-Sites: * [all]
The final part of the attribute name indicates general data type: int, list, flag, date, text, and number.
Sites can have links that allow you to add such entries, upon your approval. A new http protocol can be formed for the standard, such as "pref:" for preferences. A typical URL for such would resemble: "pref:fav_underwear_brand_list,Fruit%20of%%20Loom;Bobs%20Skivvies". If you click for an entry that already exists, you'll get a prompt that shows your existing value(s) and what the site's suggested additions are (if any).
Mostly you just click and approve which attributes you share; very little typing would be necessary.
The default "site" value would be the domain of the requesting site, but you could click the "All" icon if you are okay with the entire planet knowing. (If you already have a site list for the attribute, you are prompted for deletion.)
To participate, sites must agree to not use other tracking means. Even if some sites don't follow the rules, the system described is still useful.
Table-ized A.I.
Surely it was sarcasm. Otherwise I can't believe I read it.
Where is the GNAA when you need them???
Apple has a different vice: vendor lock in. That is also a user-hostile behavior. So you get to pick your poison in vendors for handset computers: one is aggressive about vendor lock in (iphone) and the other is aggressive about data collection (android). The right way forward is, as it has always been, open standards. The closest solution right now is third-party android.
I shouldn't have to use icloud as my online storage, I should be able to use any number of vendors that I can choose to trust and who are not so big that I cannot sue them if they cheat me. Or do it myself. With a server that is literally my own property. Note that this means that your idea that no "unnecessary" data is sent to apple is a polite fiction. Almost nothing that people store on icloud is "necessary" to send to apple, but they are really good at locking in their users. Also this idea that the user owns the data while someone else is holding it seems mostly inconsistent with current legal precedents, and therefore also fiction.
As pointed out in other replies, given its level of vendor lock-in, there would be trouble if Apple decided it could make even more profit by mining all that data they hold.
These pronouncements always come around the time of new iPhone sales. The Washington Post story (re: embedded Chinese chips) came out around the same time the new iPhones came out and Cook suggested a retraction - not demanded, did not sue. Everyone called it an unprecedented move by a CEO but all he did was passively suggest the story was wrong... Bottom line: he just wants to make sure the iDevices, filled to the brim with data-slurping apps and FaceID, get sold to make investors and stocks prices tingle.
Yeah he's just mad Apple's not a part of it. At the end of they day the data is where the money is and Apple's devices are just windows to data (Well, services. Services are just applied data).
I'm no fan of Apple for a lot of things, but this is just a dumb statement. Apple is literally the most valuable company on the planet as of this posting at over 925 billion dollars. That is 150 billion dollars more than the number 2 company Amazon and 175 billion over Alphabet which is arguably the largest data mining company of them all. I don't think he is mad that they are not getting much of a slice of that pie because if he were then they wouldn't be making these statements constantly and you would suddenly see lots more data collection going on from their side.
They are doing a lot of things that I dislike, but data privacy is not one of them. They could improve more for sure, but they are so far ahead of almost all the other companies it is pathetic.
Some tech economists crunched numbers and figured out that if you tried to self-host all of the services Google provides you for free, it would cost about 20K/yr
Google is pretty much giving you 20k in services in exchange for slurping data off of your online activities and showing you ads and that gives you an idea about the money at stake here.
In reply to this, I seriously scoff at that figure. Google provides a SHITLOAD of services and all, but only the most die-hard of Google fans come close to using all of them. Most of them also have alternatives available in the market that don't require you to give away your data too. That figure is highly suspect even if someone were using all their services. Maybe if you bought everything (servers, licenses to run them, etc.) and did all the work yourself it might come close, but no one is going to do that and it defeats the purpose specialist services in our economy anyway. Lets break down some of the major services Google offers, look at their costs, alternatives etc. to get a better picture:
They do have an ad platform everyone is forced to use.
Oh you mean this one?
The one that no developer was ever forced to use, and that was shut down - in part because Apple wouldn't give advertisers user data?
They do have an app that suggests what to watch.
You mean TV? That simply displays what is popular to download, based on downloads only and nothing sent to Apple from users?
The only time Apple uses data like that is ratings, where USERS CHOSE TO SEND RATINGS TO APPLE. Apple did not collect the data from the users.
You may have the last word since you know nothing about anything and reading your posts further would just be insane.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Shorter Tim Cook "You can trust us, but don't trust our competitors."
This is actually a valid point. Apple makes money selling hardware, and has no inherent need to mine data. Google and Facebook make money from targeted advertising, and data collection and mining is the core activity of their businesses.
This is interesting. Essentially, Google and Facebook monetize user data obtained via surveillance of their platform to make money. Apple and Microsoft sells hardware and software to make money. Increasingly, Microsoft is also monetizing user data obtained via surveillance, while Apple isn't. Probably this is because Apple is doing very well at making money in the way it traditionally does. This is less so for Microsoft. Hence the difference: Apple is criticizing Google and Facebook, while Microsoft is joining them. Apple sees greater upside from positioning itself as a platform that is at least nominally opposed to surveillance, than becoming such a platform itself. Hence it can point out the truth here, where its competitors would rather not.
Yes. Apple is being undercut by competitors who are willing to work for data. There are arguments to be made, but be mindful of who is making the argument in this case. Not a neutral third party. Someone whose fortune depends on you to pay more for (possibly just the illusion of) anonymity.
I would rather be Googles product then have apple hold my hardware hostage every time it needs to be repaired.
has no inherent need to mine data
Insomuch as public companies have stock holders, this is incorrect.
Looking at the comments and arguments on this topic so far, it appears that a lot of people on this board would rather cut their dicks off than admit Apple is doing something right.
Society is improved when we applaud good things and reject bad things.
I almost got there, was seeking a flip phone with tethering for a carry around tablet, but got sold on iPhone X. Maps is one of the hardest thing to let go of. But still, recommend it. Iâ(TM)m in a situation where I want to write down some business ideas and thereâ(TM)s nothing to use, nothing can be trusted. Whatâ(TM)s the use?
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
No, Tim Cook just wants everyone to be locked into an Apple controlled environment, and other big businesses being out there stops him from being the one in charge of what they see, don't see, what programs/apps they can use, etc.
What twisted world view do you come from? Data privacy is data privacy, and he's all for it. Apple has yet to indicate they're doing anything other than exactly what they say with regards to data privacy. Just because you don't like the "walled garden" or have the mistaken belief that a mac doesn't allow you to run anything you want doesn't apply in any way to their stance on privacy.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
fix the extremely annoying bugs in iOS 12.0.1 I'm tired of my iPhone 6+ behaving as if a ghost has gone crazy hitting keys randomly, and the display jittering right and left about 1mm at about 3 or 4 jitters per second.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I shouldn't have to use icloud as my online storage
Is there anything forcing you to? As far as I know you can set up ownCloud and use that instead of iCloud if you want, at least for documents, photos and videos. Granted, I don't think they support contact info and such but still...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That would imply the chinese government would allow products to be sold in the open that don't do what they want. Google is just now coming out with a version of their search engine that will be allowed in china. The chinese people may or may not like google, but without bypassing the great firewall using google was not possible. Likewise if the chinese government wasn't ok with using iphones... the sales numbers wouldn't be recorded, because the iphones would be getting smuggled in after being purchased somewhere else.
Undercut in what sense?
Undercut by Android, which is nearly free. Google doesn't make money from selling Android. They make money by using it as a data collection platform.
People seem to be buying Apple Stuff at ever-increasing prices in ever-increasing numbers.
Apple's market share peaked in 2012.
The good kind of gov/mil surveillance that should never be mentioned?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There's nothing to encrypt if data isn't being sent. Even if you can't see the data itself, you can still tell that data is going out, and where it is going to.
Even if Apple does collect data, that does not mean we should ignore the warnings from Tim Cook. Maybe it's a good idea if the villains stand up and say "we're out to get you!" so that people took their privacy seriously.
If you did a survey which Apple strategy would be the most important to consumers?
1 - Maintaining Privacy and continuing to strengthen it
2 - Restoring the headphone jack
"Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil." - Niccolo Machiavelli
I can't for the life of me imagine a society being optimized towards allowing a random weirdo search for something obscure. Try living like a normal person and the system will work fine for you.
I think you probably realize that lot of people in their 40s generally expect to move on with their lives and don't spend their whole day coding or otherwise burning up what little neurons they have left with anything complicated or time-consuming.
My experience with having once lived in a smaller and more conservative town is that word travels fast and everybody "tracks" you, as in, gossips... since when has humanity revolved around privacy instead of rampant gossiping? Surely the people who can achieve some level of privacy have a very enlightened and polite circle of friends in a very large city... my life experience consists of being judged and having stories made up about me. And of course the grocer would also be happy to upsell you some new items related to the ones you purchase...
What you can't tell on an encrypted communications channel (without finding a way to bypass the encyrption) is what is being sent. In particular whether the information being sent is the minimum required to complete the action at hand or whether additional data is being exfiltrated.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register