What Apple’s Tim Cook Overlooked in His Defense of Privacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/technology/what-apples-tim-cook-overlooked-in-his-defense-of-privacy.html?_r=0

by plg • 11 years ago

40 49 11 years ago

k-mcgrady• 11 years ago

Some really dumb points in that article. Of course Apple has to provide access to a search engine in Safari - and pretty much all search engines run from ads. It neglects to mention that they recently added the option of DuckDuckGo. And of course Apple collects information on you to help improve its products - nearly every company in existence does this.

The difference in the two approaches (Apple/Google) is HOW it uses the data and the amount of data it collects/has access to.

> "Mr. Cook also failed to fairly explore the substantial benefits that free, ad-supported services have brought to consumers worldwide."

Of course he didn't explore it - he'd be an idiot to explain to everyone the benefits of the very thing he was trying to say wasn't good.

> "If Apple really didn’t think that its customers should trade their data for free services, you’d guess that it would build its own ad-free web search engine for its devices."

No you wouldn't. A search engine is difficult to build, expensive to build, and hard to do right. Instead they offer users Google as default (which the majority of people would want) and a more private alternative in DDG.

I could continue going through the article explaining how it is utter rubbish but it should be pretty obvious.

roslainoPumbera2• 11 years ago

> "No you wouldn't. A search engine is difficult to build, expensive to build, and hard to do right. Instead they offer users Google as default (which the majority of people would want) and a more private alternative in DDG.

Um, Apple replaced Google Maps with their own Map service which is hard to build, expensive to build and they still haven't gotten it right. Despite that, I want Apple to do the same for search so I can remove Google from my iPhone.

> "I could continue going through the article explaining how it is utter rubbish but it should be pretty obvious."

This is why Apple fanboys have such a bad reputation on the web and spoil perceptions for those of us who own Apple products without subscribing to the fanaticism. Stop the snark. Respond to the actual argument.

philfrasty• 11 years ago

acc created „7 minutes ago“ - nuff said

droopybuns• 11 years ago

You have a marketplace of alternatives to choose from.

Why would you think that demanding that a hardware company should develop a search engine is a better alternative to companies that have chosen to try and invest in search?

I am totally baffled by this mental leap.

MCRed2• 11 years ago

You seem to be implying that because Google Maps exists, Apple is only allows to provide Google Maps integration.

Apple hasn't "replaced" Google maps, except in its own apps. Google Maps still is on the iPhone.

Plus, remember the conflict over Google maps was because Google wanted too much personal information about he users and Apple wasn't comfortable with that. Apple spent a lot of effort to replace something for the purpose of protecting users Privacy. I'm not aware of google ever going thru such extensive efforts (despite the cheap website propagandizing the contrary we saw the day of the WWDC keynote.)

> "This is why Apple fanboys have such a bad reputation on the web and spoil perceptions for those of us who own Apple products without subscribing to the fanaticism"

I'm tired of this smear from people who hate Apple. For the record, you can stop pretending to own Apple products. You're not going to convince us your somehow objective with this lie. When you smear people defening Apple as "fanatics" then you miss the point that Apple is constantly being attacked.

It is the existence of Apple that you cannot tolerate causing you and your kind to constantly attack Apple, and this has been going on for 40 years.

Mac users just want to be left alone, instead of constantly having to defend against dishonest hit pieces like this article in the NYT.

verinus2• 11 years ago

you fail to provide any valid counter argument.

from a naive standpoint i would call apple's point hypocrit, from a more cynical I'd call it an attack on the business of a competitor (while using the services provided by the same to empower their own products).

oddevan• 11 years ago

I think the parent comment is trying to say that the article did not provide any valid counter arguments.

phlo2• 11 years ago

This is a business play, not a privacy one.

No you wouldn't. A search engine is difficult to build, expensive to build, and hard to do right.

DuckDuckGo appear to do pretty well for themselves, running on $3m of funding and with a team of 21 people. I'm guessing Apple invests more in their products' packaging design than that. If their users' privacy were a concern to them, searching in Safari would use Apple's (privacy-conscious) search engine, and (until Apple perfected their search index) pipe in results from Bing/Google/whomever, just as DDG does.

e28eta• 11 years ago

Apple's working on a web crawler, AppleBot. So far it's not a full Google or DDG replacement, instead focused on app search and discovery.

The WWDC session on Search API covered its current uses, and some of the privacy controls they've built into it.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204683 https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=709

StavrosK• 11 years ago

I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Does anyone else not see the huge non-sequitur here? The fact that Apple said it cares about privacy doesn't mean it cares enough to build a search engine just for that reason. How can you even argue this with a straight face?

nmrm2• 11 years ago

And of course Apple collects information on you to help improve its products - nearly every company in existence does this.

The article claims that Apple's privacy policy explicitly says that it can use that information for marketing/advertising. From the article:

the company plainly states in its privacy policy that it does use private data in many ways, including... to build its own advertising network.

That's actually pretty evil. Normally if I turn on "tell X about any runtime errors", I expect there to be pretty strong privacy protections in place. After all, I'm doing them a pretty big favour by donating (an admittedly tiny amount of) bandwidth and compute resources to their product improvement. The absolute least I expect is to not be shafted in return.

pflats• 11 years ago

Honestly, that sounds more like CYA than anything else. If they use crash reports to say that OS 10.12 crashes at 1/5 the rate of 10.11, then they're using your data for marketing/advertising.

I'm willing to hold my scorn until they start saying "nmrm2's Mac has never crashed!" without clearing it or compensating you.

donohoe• 11 years ago

  And that’s not all. When I go to Apple’s App Store, 
  I’m presented with a bevy of free apps that are 
  supported either in whole or in part by ads.

There are a lot of weird conclusions that this article tries to make. This is the one that strikes me as the dumbest.

Its like bemoaning Microsoft (or any OS maker) that allows people to create apps - apps that may or may not use advertising.

bobajeff• 11 years ago

Aren't those pretty much the apps that apple promotes? I remember a article a while back that went over how the App Store was geared towards really cheap Apps and that was in Apple's best interest because they need many apps to sell hardware.

Karunamon• 11 years ago

Is there really a difference to the end user if your store has 10M apps vs. 9M apps? I think we've hit the point of diminishing returns on the quantity front years ago.

josho2• 11 years ago

The article's only value in my opinion is to make us realize that yes, today, Apple guards our privacy. However, what stops them from changing policy tomorrow?

Perhaps we need privacy principles enshrined in our laws, not a benevolent player in the market.

quonn• 11 years ago

what stops them from changing policy tomorrow?
[...]
not a benevolent player in the market.

The reason they have this policy today is not because they want to be a benevolent player in the market, but because it has a negligible impact on their business model and it can't be adopted by the competition (Google). I would also argue that that's what prevents them from changing it in the future. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective.

snom3372• 11 years ago

I don't think we should say that it's either or. I think it's far more likely given their past history, that privacy is both something they care about and something that makes good business sense to them. Recall the pretty stern answer Tim Cook gave when questioned about their environmental programs: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-reje...

nickpsecurity4• 11 years ago

That's exactly right. He's a businessman above all. His business is essentially the sale of semi-luxury goods (i.e. high margin). Their profit is astounding. He can cut way back on privacy violation without any effect while Google might go bankrupt doing that.

If he's so righteous, let's see him cut back on the prices or lock-in tactics of his devices. I'm betting his whole salary that he's not doing that.

josho2• 11 years ago

Remember the last time you heard Google say don't be evil. I don't. My point was not that apple can do no wrong, but simply that times change, business models change. Today Apple is our benevolent leader tomorrow they are our cloud tyrant. No different than the slow erosions that we've seen from Google.

So why rely on market forces for privacy, because for this fight once lost will be hard to win back.

leoc3• 11 years ago

If you want to find fault with Apple on privacy and security, one place to start would be its apparent lack of leadership on the increasing threat from malicious USB (and no doubt Thunderbolt) devices. Likely no-one is better-placed than Apple to do something about this: it has the money and the market-share, a large engineering staff, a consumer-friendly reputation to defend and enhance, the UI expertise to come up with security provisions that users will actually understand and tolerate, and a history of clout and leadership in local-bus standards. But instead it seems to still have its head firmly stuck in the sand. Would it hurt so much to just throw a USB C condom into the box of the new MacBook, as an easy starting measure?

pilsetnieks• 11 years ago

- "apparent" - you don't know what they're doing about this on the inside. I doubt they're pretending there are no such issues and not working on it but their closed nature does hurt their appearance in these kinds of situations.

- a USB condom is not a solution, it only prevents power sources using data channels. Data devices, which you still might want to use occasionally, are even more likely to be compromised. Plus, it does nothing if the attacker has physical access to the machine.

leoc3• 11 years ago

a USB condom is not a solution, it only prevents power sources using data channels.

Of course it is not a perfect solution, but (like a real condom) it is a partial solution to the infection problem that is effective and not very burdensome. Charging is a major mode of vulnerability to USB attacks, quite likely the single biggest. And compared to the big, multi-sided task of redesigning USB and the systems around it, providing a USB condom for charging is cheap and straightforward.

"apparent" - you don't know what they're doing about this on the inside.

Yes, this is why I used that qualifier. However, for a variety of reasons it does not seem probable that they happen to be preparing a big push on this issue internally.

rolandr• 11 years ago

I'm not sure why Apple should be singled out for addressing this. Plus, you're talking about a security issue that requires physical access to a machine - something a bit different from the issues of privacy, malware, NSA snooping, etc. It would seem more sensible to focus on those working up the USB specification (Intel, HP, NEC, etc.) to deliver a standard and hardware implementations less prone to attacks. Plus, pretty much _every_ USB stack has these issues - wasn't it Linux where we starting seeing proofs of concept?

Actually, Apple has shown foresight in its hardware selection, as they have consistently selected Intel processors with Vt-d/IOMMU support (to this day, it remains difficult to find IOMMU-enabled notebook computers). This has allowed OSX to isolate Thunderbolt and neuter attacks: http://ilostmynotes.blogspot.com/2014/11/thunderbolt-dma-att...

Possibly a similar thing might be done for USB controllers as well...

justabystander• 11 years ago

I'm not sure why Apple should be singled out for addressing this.

You're correct in that it's not an Apple-only security issue. I'm not sure if the person you're replying to meant to imply that. However, Apple has never been particularly concerned with pointing out security vulnerabilities. Up until three years ago they were claiming that OSX didn't get viruses and that you could be safe by doing nothing. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/its-of...) That's why Apple gets a lot of flak from security-oriented folk. They mislead tons of people into thinking that "Macs don't get viruses". And I still hear self-proclaimed geniuses who tell me this, and why it's the reason they'll only use Apple products.

Considering Apple changed their slogan to "built to be safe" after being heavily compromised and criticized by the media, they do deserve a push to take care of hardware security issues by default. After all, security is built in, right? Shouldn't they make some proactive security efforts after advertising to their users repeatedly with the premise that their users shouldn't care about security?

Actually, Apple has shown foresight in its hardware selection

That link you share came around four years after OSX (and Windows) had the login screen compromised with Firewire hacking devices (http://www.hermann-uwe.de/blog/physical-memory-attacks-via-f...). Of which Apple was the primary vendor involved in pushing the standard. Not only that, it's talking about more modern devices being secure from an exploit that was used to compromise early Thunderbolt-enabled computers roughly two-and-a-half years prior (http://www.breaknenter.org/2012/02/adventures-with-daisy-in-... and http://www.breaknenter.org/projects/inception/). The fact that Apple started utilizing IOMMU to counter DMA attacks and moved away from Firewire isn't foresight - it's reactive. Admitted, a good reaction. That's how a lot of security procedures end up. But let's not pretend that they're ahead of the game on security when they aren't.

Possibly a similar thing might be done for USB controllers as wel

It's been done for USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt, any hotpluggable PCI/PCI-e expansion port/socket (because you can plug the above in unless it's disabled in the OS). Pretty much anything with DMA in it is an issue.

Plus, you're talking about a security issue that requires physical access to a machine

You're assuming direct malicious intent. Which might be the case for jealous spouses and high-value targets. But a far more likely consumer scenario is handing your USB stick to a friend with a compromised computer to share a file. After he plugs it in, his malware-infested computer overwrites the USB device's firmware as a new attack vector. When you get it back and use it again, your computer becomes infected.

It's not common now, but it's not really that far fetched.

LesZedCB• 11 years ago

The point that I find hard to dismiss when talking about the differences in Apple's privacy policies versus Facebook, Twitter, Google, et.al, is that there is, in fact, a significant difference between the privacy of an email, text message, or phone call, and the privacy of a post on facebook, or a tweet. With a phone call, people require warrants, which require judges, in order to listen into a phone call, and similarly with a text message (I assume, I don't know the law about SMS vs phone calls). However, it's understood when using services like Facebook or Twitter that unless otherwise and explicitly stated, your posts/tweets are public, searchable by the public, and kept on servers that are well beyond your control.

Because of this fundamental difference in security, I think it is fair to say that Apple can make a real and authentic claim to caring about user's privacy. I believe under no circumstances should my phone calls or emails be accessible, searchable, or indexed anywhere other than by myself and the people they are distributed to. SMSs ought to be encrypted and be able to be decrypted by myself or the recipient only. These modes of communication are fundamentally different, and apple has the ability to implement these precautions, and I believe they are truly trying to do so. I don't see how it's even a fair comparison to say Apple is hypocritical compared to the social media giants and Google. They offer fundamentally different services, and should be expected to respect privacy on fundamentally different standards. I don't advocate lower bars, I want high bars for everybody. That is why I applaud Tim Cook for making it a point for Apple to adhere to a high standard of privacy protection. I genuinely hope that what he says reflects the true implementation of that policy.

mgreg• 11 years ago

This article is both simplistic and disingenuous for two primary reasons:

1. Equates all advertising with invasive data collection. 2. Suggests that improving individual's control over their data is worse than not improving it, or worse, is hypocritical.

For point one Mr. Cook did not vilify ads nor ad supported services. He spoke against invasive data collection. Now what qualifies as invasive is certainly open for reasonable people to debate but his point is that he feels the industry has gone way too far. I read a physical newspaper this mornin with ads in it. A good portion of that paper's income is from ads and the rest through subscription. They did zero data collection on me. I say this only to demonstrate that you can have ad supported business without bein evil. The nytimes author seems to ignore this.

For point two isn't it better that Apple is improving privacy protections rather than just throwing up its hands and instead joining google in attempting to learn everything about us and the sell access to put data to advertisers who have their own best interests in mind rather than ours? Why is building a more private maps application but still enabling google searches better than not providing a map application?

In short I think it is very possible to run an ethical ad based business. Unfortunately in Silicon Valley we've adopted a default business model of grabbing as much personal information and selling it to the highest bidder rather than offering a great service with non-invasive ads or subscriptions. If Slack can do it why can't others?

baldfat• 11 years ago

Facebook installed ruins the privacy play.

nickpsecurity4• 11 years ago

People aren't going to like me for saying it but this article is right more than it's wrong. I was a provider of paid, private alternatives to ad-driven services. There were tons of us in late 90's and many in early 2000's. Almost all that didn't switch to ads went bankrupt. Customers seemed to universally want more content/service/everything... for free (or near-free)... while being OK with being spied on & sold out. They also got what they asked for: more articles, games, search, socializing, videos, and so on than have existed in all of history. Huge benefits willingly obtained by giving up privacy and control to anonymous, greedy organizations at a cost they didn't [and mostly still don't] care to think about.

Apple, on the other hand, was fine with lying to customers about security ("immune to malware!"), building leaky clouds, suing those that put Mac OS on cheaper hardware, locking in users with software toolchain choices, keeping low income users out due to high prices, discriminating against competitors in App Store, and even charging for updates. On top of that, despite tens of billions in profit, they also sold customers out to advertisers. They are one of the least trustworthy companies in existence for privacy-conscious individuals.

So, Tim Cook is full of shit. Apple has enough profit to build inherently private/secure OS's, toolchains, and services. This is obvious given that small to midsized firms with a tiny fraction of the money have outdone Apple in many areas of privacy and security by simply putting in effort. Most likely, Tim Cook is merely doing P.R. work to position Apple's image (not reality) as more trustworthy compared to ad-driven services. Those services can't do this because they'd go bankrupt by not invading privacy.

So, let's rehash. Users have more cool and useful stuff than ever before due to ad-driven model. Users got there by repeatedly choosing to be spied on instead of paying or investing time in a private alternative. Apple's past and current track record on privacy/security are terrible. They also do advertising, although not dependent like competition. Apple's CEO says they believe in privacy/security despite them hardly practicing it. Conclusion: our situation is the from users' demand, their massive use of such services maintains our situation, a niche want private alternatives, and Apple is doing PR to make money off those people (while still selling them out).

Capitalism in action! ;)

zimpenfish2• 11 years ago

Apple has enough profit to build inherently private/secure OS's, toolchains, and services.

That does rather imply that such a thing is possible and the entire history of computer science would indicate that it isn't (yet.)

nickpsecurity4• 11 years ago

There's been many examples in the past enforcing specific types of properties or immune to entire classes of attack. A few survived years of NSA pentesting. I'll give a simple example: Burrough's 1961 product with a tag on memory words. One bit said it's a pointer that processor hardware protects against forgery or improper modification. Array's were bounds-checked by hardware. One bit said something is code, execute but don't modify, enforced by processor. Function calls arguments were validated by compiler during installation and hardware during procedure call. This combination makes almost every code injection attack I've ever heard of fail while using very little hardware overhead. One exception to overhead is runtime procedure checks. Leave it out & you still knocked out almost every way to take over systems with software vulnerabilities.

There's dozens of designs doing similar things in academic literature, on the web (see crash-safe.org or Cambrige's CHERI), in government (see Sandia Secure Processor), and even commercial (see CodeSEAL architecture). Yet, the tiniest modifications (pointer/array/code protection) would give attackers considerable headaches. This must be integrated with other security methods, of course, along with toolchains (esp compilers) modified to use it and any custom software (esp assembler) modified to use it. Those changes are well within Apple's budget. They also bought an ARM license and a fab deal, meaning they can do the hardware mod.

At this point, there's no excuse for our machines to be vulnerable to pointer, buffer, or memory-based attacks given 1960's technology was immune to these by design. And we could adopt such methods relatively inexpensive today. And academic prototypes running FreeBSD and Linux only cost a few mil versus Apple's tens of billions available. Yes, it has been done, can be done, and is simply not done as usual.

What Apple’s Tim Cook Overlooked in His Defense of Privacy

Related Stories