
It's Time for Action on Data Privacy - deca6cda37d0
http://time.com/collection/davos-2019/5502591/tim-cook-data-privacy/
======
Silhouette
Cook's version here is significantly stronger than Jobs'. Not that Jobs was
wrong as far as he went, but merely being informed that you're about to be
punched in the face doesn't actually make being punched in the face
acceptable.

What we're missing today is the option to use normal products and services
without any of this data sharing and telemetry going on when they aren't
necessary for the normal functioning of the product or service, which the
kinds that upset or concern people almost never are. We need to sever the ties
between using everyday things and participating in data-based schemes that
make the suppliers more money but are otherwise not necessary for what the
customer was buying. Clearly the market has failed here and is in a race to
the bottom, and that is the point where regulation/legislation should step in.

~~~
luckylion
They are often "necessary" for monetization though, aren't they? A few
privacy-minded people would probably pay a few bucks a month to use Google
without tracking, ads etc, but I doubt that it would be a lot. And it wouldn't
be cheap either, I'm afraid. Let's say you take what Gmail offers for free and
buy it at ProtonMail - that'd be 20-30 euros a month just for Email. Who would
spend hundreds of dollars a month to get today's average digital experience
but with solid privacy? And who could actually afford to?

~~~
Twisell
Be real on your price tag here, I pay 30€ a year (since around ten years) for
an email/domain provider. More mainstream I also pay 2,99€ a month for iCloud
storage wich also include email (should I wanted to) and lots of services.

Theses services are cheap, they are just not as mainstream as they should be.
But your hundred dollar a month estimation is just a fear mongering excuse to
stick with privacy reselling model.

On the side note, Google should start to wonder what drive the double digit
growth of Apple services revenues. iTools was an experiment, .Mac was clumsy,
MobileMe was a setback... But I think Apple pretty much nailed it with iCloud.

~~~
luckylion
I'm not (knowingly) engaging in fear mongering, I just looked up what I'd pay
at ProtonMail (privacy first) to have equal storage space I get at GMail
(19GB; privacy last), and that's 20-30 euros. Looking at a web search engine,
how much would that cost me? What about a place that syncs my images from my
cell phone? Or Analytics for my blog? An OS for my smart phone? Google
provides all that for free and finances it by mining the data users give them
in return.

Apple gets something like $9bn a year to let Google be the default search
engine. That's revenue for Apple, coming directly from Google's wish to get
more data. If you remove that, will iphones be 10-20% more expensive?

------
urvader
The irony that the article isn't available in the EU because of data/privacy
laws that time.com obviously thinks is too restricted so they decided to block
the EU.

~~~
JetSpiegel
With uBlock Origin it works, a gray overlay on the page disappears after a
while, but it still contacts:

\- Cloudflare

\- Google (several domains, fonts, Google proper, JS)

\- [https://segment.com](https://segment.com) (I read the landing page and
don't understand what they do)

\- wordpress.com

12 other domains are blocked

~~~
kevsim
I think of Segment kind of like a routing layer for behavioral tracking data.
Rather than installing N trackers on your site, you just add Segment's and
then in your configuration for Segment you tell them where to route the
tracking events (to Google Analytics, Mixpanel, whatever).

I think it goes beyond behavioral tracking data use cases as well.

------
tempodox
Even if qualified as an instance of “do good and talk about it”, Tim Cook's
stance on this matter is rather untypical for not only the IT industry (see
other comments in this thread). I for one see no alternative to legal
regulations for stopping this race to the bottom.

------
chj
And it is time for running whatever we want on our device.

~~~
sjwright
Tell that to the manufacturers of TVs, cars, home alarms, AV receivers, smart
watches, digital cameras, smart home devices, dash cams, game consoles,
universal remotes, cordless phones, cable tv boxes, baby monitors and
printers.

The world is full of devices that are not open platforms for alternative
operating systems. If you don't like Apple's choice in focusing on their
particular solution which involves intimate software-hardware integration, the
answer is to buy from a competitor. There are lots of them and they make an
extremely diverse array of alternatives.

Personally I'm pleased that Apple is making the product the way they do. If
Apple changed to suit your needs, that would come at the expense of my needs.

~~~
chj
well, phones and pads are good starters

update: I compare it to computing slavery.

~~~
sjwright
You don't need to demand Apple change. There are countless phones and pads
available from other companies, many of which will satisfy your requirements.

~~~
chj
Look, I am not saying these things to satisfy my personal needs, and I am not
demanding Apple anything, that's only a piece of advice. A reminder that there
is a bigger elephant in the room. I have been using Android since my iphone6
retired, and everything is great.

------
fooker
Also time to give up user data to the Chinese government, apparently.

[https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/24/apple-
to-m...](https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/24/apple-to-move-
chinese-icloud-keys-to-china-servers-opens-door-to-government-data-requests)

~~~
sjwright
Only if you're a Chinese citizen in China.

From the article: _" Apple to move Chinese iCloud keys to China servers...Once
on Chinese soil, government agencies will be able to request information
through the Chinese legal system, which lacks the transparency, checks or
oversight of its American counterpart."_

If you think the US Government would never act without transparency, checks or
oversight, you are being delusional. And factually wrong.

Apple is complying with the local laws, just as it does in all other
countries. The suggestion that Apple should breach these laws—or exit the
market entirely—is absurd and unproductive.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Have you tried replacing "China" with "Hitler Germany" in your argument? Do
you think it still applies? Or can you explain why not?

~~~
fooker
Interestingly, IBM successfully used similar arguments after WW2 and escaped
with barely a scratch on their reputation.

------
marknadal
He says there should be a

"Federal Clearinghouse"

Where users can

"Correct and delete personal data online"

How does that not definitionally centralize data...

Straight into Governments' view?

------
Mikeb85
Can Apple refuse to give information to the US government? Can they even
disclose it if they do? After the Snowden NSA revelations it seems any
corporation in the US is suspect. And that's not even counting the fact that
all the telecoms sell your data anyway.

~~~
saagarjha
I don’t think so, no. But I believe that they are moving towards the goal of
keeping data in an encrypted format that they cannot read themselves, or not
collecting it all.

------
3xblah
Is "content" "data"? (Assume "content" is something the user generates and
intentionally shares with one or more other users via a computer network. It
could be a text message, a web page, a PDF, a photo, a video, whatever.)

For example, when he says companies should avoid collecting identifiable data
is he arguing against companies that collect user "content" (e.g., a cache of
googleusercontent webpages, or a backup of photos stored in an Apple iCloud
datacenter)?

Or is he arguing against promoting user "accounts" where users identify
themselves to companies to receieve the "benefits of signing in" or perhaps as
a absolute requirement for access to "content" created by someone else via the
company middleman?

Much of the "data" that concerns privacy activists is what they might call
"metadata". It is not the collection of "content" that alarms them, and no
doubt the companies collecting it would remind us this content has been
voluntarily shared.

However... without the collection of "content" first by a middleman, there is
no metadata for these companies to collect.

We could have a debate about regulating the middlemen. We could try to define
what their obligations should be toward users. A more interesting conversation
IMO would be about how we can use technology to _eliminate_ the middleman.

------
zigzaggy
Tim Cook has been a single light of hope in this vast dark ocean of
surveillance capitalism. I’m so tired of hearing the “nothing to hide, nothing
to fear” type responses.

Privacy is not “hiding.” I shouldn’t have to hide to keep my business, well,
my business. I believe I have the right to carry on with my life without this
all-seeing eye recording every part of me and using it to con me into buying,
or selling it to the highest bidder.

I was such an idealist about freeing information and empowering people. And
I’m no fan of government regulation. But we know business won’t regulate
itself when it’s either the bottom line or what’s best for people.

Yes, it’s time for action.

~~~
cm2187
My understanding is that it is only after Apple failed at setting up their own
advertising business that they jumped into the privacy bandwagon.

Now I agree that when you want to achieve something, there is nothing to be
gained from questioning the motivations of powerful allies (which in this case
I think are more about attacking the competition than guenine concerns about
privacy). But it does mean that Apple’s stance could change quickly if its
business interest evolves.

Not complaining, I am all for privacy regulations, merely a word of caution.

~~~
danieldk
_My understanding is that it is only after Apple failed at setting up their
own advertising business that they jumped into the privacy bandwagon._

\- Introduction iAd: 2010

\- Introduction of iMessage with end-to-end encryption: 2011

\- Introduction of the secure enclave: 2013 (iPhone 5s). Remember that Apple
plans several years ahead, so the secure enclave was probably already in the
cards ~2011.

\- Shutdown iAd: 2016

The timelines just don't match up. Apple has been pursuing a focus on
encryption and privacy since at least 2011. Remember that Apple was the first
to roll out an end-to-end encrypted messenger to hunderds of million users,
years before WhatsApp.

(I am not contesting that their focus on privacy is for marketing reasons. We
don't know, it could be or Tim Cook has strong beliefs on this topic.)

------
praptak
Apple failed at the business of mining users private data, its CEO takes a
moral stance against it.

~~~
foobiekr
On some level you take what you can get.

------
blokeley
We already have a good definition and framework for privacy, thanks Tim.

We don't need a watered-down definition that plays to your current business
model and leaves out bits that don't.

[https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-
protectio...](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-
protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/)

------
srkmno
Which roughly translates to: "competing devices are too cheap".

~~~
saagarjha
You’re going to have to provide more context here, since otherwise your
comment doesn’t seem very substantial.

------
SeanMacConMara
continue button doesnt even work without disabling all my browser security. no
thanks.

