← Back to context

Comment by jchw

1 month ago

> It is frankly nothing short of amazing that Apple ships things like homomorphic encryption, and differential privacy, and client-side vectorization, and encrypted vectors, at the scale that they inhabit... and they still get a bad report card back from consumers about privacy.

Personally, I don't shy away from criticizing Google, but that's not the point. Apple makes big claims about their privacy practices that neither Google nor Microsoft make, it would be bizarre to hold Google or Microsoft to claims and standards that Apple set for themselves.

> Comparing Apple and Google, or Apple and Microsoft, it seems to me that Apple's track record on these issues is actually not as bad as public opinion might suggest. Meta doesn't even make the list for comparison, and neither does Amazon.

> It makes me wonder if picking privacy as a strategy is workable in the first place. People trust TLS; people use banking apps on their phone now without thinking. I remember in 2008 or so when people still didn't quite trust SSL.

> I'm not sure if Apple will be able to bridge the gap here, though, if _all_ of their competition simply chooses not to ship those features. Do customers know the difference? Do they... care? In theory they want their data to be private, yes. But if they are not willing to educate themselves to perform their counterparty obligation in fulfilling "informed consent," there may be no action Apple could take to avoid catching the same bad rap everyone else does.

I've said this elsewhere, but what I really dislike about Apple's strategy regarding privacy is that they treat privacy as a purely technological problem that could be solved if only we had better technology, but they ignore that a huge component of why users have been subjected to so many flagrant privacy violations is because they have zero visibility and zero real control over their computing experiences. Apple would very much like to retain their iron grip on what users are allowed to do on their platforms, as they make a ton of money off of their control of the platforms in various ways, so they have a huge incentive to make sure we're all arguing about whether or not Apple is better or worse than Google or Microsoft. Because sure, I do believe that if we held Google to the same privacy standards that Apple currently has, it would probably kill Google. However, if Apple and Google were both forced to give more transparency and control to the users somehow, they'd both be in a lot of trouble.

Despite all of this effort, I think that user trust in the privacy of cloud computing and pushing data out to the internet will only ever go down, because attacks against user privacy and security will only ever continue to get more and more sophisticated as long as there are resourceful people who have a reason to perform said attacks. And there certainly always will be those resourceful people, including in many cases our own governments, unfortunately.

“Ask App Not To Track” would like a word

  • Not impressed. I'd be much more impressed if we could run software like Little Snitch on iOS, or install Firefox. Or even just side load apps without pay $100/year.

    (Note: a Safari webview with a Firefox logo on it does not count.)

    • > I'd be much more impressed if we could run software like Little Snitch on iOS

      You can; or, at least, the APIs are available for this, and have been for some time.

      > or install Firefox

      https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/i...

      Inb4 "you cannot replace the built-in browser engine"

      https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit

      > Or even just side load apps without pay $100/year

      Then use an Android. Apple has taken a stance on this since it was formed. If you don't know by now that Apple is actively hostile toward hobbyists with their approach to computing, I can't help you. That is why there are alternatives from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and so many others.

      To others (me), this is a feature. I would rather the $100/yr fee exist for several reasons.

      3 replies →

    • > Not impressed.

      So Apple kneecaps Meta's cross-app advertising, something that literally makes them no direct revenue to implement, and protects users (it famously reduced Facebook cross-app analytics traffic to a significant degree), and you think this is business as usual?

      Then you should reconsider my comment at the top of this thread, because it is 100% speaking to this exact phenomenon.

      2 replies →