Tim Cook's letter to customers

matt3o · 17 Feb 2016, 23:46

I really like the man

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

seebart · 17 Feb 2016, 23:57

At least it's half way honest, of course neither Apple, Google or Microsoft ever mention all the data they themselfs collect or whatever happens with it. Also this is nice PR for Apple. Feeds the "smart rebel" image.

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 00:02

They don't mention it unless they use "soft" terms like "personalized display" and whatnot.

Good PR for sure -- it's nice to see Apple and Google agree on something, too.

Muirium · 18 Feb 2016, 00:24

But where is Google? And Microsoft? According to what I've read, they're conspicuously silent on this.

No need for tinfoil hats regarding Apple's disinterest in harvesting data. They really don't want it.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/

The FBI iPhone in question is a shitty old 5c. Ever since then, TouchID has made the technique the FBI is demanding actually impossible. Apple moved to hardware encryption, locally performed, with the 5s and later.

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/ ... urt-order/

Of course, the FBI doesn't really just care about that one iPhone. They want a legal wedge to destroy all encryption, everywhere. Speak up for Christ's sake, tech industry!

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 00:33

Google has a small army of lobbyists in Washington to make sure privacy laws stay good for them, hence they can't oppose the government that much. A large part of MS business comes from the government, so they can't oppose the government that much. Apple is more of a consumer company. Not that Tim Cook is a holy man. Apple were pretty silent while cooperating with the Patriot Act, a holy man would have risked jail time by speaking up then. The Patriot Act was bad for IT business. He does it for PR/business. It's a good thing, hopefully it draws lots of business to Apple so the others can't stay behind.

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 00:34

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Google has been defending encryption for a while.

Edit: you're kinda wrong, webwit.

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 00:40

Words. Reality.

pr0ximity · 18 Feb 2016, 00:45

I for one am very glad that Apple, a company who for many is a huge force in their technological lives, is bringing into the foreground the reasons why encryption and data security should be important to the general public, and why even in the face of "terrorists" it is okay to deny the government the right to circumvent the security (not just the privacy) of the public. Regardless of their other data practices, making this kind of thinking more common is a step forward for security in general.

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 00:47

The NSA access would be illegal, nor does the article say that any of the companies in question admitted to collusion with the NSA. I think the NSA had taps in data relay junctions or something like that, which hit weak points in encryption protocols. It's possible that employees were planted to give backdoor access or something.

"In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

Well.. It's a good thing that both Google and Apple have flipped the government the finger and enabled full encryption on their cell phones. If Google hadn't done so I'd be onboard with you.

seebart · 18 Feb 2016, 00:49

All of them were pretty silent while cooperating with the Patriot Act. Quite a funky move this little spat Apple is having with the feds. Apple's disinterest in harvesting data...sure Mu, whatever you wanna believe. They might not sell the data but they use it alright. Android 6.0 Marshmallow uses full-disk AES with a key of 128-bits or greater but somehow it would not suprise me if the feds have a key for that, Larry P. is quite the "law abiding citizen".

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 00:52

End-to-end encryption is really nice, to protect against petty thieves. Just remember when some big US company battles with the government about building a backdoor in the client side, they fail to say the government already owns the other sides, where all your data is sent to.

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 00:52

If the NSA has the ability to plant people/get keys/do any of the things that such thoughts imply, nothing is secure anyways. Apple and Google are lying. The pope is really a Satanist.

I'm not saying we should trust companies or the government, but the alternative to using tech is being a luddite woodsman in Nova Scotia.

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 00:54

ohaimark wrote: ↑The NSA access would be illegal, nor does the article say that any of the companies in question admitted to collusion with the NSA.

Ehm. Admitting that was illegal in the Patriot Act, with heavy minimal jail time. So they cooperated (Snowden), and stayed silent.

pr0ximity · 18 Feb 2016, 00:59

webwit wrote: ↑End-to-end encryption is really nice, to protect against petty thieves. Just remember when some big US company battles with the government about building a backdoor in the client side, they fail to say the government already owns the other sides, where all your data is sent to.

Indeed. This in no way prevents the US government from snooping on you or I using existing means. What it *does* prevent is that backdoor falling into the hands of a third party.

seebart · 18 Feb 2016, 01:04

ohaimark wrote: ↑I'm not saying we should trust companies or the government, but the alternative to using tech is being a luddite woodsman in Nova Scotia.

Good point, so what's the alternative? Or rather what's the best compromise for me as a user. I think staying offline altogether is somewhat of an unrealistic plan for most of us these days.

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 01:08

1) Don't become a terrorist.
2) Minimize the personal data you put online.
3) Use encryption whenever possible.
4) Support takedowns of unauthorized gov't invasions into privacy.
5) Pray to the computer gods that nothing bad happens.

Those are the only real options available.

scottc · 18 Feb 2016, 01:11

ohaimark wrote: ↑1) Don't become a terrorist.

Shit. Really? Oh man. Egg on my face.

seebart · 18 Feb 2016, 01:13

ohaimark wrote: ↑1) Don't become a terrorist.
2) Minimize the personal data you put online.
3) Use encryption whenever possible.
4) Support takedowns of unauthorized gov't invasions into privacy.
5) Pray to the computer gods that nothing bad happens.

Those are the only real options available.

OK pretty good, I'll add:

6) Keep your OS updated.
7) Use less proprietary software to beginn with.
8) Know what you're installing and where it's from.
9) Assemble your own hardware if you can.

...

scottc wrote: ↑
ohaimark wrote: ↑1) Don't become a terrorist.
Shit. Really? Oh man. Egg on my face.

Right, and don't get too grumpy either cause that's really dangerous.

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 01:14

Don't vote on these guys?

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 01:15

I guess I shouldn't have assumed that those were things people do normally...

Building PCs, using open source stuff, knowing what's being installed, and keeping things updated seem like everyday activities to me.

seebart · 18 Feb 2016, 01:19

webwit wrote: ↑Don't vote on these guys?

Yeah good point, problem when all the candidates have the same shit agenda on that topic.

: vote.png (9.21 KiB) Viewed 5946 times

ohaimark wrote: ↑I guess I shouldn't have assumed that those were things people do normally...

Building PCs, using open source stuff, knowing what's being installed, and keeping things updated seem like everyday activities to me.

They may be everyday activities to you.

Muirium · 18 Feb 2016, 01:20

Come on, who doesn't build their own smartphone from modular units, running 100.0% GPL code? Publicity hunting celebrities ("The Fappening") and under informed terrorists, that's who![/brownfont]

Something tells me this is a bad subject for snark. Tinfoilers aren't much into it, poor bastards.

scottc · 18 Feb 2016, 01:22

Everybody knows you can't hack the Lunix. That's why North Korea use it. Open-source software is 100% free from bugs BY DESIGN. It can't have bugs because everyone knows what it does. DUH!

Muirium wrote: ↑Something tells me this is a bad subject for snark.

There's such a thing?!?

seebart · 18 Feb 2016, 01:24

Just get the new FREEDOM 251 for 3,30 Euro from India Mu! It's real:

http://freedom251.com/home

http://www.gsmarena.com/freedom_251_is_ ... -16671.php

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 01:25

The old classic.

Muirium · 18 Feb 2016, 01:26

Me and Tim are real close already, Seebart. I ain't building no phone!

scottc wrote: ↑Everybody knows you can't hack the Lunix. That's why North Korea use it. Open-source software is 100% free from bugs BY DESIGN. It can't have bugs because everyone knows what it does. DUH!

Indeed. Forget the FBI, even Pyongyang dreamed of getting Apple to make a special OS just for them…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS

seebart · 18 Feb 2016, 01:29

Well I've had enough of this subject now that's why I'll say Arrivederci! (for a few hours) and I'd like to add this:

Spoiler:

webwit · 18 Feb 2016, 01:31

IBM won. Jobs died first.

Muirium · 18 Feb 2016, 01:35

Steve died. But Apple's doing pretty good.

IBM gave up on hardware entirely. Are they really still alive?

Meanwhile, did someone say Snowden?

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699997565987745792

He wonders where Google is in all this too. By rights, they should be in the crosshairs. This stuff is the heart of their business.

ohaimark · 18 Feb 2016, 01:37

IBM still does specialty hardware... Servers and mainframes, mostly. I've had my grubby fingers in quite a few of their newer design atrocities.

They have more engineers than necessary and far, far too few usability testers.