Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is a Fundamental Human Right'

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/445026470/apple-ceo-tim-cook-privacy-is-a-fundamental-human-right

by davidbarker • 11 years ago

227 178 11 years ago

npr.org

pbreit2• 11 years ago

Amen. Who the heck wants their own government spying on them? I'd rather be "less safe" whatever that even means. The government works for us, not the other way around.

ceejayoz• 11 years ago

Who the heck wants their own government spying on them?

A depressingly large proportion of the population.

Syrup-tan• 11 years ago

I believe it's more of an education problem, than of people actually welcoming the intrusions.

mozumder6• 11 years ago

You mean the "spying" program that was revealed to have filters to filter out their own citizens communications?

Seriously, why do people conveniently ignore this little fact? Why would these filters exist, as revealed in CLASSIFIED documents, if the government were interested in spying on its own citizens?

If the government were interested in spying on you, they would just do it. They wouldn't need to build machines to protect your privacy rights.

randyrand2• 11 years ago

So they record/log every single phone communication in the US, only to filter out every single phone recording made in the US?

That doesn't make sense. How can you tell who is talking on the phone anyway? And what if a US citizen was talking to a non-citizen?

Regardless, the point is that backdoors - even if used 99% of the time correctly - opens up your phone and all its nitty gritty details of your life to adversaries. IDK how the NSA phone logging worked so I can't really comment on how safe it is. None us can. That's sort of the problem.

pbreit2• 11 years ago

Is that true? My understanding is only one party needed to be a non-citizen.

aianus3• 11 years ago

What difference does that make? Foreigners deserve privacy too.

Mikeb852• 11 years ago

Apple has admitted to giving the US government information.

So they don't run algorithms over your meta-data, instead they just give your personal info the the government.

I'm aware Google does comply with government requests too, but also attempts to push back and keep the government honest.

Splendor• 11 years ago

Apple also attempts to push back.

"Apple only disclosed content in response to 27% of the total U.S. account requests we received during the period from July 1st, 2014 to June 30th, 2015"

Source: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...

chipperyman573• 11 years ago

What's with apple and their super-privacy stance lately? First his letter, and now his interview. Not that I mind it, but I feel like they're expecting something bad to come out soon.

tdkl• 11 years ago

A business strategy perhaps ? Considering everyone else is in the surveillance-as-a-service monetization model.

PhasmaFelis3• 11 years ago

Apple is essentially the only major US tech company that doesn't rely heavily on advertising income (and thus on online profiling to target ads effectively), and they've realized that this gives them a moral high horse from which to attack their competitors without actually having to change any of their own habits.

iosys• 11 years ago

I wouldn't necessarily say, they have suddenly realized this; they have been leading by example for user experience for awhile and are now just being more public about it.

Nobody that really understands the problem of no privacy between government or another collecting agency knows enough to weight it on purchasing their device or going with their OS for their phone, tablet, or laptop. If more people knew, how it could be for collecting every single thing from a user, i'm sure apple products would sell more, so I do agree with your point, that it is better to now advertise this.

Cookingboy• 11 years ago

Neither Amazon nor Microsoft rely heavily on advertising income.

Neither does IBM, HP, Oracle, Cisco, Salesforce, etc.

In fact when it comes to "major US tech companies", either by revenue or by market cap, I can only think of Facebook and Google that make money mainly from advertising income.

ariwilson• 11 years ago

Apple has also failed in their own advertising efforts (iAd) and additionally failed to catch up in the software service business (almost all of the mass market services are monetized via advertising). Their privacy stance is the only move left to them.

pdkl957• 11 years ago

This popular talking point conveniently ignores that ads not the only way companies can benefit form spying.

The HN crowd absolutely loves using "analytics" to try and divine ways to make their products more profitable. Microsoft even uses this as an excuse for Win10's "telemetry" spyware: they say it's to improve the product. Yet when Apple spies on its users, suddenly it's ok because Apple isn't an ad company.

Apple is using this topic to attack their customers, but they are not exactly on moral high ground.

fletchowns• 11 years ago

But what they don't want to do, they don't want your email to be read, and then to pick up on keywords in your email and then to use that information to then market you things on a different application that you're using. ...

Sounds like they are taking jabs at one of their biggest competitors, Google.

IkmoIkmo• 11 years ago

They have no business model based on consumer information. Guess who does? One of their big competitors, Google, whose revenues are 90% made up of advertising, thrives on this data.

Further, privacy is obviously a hot topic, well at least in tech discourse. None of my friends are really bothered by any privacy concerns and couldn't care less if Google mines their email to provide targeted ads, honestly... But to the extent that privacy is meaningful to people, safeguarding it is obviously a benefit and thereby something one can sell, and seeing as there've been so many different scandals people probably are at least somewhat sensitive to privacy-centric marketing.

In short, they're selling a consumer benefit while taking a jab at the competition. Not a bad deal, there are barely any cons. Apple never really got into the advertising game, doesn't need to and unlikely plans to. They've had some ad products and neglected it for a long time, probably in large part because ads are a shitty consumer experience and Apple tries to offer the best experience even if that requires higher consumer prices. And finally it's completely in line with Apple's business models on content in the past, creating walled gardens to push paid content (music, books, news, apps), advertising doesn't really fit into that context.

Consider also that it's obviously in line with Apple being the 'nice guys', who recycle materials, appreciate diversity, the artists who just want to be free blabla. Businesses or governments tracking users doesn't fit that narrative and protecting users from these parties does.

And finally, I do believe they genuinely care without any ulterior motive and are willing to push for the things they care about if it doesn't hurt them (much).

knice• 11 years ago

I think they see this as a key differentiator between iOS/iCloud and Google services and they want the public to know about it. In a post-Snowden world, it's worth noting the difference between platforms that prioritize user privacy and platforms that share user data with advertisers in return for additional services.

hannibalhorn• 11 years ago

They did have a pretty bad incident not all that long ago with private celebrity photos being leaked.

TazeTSchnitzel• 11 years ago

Not Apple's fault: poor security on the celebs' accounts.

plaguuuuuu2• 11 years ago

Google is an advertising company

With Windows 10, MS is now also an advertising company.

staunch• 11 years ago

If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that.

Users should also be able to install apps on their iPhones without Apple knowing what they're doing. Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens.

But I agree with him on everything else and think he's a hero for what he's doing.

api2• 11 years ago

Unfortunately if you remove the walls from the garden you get a malware, crapware, and (ironically given the topic) spyware explosion -- a tragedy of the commons more or less. Mobile devices are used by over a billion people, most of whom don't know much about computers. From the perspective of sleazy marketers and black hat hackers that's a lot of fresh meat. They're better than PCs since they're studded with sensors, allowing the user to be tracked and spied upon to an unprecedented degree.

Look at the Google Play store and the Android ecosystem, which is comparatively more open. If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely, you'll get random ads, trackers uploading your geo-location constantly to god-knows-where, etc.

codeka• 11 years ago

If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely

That's completely orthogonal though, because Play Store is Google's walled garden. What Google allow you to do, in addition to downloading things from their walled garden, is also side-load apps completely separately from the walled garden.

There's no evidence that the ability to side-load causes an increase in malware/crapware.

kbenson5• 11 years ago

What would we do if we didn't have apple to protect us from our own ignorance?

Apple is fallible. If developers can break out of app review constraints by using carefully included bugs[1] then the only solution is actively monitoring what the apps are doing. If that's the case, what value-add is Apple's walled garden? Just keeping out crappy programs? I think there are plenty of solutions for discovering what programs are good or not, as we've been working on that problem for decades now for computers specifically, and centuries in the general case.

1: http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exp...

JustSomeNobody3• 11 years ago

Drama.

Seriously, stop giving the media so much credit. You can trust the Play store as well as you can trust the App store.

larrywright• 11 years ago

I think that what Apple has done here is an acceptable tradeoff. The app store trades a small amount of privacy for a lot more security. Looking at Android's perpetual issues with this makes me think that Apple made the right choice.

nnutter2• 11 years ago

Apple might just be better at covering it up. I would rather see it implemented like GateKeeper on OS X is. Safe store with the user having the power to decide if they leave the store or not.

vezzy-fnord4• 11 years ago

The security benefits come mostly from curated package management in general, not limiting the device to one particular repository (the App Store).

gozo7• 11 years ago

So we have forgotten XcodeGhost already or the iCloud hacks?

devit• 11 years ago

Security? What security?

Every single release with iOS has been totally broken security-wise, as can seen from the existence of jailbreaks.

Apple doesn't even require seeing the source code, and so there is no way they can stop malicious applications written to evade detection from getting to the App Store.

And thanks to their policy you must browse with Safari WebKit, which is a nice juicy ~40% browser share target.

Of course, both Android and Windows Phone are broken too, since they also expose oversized monolithic kernels written in C to random applications, but at least Android doesn't require you to give up freedom to get non-security.

orangecat• 11 years ago

Which means they're making the wrong choice allowing Macs to run unapproved software, right?

JustSomeNobody3• 11 years ago

I love Apple products, but please stop. Please. Do not be blind to the fact that Apple has to remove apps from the app store often due to security issues. And most of what you hear about on the Android side is either blown up in the media or because people side load apps from ... questionable sources.

tadfisher• 11 years ago

I'm not sure knowing what users purchase makes the App Store any more secure. I'm pretty sure limiting what users can install on their devices is a different sort of tradeoff -- one of freedom for security.

oneJob• 11 years ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -B.Franklin, baby

sigmar6• 11 years ago

Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Requiring that all software on your device be signed by a single entity (i.e. apple) is horrifying when you think about where that might lead to in the future.

martingordon4• 11 years ago

And where is that?

Like he said, any back door for the good guys is a back door for the bad guys as well.

AdmiralACK• 11 years ago

From: http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xcode-7-allows-anyone-to-downl...

"Apple has changed its policy regarding permissions required to build and run apps on devices. Until now, Apple required users to pay $99/year to become a member of Apple’s Developer Program in order to run code on physical iPhone and iPads. As part of the new Developer Program, this is no longer required. Apps can be tested on devices, no purchase necessary."

nnutter2• 11 years ago

Does it let you install binary apps or do you have to compile from source? Do they still have to be signed? Who verifies the signature?

iammyIP• 11 years ago

You have a misconception: any apple device is not a 'personal computing' one, but a 'corporate controlled' one. There goes your dilemma.

guelo• 11 years ago

Right. I haven't used an iPhone in years but I remember being forced to enter credit card details to install or upgrade even a free app.

marincounty• 11 years ago

Their used to be a way around giving up a atm/credit card? I remember getting home with my big purchase, and thinking, I'm not giving this company more money. Plus, I just don't like to give the number out.

I don't think I even gave them my real address.

verusfossa2• 11 years ago

I would support something like an Fdroid repo for ipas and apks. It supports private repos. Every company having a repo you could simply add would be the best. Would fix trust and maintenance costs too since you control the repo list, they control the repo.

I can't see Apple or Google giving up the cash cow that is their respective garden though.

kbenson5• 11 years ago

What he's saying is good, but it doesn't make him a hero. It costs him nothing to take this stance, and is actually helpful to him as one of the main competitors to the company he heads is deep in this specific issue, and it's a perceived weakness of theirs.

You aren't a hero for doing or saying something convenient that benefits yourself, regardless of whether it's good and/or true.

fukusa• 11 years ago

With all due respect, he is not a hero. He is just the CEO of Apple. And Apple, even though it produces great products, profits from exploiting factory workers in countries where workers have less rights and where labour is cheap. If he was actively fighting this system of exploitation, that would probably make him a hero. Instead, he profits from it. That makes him not a hero but just another businessman. Furthermore, he is defending privacy only because it strengthens his business and weakens that of Google et al.

nnd• 11 years ago

It's not like we have a free worldwide labor market anyway. No one is enslaving those workers, they only choose to take that job.

b63• 11 years ago

profits from exploiting factory workers in countries where workers have less rights and where labour is cheap

At least in China, the "exploited" workers you speak of have chosen to work at factories rather than do the kind of farm labor their parents did. Do you think they would be better off if they were not able to make such a choice? If they were paid the same wages a factory worker in Norway might receive, do you think the manufacturer would choose to open a factory in China?

You describe Cook as just another evil businessman, whereas I suspect he has done more, practically speaking, to lift people out of poverty than most.

mirimir2• 11 years ago

It's possible to use the App Store anonymously. For example, Apple allows users to create and use accounts via Tor. And it accepts gift cards, which one can purchase with thoroughly anonymized Bitcoin. Getting devices anonymously is the hardest part. Paying cash for used devices is probably the best option.

Steko• 11 years ago

Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens

To me this seems excessively moralistic, like "all closed source is bad". There are concrete advantages and disadvantages to a walled garden and whether a device has one or not should be up to the manufacturer. Customers then can weigh the tradeoffs when they make their decisions.

I also don't find privacy to be among the significant disadvantages of walled gardens. Lack of choice leading to lower quality experience, the chilling effect of disallowing specific content or entire categories and the potential for price gouging seem to be far and away the biggest issues.

Another issue is "walled gardens are bad" is a bit ignorant of real restrictions device makers have historically had to navigate such as carrier contracts saying no tethering apps.

johncolanduoni6• 11 years ago

I like the idea of keeping app signing requirements, but giving each user a device-specific signing key if they request one. I don't think a novice user is going to accidentally get the signing key for their device and then sign a malicious app with it.

danharaj• 11 years ago

If you are talking about rights, then you're already in trouble. You do not need to talk about rights until someone has the power to violate them. Governments murder people without heeding the power of their rights, human or otherwise, fundamental or otherwise. The only thing that power answers to is power.

The language of rights does not challenge the fundamental structure of the system.

sigmar6• 11 years ago

Apple's comments on privacy over the past year have seemed very opportunistic.

But what they don't want to do, they don't want your email to be read, and then to pick up on keywords in your email and then to use that information to then market you things on a different application that you're using. ...

They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs. So they will say 'we think it's a feature that none of our services interoperate.'

nathancahill• 11 years ago

interoperate

That's what we're calling online profiling now?

sangnoir• 11 years ago

> interoperate
That's what we're calling online profiling now?

My Google Now cards on Android say "yes it is". They are driven by email, calendar entries and phone sensors all tied to my profile and it's bloody magical. YMMV.

drew-y• 11 years ago

Apple actually has a solid argument when they say "Our users are not our products". Very little of Apple's revenue comes from ads so they really have no need for the infrastructure. However, considering they are one of the largest companies in the world with hundreds of billions in the bank, I seriously doubt it would be very hard for them to setup that sort of infrastructure.

sigmar6• 11 years ago

I'm not saying it isn't a solid argument. Their PR people clearly thing it is the way to go, judging by how often it has come up.

You're right, it wouldn't be hard, but they aren't doing it. Why? Maybe because they wouldn't be able to use this talking point or maybe they plan to be a hardware/OS company forever and never expand their services? IDK

EdwardDiego• 11 years ago

Very little of Apple's revenue comes from ads so they really have no need for the infrastructure

However, they wish to carefully control the advertising on iOS, if you want to uniquely identify a user for retargeting purposes, well, tracking cookies are evil, but iAd is good!

https://developer.apple.com/iad/my-audiences/iad-my-audience...

millstone• 11 years ago

They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs. So they will say 'we think it's a feature that none of our services interoperate.'

You mean the machine learning techniques Google developed to better market people things?

This is like saying, Sweden doesn't have nuclear capability so it's opportunistic for them to claim they are peaceful. Only states that pour resources into building nuclear weapons can have a legitimate claim to being peaceful.

Look at Apple's approach to privacy for Maps, which uses randomized identifiers and trip segmentation so that Apple cannot reconstruct your trip. Or iMessage, which uses full end-to-end encryption. That's not Apple failing to catch up, that's Apple going out of their way to protect your privacy.

thrownaway2424• 11 years ago

"the machine learning techniques Google developed to better market people things?"

That's a bit of a cheap swipe. Google's machine learning has been applied to things like spam filtering, image search, and speech recognition.

plaguuuuuu2• 11 years ago

They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs.

Pretty sure Siri is machine learning...?

Even if it wasn't, they could just hire a bunch of PhD students, maybe acqui-hire a couple of tech companies with their ludicrous amounts of available capital and bam, they have their machine learning algorithm

muddi9005• 11 years ago

Siri's voice recognition is awful compared to Google Now and Cortana. It has refused to recognize my accent ever, to the point where it seems almost racist.

Not that voice recognition products count as machine learning. Google has a growing neural network, Apple is not competing in that market at all.

djhn• 11 years ago

"Here is what we do on our platform. Here is what an unnamed search engine company does, or might in theory do, on their platform. You will probably agree: what we do is better in multiple, obvious ways. To be even less subtle, I am indeed trying to cast our competitor in very bad light."

If they're willing to walk the walk, I don't even mind how transparent this "privacy as a competitive advantage" strategy is.

IBM4• 11 years ago

They have been for years and people wondered why they didn't talk about it because of how it differentiates them from the competition. Now they're talking about it and a common comment here is "they're only doing it because Google makes their money from advertising", well yes that's the point. Kind of funny but predictable.

Having a business incentive that's aligned with privacy is the absolute best thing you could ask for if you want privacy. First because it will ensure they remain committed to it, and also because it shows up the competition and forces them to move in that direction as well.

http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

This shows pretty clearly that they "walk the walk".

muddi9005• 11 years ago

They have been for years and people wondered why they didn't talk about it because of how it differentiates them from the competition.

Probably because privacy concerns weren't mainstream until recently, and it would have looked like an excuse because their services weren't up to par. Which, to be frank, is still the case.

lern_too_spel2• 11 years ago

As long as they have your data and don't give it to anybody else, there is no meaningful difference in privacy based on how they process the data. Why is processing words in emails for search indexing and spam filtering less of a problem for privacy than matching ads to words that appear in emails or figuring out helpful suggestions from them? It isn't, but Apple is happy to pretend it is to the rubes who will pay to use an inferior product.

kijin• 11 years ago

In fact, it would be stupid of them NOT to capitalize this golden opportunity.

The unnamed search engine company simply cannot afford to offer the same level of privacy as Apple is capable of offering. Meanwhile, the only other supermassive company whose business model might have allowed them to focus on privacy has just thrown in the towel and decided to become as privacy-invasive as everyone else, starting with the recent free upgrade to their flagship operating system.

Being a hardware company that also happens to sell some cloud-based tools, rather than the other way around, sure has its perks.

jamieyy• 11 years ago

In that case, why are they supporting CISA? http://fortune.com/2015/09/24/tech-vendor-cybersecurity-bill...

sigmar6• 11 years ago

It is a shame this comment will be downvoted only because it does not support the confirmation bias of many HN users.

johncolanduoni6• 11 years ago

Does HN now show downvoted comments at the top of the page? Interesting design choice...

hoorayimhelping• 11 years ago

This [1] is the letter linked to in the article that is evidence they support CISA, correct?

Maybe it's because I can't read legalese very well, but this looks like tech companies asking congress to codify our rights for the digital age, and to provide a well defined legal framework for those rights to exist within. I'm not really seeing support for sweeping powers of spying; it seems like they're asking for the opposite in fact. Again, I may be misreading that.

1: http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLea...

rubbingalcohol• 11 years ago

The letter calls for "Cyber Threat Information Sharing Legislation" without specifying _which_ bill. But given that CISA is the only such bill in front of Congress, it looks like Apple has endorsed the bill (without technically endorsing it). Given the specifity of the other bills the letter mentioned, and how publicly unpopular CISA is, this seems like a massively spineless move.

If Apple is serious about privacy they should clarify and affirmatively oppose CISA.

takeda4• 11 years ago

It's not as much legalese but trying to hide a wolf in sheep clothing.

They put other legislations around (I did not inspect them, so can't comment) and among them (in the center so person skimming it might miss it) they put: "Cyber Threat Information Sharing Legislation". They don't mention which bills they are referring to and they made sure that acronym doesn't match CISPA. If you search it you will find that there's no legislation with that name, and the only results you get are CISPA.

Why those companies want CISPA? Because it removes all liability from them when they share the data without a warrant. Basically we no longer will be able to sue them for violating our privacy.

baliansa• 11 years ago

This is just a plain attack on Google. sigh

madgoat• 11 years ago

Then google should come back with stronger privacy rules and ensure that their users information won't be sold to any third party.

Oh wait, they can't because that is the majority of their income.

nindalf• 11 years ago

For so long we've heard "consumers don't care about privacy" and a lot of companies have seen success based on that idea. Now Apple is challenging that status quo, differentiating themselves from their competitors and offering consumers a choice on privacy. I can't see that as anything but good.

pdkl957• 11 years ago

"consumers don't care about privacy"

It's worth pointing out that while this was obviously propaganda (or wishful thinking), we now have some proof that this isn't true:

https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-...

ocean32• 11 years ago

What choice? iOS a walled garden. Majority of users would not able to change anything.

shmerl• 11 years ago

Didn't Apple support CISA recently? Actions are more important than words.

verusfossa2• 11 years ago

Apple supports CISA though which is pretty much poison to privacy...

patrickaljord• 11 years ago

The only way to have real privacy when it comes to software is by it being: 1) open source and 2) executable on your own servers. Open source in itself is not enough, but it is a required pre-condition, same thing with the fact that you can run it on your own server. In these aspects, Android is way ahead as there exist projects to replace all the proprietary parts.

http://www.replicant.us/

pratikjhaveri• 11 years ago

A tad "holier than thou" attitude pointing a finger at your competitor and to a large extent the entire internet economy. It would be nice to dial down the spin/FUD machine esp when you're the CEO. Ad targeting will and has evolved. Good things happen when you understand the user and their needs - I for one am willing to trade my privacy for USEFUL features and products (to paint this as only ads is injustice). Just like I'm willing to trade my $s for good devices.

yarou• 11 years ago

The irony of your comment is that most ad companies play the victim and moralize how blocking ads is akin to murder. Ad targeting has evolved alright, but not in a way that has helped consumers one bit.

It's become an arms race to the bottom, essentially. To coddle ad companies as if they are mom and pop shops that are struggling is not only naive, but dangerous.

porsupah• 11 years ago

Ad tracking has certainly evolved - Google, Facebook, et al have built successful enterprises out of tracking every detail of people's web browsing. But targeting? AdWords still only coughs up ads that coincidentally include a random keyword I was searching for, devoid of context, or attempts to sell me something I've just bought.

Amorymeltzer• 11 years ago

If you're in our News app, and you're reading something, we don't think that in the News app that we should know what you did with us on the Music app — not to trade information from app to app to app to app.

I thought this was the most interesting quote in the article. I would've assumed the all Apple products would be colluding together, but Cook seems to be saying that isn't the case. That's actually a pretty big gift to consumers, but I wonder what it means up top. Does "Apple" get my news and mail info separately, or do the news app and mail app get their content and deal with it independently of mama Apple? It's a great sentiment - and I can't imagine he'd say it in this sort of interview without truth to it - but it's hard to imagine it in play.

qyv2• 11 years ago

The quote specifically says they don't share data between apps, but not that they don't collect data from all of the apps and correlate it behind the scenes. Perhaps it is an overly cynical point of view, but true to the spoken words.

reagency2• 11 years ago

That sounds like classic Jobsian tactic of saying everything Apple doesn't do is bad. Similar to how Jobs said smartphones were a bad idea until he got into the market.

sawthat• 11 years ago

I'm at

Animats• 11 years ago

"I don't support a back door for any government, ever."

Note that he did not say that no Apple product has a back door.

gambiter• 11 years ago

And?

He also didn't say the camera on iPhones stays off when you're not using them. That must mean they're taking pictures of us and uploading them to Tim Cook's personal sex grotto for him to ogle us, right? I mean, he didn't say they DIDN'T do it, so...

That is to say... perhaps we could keep the paranoia and speculation to things that have a basis in reality?

Mikeb852• 11 years ago

It's certainly an interesting angle with which to attack Google.

A few pertinent details:

The government comes to us from time to time, and if they ask in a way that is correct, and has been through the courts as is required, then to the degree that we have information, we give that information.

Pretty standard stuff. They'll basically give up your info if any court orders them to.

There have been different conversations with the FBI, I think, over time.
I don't support a back door for any government, ever.

He doesn't support back-doors. Notice he didn't say there isn't a back-door.

As far as I can tell, Apple will 'give up' your information more or less to the same degree Google will.

Google also runs some algorithms over your data to match an ad to you. Not sure why this is so bad, no data has been given to a 3rd source.

This just strikes me as fluff to attack Google.

BTW, both companies' transparency reports (or at least part):

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/co...

http://www.apple.com/ca/privacy/government-information-reque...

BTW - if you compare requests to number of total users of each platform, Apple gives up more data. Not that it matters too much, both seem to comply with applicable laws, although Google's transparency report does seem more extensive.

Either way, not sure I can see the practical difference here.

mirimir2• 11 years ago

True. But data on devices is encrypted locally. And Apple supposedly doesn't know the keys/passwords.

However, there was the issue that cloud backups weren't encrypted with users' local keys/passwords. Has that been fixed? If not, he's blowing smoke.

wrongc0ntinent• 11 years ago

The practical difference is that heavily marketing in this area can be a good thing for privacy. The more it becomes a "core value", the bigger the backlash from having failed at it publicly. It's a start. Edit: To clarify, I agree with you that at present there are no practical differences.

IBM4• 11 years ago

Actually he's repeatedly said in public that there's no backdoors.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/24/apples-tim-cook-there-is-...

natch• 11 years ago

It's undeniable that part of this stance is simply asserting that Apple products are designed with user interests in mind. Implying that some other companies have different interests in mind, and sure, you can draw your own conclusions about the products of those companies. Yes, drawing this contrast is a marketing opportunity, and it makes no sense for Apple to pass it up, so Tim doesn't.

But I think just as importantly this stance is about girding for a fight against government-mandated back doors. After some noise about this from parts of the US government, some important people in government have started to come to their senses, but that doesn't mean it's over, whether in the US or with other governments around the world.

eccstartup• 11 years ago

Do you have full control over your iPhone?

aetherson• 11 years ago

The claim that the NSA and the FBI are coming to an agreement that everyone should own their own data and backdoor-less encryption is cool sounds more naïve than I think Tim Cook can possibly be in real life.

sethrubenstein• 11 years ago

"We believe in privacy" except when it affects our bottom line. We will totally sell you out if you're in China and 100% allow the government to censor your requests. We say we believe in privacy in the West because dumb people believe us but really were just all about that cashhhhhhh.

Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is a Fundamental Human Right'

Related Stories