If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting read
Covers Tim Cook's statement about the tradeoff we make between convience
and loss of privacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/technology/what-apples-tim-cook-overlooked-in-his-defense-of-privacy.html?_r=0 -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting read
| Covers Tim Cook's statement about the tradeoff we make between convience
| and loss of privacy. | | http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/technology/what-apples-tim-cook-overlooked-in-his-defense-of-privacy.html?_r=0 | I didn't think there was really much new in that. Like David Pogue before him, Farhad Manjoo gets paid to lob ads disguised as softball criticism at tech companies, saying idiotic things like, "I just tried the Acme WooHoo and now I realize why owning 5 cameras simply wasn't enough." The NYT is "all the big-business-skewed drivel we dare to print". Manjoo does make some criticisms of Tim Cook, but he's very gentle about it, and doesn't forget to counterbalance those with pro-Apple tidbits near the end. In today's column, Manjoo talks about how he thinks Twitter could improve. This is a man who admits to reading Twitter comments about a basketball game, in real time, while he watches the game. It's like a columnist who reviews soap operas. Why would I care about the artistic reviews of someone who spends their time watching soap operas? Why would I care about the musings of someone with no more sense than to spend his time gossiping on Twitter, even when he's already doing something else? It is rather interesting, though, in light of another development: http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/11/87...k-safari-ios-9 Apple is going to support writing ad blockers on iOS. Taking the two stories together, it looks like Apple may have decided to try and pull off yet another "we're the good guys" marketing campaign. Apparently their own success with web ads has been very limited. And they're battling with Google over a number of things. And Google is all ads all the time. Allowing ad blockers screws Google, makes Apple look honest, and puts them out in front of all the hypocrites claiming they support privacy, and at a time when privacy is becoming more newsworthy. The NYT had another article last week about how spying entities like Facebook should offer the option for people to pay for the service instead of being spied on, especially given that FB only makes about $.20/month from each Facebookie through the spying-enhanced ads. It all sounds good to imagine Facebook growing up a bit and catering to adults, but then what about the people who don't pay? How can Facebook spy on some and not on others? And why would they stop, anyway? Google made billions without spying, but they wanted billions more. Legislation is the only solution that might work. Hoping that web companies might somehow start respecting privacy is simply not realistic. At best they'll just be opportunistic, like Yahoo when they bragged that their webmail wasn't spyware.... until they changed their minds and made it spyware. That dovetails with another report last week: http://betanews.com/2015/06/07/inter...-they-know-it/ The usual: Nearly all people online feel hopeless about protecting their privacy. An increasing number regard online spying as generally malefic, yet very, very few are willing to do anything about it if it means lifting a finger. Yesterday I was in Sears buying a shirt. The clerk nonchalantly asked for my phone number, with the assumption that I was a member of the chummy Sears shopping club. I said no and paid cash, as I always do. Her: "You don't want to save money?!" Me: "I don't like being spied on. It doesn't bother you?" Her: "Oh, there's nothing you can do. I didn't want to serve on jury duty, so I didn't vote. They still got me! And if you file taxes then your information is all out there." There was no hope that the woman could possibly think about the topic at all. Her head was just a jumble of glib, false maxims. Like most people, she just wants to swim through her day making as little effort as possible.... Which is a lucky break for Tim Cook. He knows that all people really care about is the *pretense* of respecting privacy. Like the car salesman, his job is not to lie to you. His job is to help you lie to yourself. People don't want to worry about privacy, but they also don't want to be exposed as suckers *in their own minds*. So the lazier they are, the more they'll lionize Tim Cook for taking a noble stand and helping them to go back to sleep. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting read
On 6/12/2015 1:15 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| Covers Tim Cook's statement about the tradeoff we make between convience | and loss of privacy. | | http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/technology/what-apples-tim-cook-overlooked-in-his-defense-of-privacy.html?_r=0 | I didn't think there was really much new in that. Like David Pogue before him, Farhad Manjoo gets paid to lob ads disguised as softball criticism at tech companies, saying idiotic things like, "I just tried the Acme WooHoo and now I realize why owning 5 cameras simply wasn't enough." The NYT is "all the big-business-skewed drivel we dare to print". Manjoo does make some criticisms of Tim Cook, but he's very gentle about it, and doesn't forget to counterbalance those with pro-Apple tidbits near the end. In today's column, Manjoo talks about how he thinks Twitter could improve. This is a man who admits to reading Twitter comments about a basketball game, in real time, while he watches the game. It's like a columnist who reviews soap operas. Why would I care about the artistic reviews of someone who spends their time watching soap operas? Why would I care about the musings of someone with no more sense than to spend his time gossiping on Twitter, even when he's already doing something else? It is rather interesting, though, in light of another development: http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/11/87...k-safari-ios-9 Apple is going to support writing ad blockers on iOS. Taking the two stories together, it looks like Apple may have decided to try and pull off yet another "we're the good guys" marketing campaign. Apparently their own success with web ads has been very limited. And they're battling with Google over a number of things. And Google is all ads all the time. Allowing ad blockers screws Google, makes Apple look honest, and puts them out in front of all the hypocrites claiming they support privacy, and at a time when privacy is becoming more newsworthy. The NYT had another article last week about how spying entities like Facebook should offer the option for people to pay for the service instead of being spied on, especially given that FB only makes about $.20/month from each Facebookie through the spying-enhanced ads. It all sounds good to imagine Facebook growing up a bit and catering to adults, but then what about the people who don't pay? How can Facebook spy on some and not on others? And why would they stop, anyway? Google made billions without spying, but they wanted billions more. Legislation is the only solution that might work. Hoping that web companies might somehow start respecting privacy is simply not realistic. At best they'll just be opportunistic, like Yahoo when they bragged that their webmail wasn't spyware.... until they changed their minds and made it spyware. That dovetails with another report last week: http://betanews.com/2015/06/07/inter...-they-know-it/ The usual: Nearly all people online feel hopeless about protecting their privacy. An increasing number regard online spying as generally malefic, yet very, very few are willing to do anything about it if it means lifting a finger. Yesterday I was in Sears buying a shirt. The clerk nonchalantly asked for my phone number, with the assumption that I was a member of the chummy Sears shopping club. I said no and paid cash, as I always do. Her: "You don't want to save money?!" Me: "I don't like being spied on. It doesn't bother you?" Her: "Oh, there's nothing you can do. I didn't want to serve on jury duty, so I didn't vote. They still got me! And if you file taxes then your information is all out there." There was no hope that the woman could possibly think about the topic at all. Her head was just a jumble of glib, false maxims. Like most people, she just wants to swim through her day making as little effort as possible.... Which is a lucky break for Tim Cook. He knows that all people really care about is the *pretense* of respecting privacy. Like the car salesman, his job is not to lie to you. His job is to help you lie to yourself. People don't want to worry about privacy, but they also don't want to be exposed as suckers *in their own minds*. So the lazier they are, the more they'll lionize Tim Cook for taking a noble stand and helping them to go back to sleep. Now that you are off your rant, I read the article as saying that Tim Cook left out some information, such as: Apple's future plans to evelop its own search engines. etc. Read again. I am also deliberately not resonding to your comment about the integrity of The New York Times, except to remind you that many right wing nuts accuse it of being a left wing tool. -- PeterN |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting read
| I read the article as saying that Tim
| Cook left out some information, such as: Apple's future plans to evelop | its own search engines. I don't know where you got that. He specifically says that Apple perhaps should provide free search if they really care about privacy, but that they're not doing that. The general theme is that Tim Cook is criticizing the spyware ad companies like Google and Facebook, and saying "we don't need your data". Manjoo points out that's a bit disingenuous because Apple has deals with the ad companies. But he's actually being very gentle in his criticism. Apple takes in vast data and says so in their privacy terms. Cook is just pretending that it's somehow not so sleazy because Apple is *only* spying in order to provide good service. Yet, a few years ago they were caught storing a permanent, full location record on iPhones. Only after demands from senators did they finally respond and say, "OK. We won't store the data so long." As far as I know they never promised not to keep a copy themselves. They adopt an attitude that all they do is for the sake of their customers, while Google adopts a less reassuring attitude, that they slurp every bit they can but "anonymize" it. I don't see any difference. Any data collection should be opt-in only. ...Perhaps you think that's more ranting, but why else post this if not to discuss it? | I am also deliberately not resonding to your comment about the integrity | of The New York Times, except to remind you that many right wing nuts | accuse it of being a left wing tool. | Don't they accuse all media of being left wing? I have a daily subscription to the NYT. (Not by choice.) I consistently see them skew things slightly in favor of business. For instance, a few years back credit card companies were forced to be more fair in their dealings. I counted 5 articles about that in the NYT, with a general theme that finally the consumer had won. In only one of those articles did they mention that the law wasn't going into effect for more than a year, to leave the banks a chance to rework their strategies. The NYT didn't lie, but they did present it more as public relations for banks than as straight news. I see that same pattern over and over. (The NYT also wasn't picked by Edward Snowden to share with, while WashPo was.) If you read Pogue and Manjoo consistently I think you'll find that they're pro-business in the sense that their columns are generally positive and generally about "consumer products". It's a kind of soft advertising. But of course, everyone can decide for themselves. I highlight this issue because the NYT has an unusually good reputation as a newspaper and I simply don't see the justification. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting read
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | I read the article as saying that Tim | Cook left out some information, such as: Apple's future plans to evelop | its own search engines. I don't know where you got that. He specifically says that Apple perhaps should provide free search if they really care about privacy, but that they're not doing that. apple offers duck duck go as a default option for those who don't want any tracking. they are also actively working to minimize google's access to user data on macs and ios devices. The general theme is that Tim Cook is criticizing the spyware ad companies like Google and Facebook, and saying "we don't need your data". Manjoo points out that's a bit disingenuous because Apple has deals with the ad companies. But he's actually being very gentle in his criticism. Apple takes in vast data and says so in their privacy terms. Cook is just pretending that it's somehow not so sleazy because Apple is *only* spying in order to provide good service. a significant amount of data is anonymous. for example, google recently announce google photos where you upload photos and they're analyzed (and data mined) so that you can do intelligent searches. apple has a similar capability, but the search is done locally on the device. apps with ads are entirely the work of third party developers, not apple. Yet, a few years ago they were caught storing a permanent, full location record on iPhones. Only after demands from senators did they finally respond and say, "OK. We won't store the data so long." nope. that is complete utter bull**** and you know it since you've been told this many times before. what apple did was collect *anonymous* wifi location data to improve geolocation for the user, which was then aggregated and uploaded without any user identifiable information whatsoever. a subset of that data is cached on the device, since it's expensive to ping apple's servers and wait for a response, versus do a lookup locally. the only mistake apple made that the cached data on the device was backed up and restored, thereby allowing for the possibility that someone who had access to the backup could see that data. since that person is almost always the owner, it wasn't actually an issue. nevertheless, the location data is not kept in the backup anymore. google and microsoft do exactly the same thing, by the way, but i don't see you bitching about that. As far as I know they never promised not to keep a copy themselves. what they kept was *anonymous* data to make geolocation work better. They adopt an attitude that all they do is for the sake of their customers, while Google adopts a less reassuring attitude, that they slurp every bit they can but "anonymize" it. I don't see any difference. Any data collection should be opt-in only. ...Perhaps you think that's more ranting, but why else post this if not to discuss it? there's a huge difference between the two companies. google's revenue is from advertising so they *must* collect personal data in order to target ads. apple's revenue is from sales of hardware, software and services, so they don't need personal data at all and in fact, they go out of their way to *not* collect it. send a text message via google voice and it's data mined. send a text message via imessage and it's encrypted end-to-end. in fact, apple devices are so secure that the fbi is ****ed they can't access them anymore. remember google 'accidentally' collecting wifi passwords when they were doing street view? do you really think the engineer who 'accidentally' coded it didn't know what he was doing? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting read
On 6/12/2015 3:59 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I read the article as saying that Tim | Cook left out some information, such as: Apple's future plans to evelop | its own search engines. I don't know where you got that. He specifically says that Apple perhaps should provide free search if they really care about privacy, but that they're not doing that. The general theme is that Tim Cook is criticizing the spyware ad companies like Google and Facebook, and saying "we don't need your data". Manjoo points out that's a bit disingenuous because Apple has deals with the ad companies. But he's actually being very gentle in his criticism. Apple takes in vast data and says so in their privacy terms. Cook is just pretending that it's somehow not so sleazy because Apple is *only* spying in order to provide good service. Yet, a few years ago they were caught storing a permanent, full location record on iPhones. Only after demands from senators did they finally respond and say, "OK. We won't store the data so long." As far as I know they never promised not to keep a copy themselves. They adopt an attitude that all they do is for the sake of their customers, while Google adopts a less reassuring attitude, that they slurp every bit they can but "anonymize" it. I don't see any difference. Any data collection should be opt-in only. ...Perhaps you think that's more ranting, but why else post this if not to discuss it? | I am also deliberately not resonding to your comment about the integrity | of The New York Times, except to remind you that many right wing nuts | accuse it of being a left wing tool. | Don't they accuse all media of being left wing? I have a daily subscription to the NYT. (Not by choice.) I consistently see them skew things slightly in favor of business. For instance, a few years back credit card companies were forced to be more fair in their dealings. I counted 5 articles about that in the NYT, with a general theme that finally the consumer had won. In only one of those articles did they mention that the law wasn't going into effect for more than a year, to leave the banks a chance to rework their strategies. The NYT didn't lie, but they did present it more as public relations for banks than as straight news. I see that same pattern over and over. (The NYT also wasn't picked by Edward Snowden to share with, while WashPo was.) So Snowden is the arbitrater of a fair press. He never told me anything about that. Did he tell you is reasons? If you read Pogue and Manjoo consistently I think you'll find that they're pro-business in the sense that their columns are generally positive and generally about "consumer products". It's a kind of soft advertising. Readers can form their own conclusions. But of course, everyone can decide for themselves. Yep! I highlight this issue because the NYT has an unusually good reputation as a newspaper and I simply don't see the justification. Truth is a good justification. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting opportunities, worth exploring - A MUST READ | Law[_2_] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 13th 08 03:33 PM |
interesting......try this.. | Renu | Digital Photography | 1 | September 11th 07 10:24 PM |
Interesting | muma | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 22nd 06 10:08 AM |
Interesting... | Rox-off | Digital SLR Cameras | 35 | August 29th 05 04:58 AM |
Now this is interesting... | Lisa Horton | Digital Photography | 1 | October 31st 04 06:06 AM |