While speaking at the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s (EPIC) Champions of Freedom Awards Dinner yesterday night, Apple CEO Tim Cook gave a speech during which he addressed the ongoing issues that surround privacy in the technology space. Cook, who was not physically in Washington D.C. for the event but rather spoke remotely, commented on both the steps Apple takes at ensuring customer privacy and how other companies are failing at the same task (via TechCrunch).
Cook first pointed out that there is no reason users should have to make tradeoffs between privacy and security and that it is Apple’s job to provide both in equal measure. He also took stabs at other “prominent” Silicon Valley tech companies and pointed out that many have built their businesses by collecting personal information from users.
Regarding the behavior of some of Apple’s competitors in comparison to its own, Cook had the following to say:
“I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information. They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”
Cook then stated that Apple believes the customer should be in control of their own information. Just because a service is free doesn’t make the privacy risks worth it, he claimed. Cook sideswiped Google’s new Photos services, which is free of charge and stated, “You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they’re worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose.”
After addressing privacy concerns, Cook went on to talk about encryption and the steps Apple takes to ensure that the data of all users is protected. Cook stated that he sees the efforts of some members of the government as “incredibly dangerous” in their quest to access the private data of citizens. The Apple CEO said that the company has always offered encryption tools in its products and will continue to do so. Regarding the supposed back door access that many companies have given to the government, Cook pointed out that if you give a key to the government, a burglar can find it too.
“We’ve been offering encryption tools in our products for years, and we’re going to stay on that path. We think it’s a critical feature for our customers who want to keep their data secure. For years we’ve offered encryption services like iMessage and FaceTime because we believe the contents of your text messages and your video chats is none of our business. If you put a key under the mat for the cops, a burglar can find it too. Criminals are using every technology tool at their disposal to hack into people’s accounts. If they know there’s a key hidden somewhere, they won’t stop until they find it.”
Tim Cook has been very open in addressing Apple’s security policies over the recent years. Apple launched a new security page on its website last year, which was accompanied by an open-letter from Cook himself regarding Apple’s policies. Cook spoke about cybersecurity at the White House Summit earlier this year, as well, and also during a German interview.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Apple should be using their services as loss leaders to sell more hardware. Apple could make unlimited photos on iCloud free and say you’re paying for it when you buy the device.
The term loss leader doesn’t apply here.
Apple isn’t the richest, highest valued publicly traded company on the planet by doing loss leaders. Their model clearly works. Stop telling Apple what they should or shouldn’t do, they KNOW what to do, it’s working for them.
Except why give people a reason to use other companies services? Be more competitive with cloud/services pricing and iOS users won’t have a reason to use competitor offerings.
It will suite Apple to give Photos storage away. What makes their ecosystem great is because they have always been doing that, which was FREE software to showcase their platform. Staring with iMovie in 1999, followed by iTunes, followed by iTools, followed by iPhoto, followed by Mail, Calendar and Contacts, followed by iChat, followed by iChat AV, followed by Font Book, followed by iSync, followed by Developer Tools, followed by Safari, followed by Fault Vault, followed by Xcode, followed by QuickTime 7, followed by Preview, followed by Automator, followed by WebObjects becoming free, followed by Dictionary, followed by Dashboard, followed by Front Row, followed by Parental Controls, followed by iOS updates, followed by Photo Booth, followed by Time Machine, followed by free Microsoft Exchange Support, followed by VoiceOver, followed by FaceTime, followed by AirDrop, followed by Notes, followed by Reminders, followed by Messages, followed by iCloud, followed by OS X being free, followed by Pages, Numbers, Keynote becoming free, followed by Garageband, followed by Photos being free. Before that, all of the above liked solutions use to cost additional money from third party or on that other dominate platform called Windows.
The point is Apple has offered nearly all of its software for free or near free to later becoming free again. This is what makes the platform ROCK. Apple even offers FREE support in stores or on the phone.
All you have to do is buy the hardware the rest comes with it. Total Cost of Ownership is in the ecosystem. Even if it is free, it isn’t a loss either. Value benefit.
So yes, Apple needs to give that storage away to stay relevant, otherwise they will slip like they did with Music. They need to comeback and do the same with Photos and maintain a powerful mindshare.
I’d rather not see Tim Cook resort to half-truths in knocking down competitors, in this case Google, in order to build up Apple. He know as well as anyone that Google publicly stated in several different interviews that they are not using uploaded private photos for advertising, nor monetizing the pics in any way whatsoever. If it changes someday we’ll all be aware of it since Google will have to say so, if for not other reason than avoiding yet another run-in with the FTC.
My guess is Apple is getting ready to offer there own improved photo app which prompted the comments.
Well sort of. They said that your picture stay private but Google also scans your photos and tags them automatically for you. Do the meta data tags stay private as well or do Google use this info for their own purposes?
Google came out and specifically said no data leaves the photo app, it’s “silo’d”. They aren’t even using face recognition to determine identities.
There’s legitimate privacy issues out there but calling out Google Photos with claims they’re using private photos for ads benefiting Google is unquestionably untrue as it stands. He knows that.
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cook and think he’s done a fine job at the helm. He’s been great for Apple IMO and will for a long time. In this instance tho he’s using a little dishonest fear-mongering to differentiate Apple from Google for no other purpose than money. That’s something best left to lieutenants, Schiller perhaps, and not the general. It down’t look good on him.
I don’t trust Google. Remember last year when they caught a child pornographer sending photos via Gmail? There was no law involvement, Google just stumbled across it and informed the authorities. While I have no problem with a child pornographer getting caught, how did they do it when they were claiming all Gmail was private?
The images were ID’d via machine learning. Of course Google was required to report it just as Apple or Yahoo or anyone else. It’ the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
->”Was” the law. It’s illegal, now. Apple did the same as Google, thus they can’t claim to be morally superior. Google has never sold anyone’s information: they keep it in-house for themselves. Don’t forget Apple’s mistakes with customer information.
Looking closely at the code # and titles in the WWDC app. Apple will do something with the Photos app. Most likely Third Party Extension support.
Well there you go, a business reason for attacking Google Photos
Gatorguy2, our new resident Google guy on 9to5mac
Ireland, I’ve been a member here for quite awhile but seldom see a need to comment. Seeing Tim Cook tarnish his image a bit in my eyes called for a post about it. If you think he was being completely honest say so or minimally challenge what I said. As you didn’t do either one I suspect you also recognize some half-truths in play.
It’s just not what I think of with Mr. Cook. If it had been Schiller I’d not bothered commenting since that type of thing would not have been unexpected.
Thera are already Third Party extensions on Photos, since iOS 8.
Photos for Mac*
If Google can scan/modify your photos, than any good-hacker can. For it’s not a safe place to store photos.
Look at this way: a advanced robotics company that makes military-grade robots — trained to kill as well as assist soldiers on the battlefield — is now offering a free, unlimited photo service that will scan all the content in your photos automatically tagging locations and faces in the process so both you and the firm can find information in the photo faster.
While it’s not Google owned Boston Dynamics asking for this content it’s still a division within Google that could use the photos and the algorithms used by Google Photos as part of the R&D process.
It’s easy to dismiss such a thing because instead of a company that’s making a real-life Terminator offering unlimited storage and tagging of your photos it’s an unassuming, cute little robot asking you to upload all of your personal photos and videos to be scanned.
People really need to stop being so accepting of everything free and realize that there’s a cost to everything. Period. In my lifetime I feel like anything worth having should be worth getting (read: should cost you something). But when something sounds too good to be true it usually is.
If it matters to you Google is no longer cooperating with the military AFAIK. The one-year still remaining on the existing Boston Scientific contract when they bought ’em has expired and Google turned down DARPA’s offer pf assistance with humanoid robotics. They have zero interest in working for military interests and are not building robots to assist on the battlefield from what I’ve read.
EDIT: Meant Boston Dynamics. LOL!
For Google to say that all image data is “guaranteed silo’d in perpetuity” (which Google has NOT actually said) is disingenuous. The image metadata is almost certainly used to flesh out the details of an already comprehensive picture of individuals, which is then sold to partners. That’s monetizing.
Google doesn’t mean that their photo silo is a black hole. “Silo” is not a formal security or privacy term and means almost whatever the speaker wants it to mean. I am confident that Google software will be able to live in that silo and read, examine, or otherwise analyze and report out on the contents of an individual’s photo collections. Yes, the images are safe – it would be a huge embarrassment if Google started to publicly traffic in a person’s private images. However, the analysis of a user’s images and associated metadata seems to be complete fair game to Google. They don’t want to talk about that, however – it’d very much anger people if people knew what Google actually did with the data.
For example, with this new capability, Google software can inspect your photo collection and notice that your man grew a beard and that it’s quite grey and “Just For Men” should be plastered over every website you visit via DoubleClick or AdSense. Sure, your photos aren’t used for advertising. But information obtained from them is FAIR GAME. Nudie party at the summer camp? Ads for sunburn creams coming your way.
Cook is right on this one: Google’s historic practices, lack of transparency, vague statements, and weak policy statements make those who consider security and privacy shake their heads in disbelief that Google would get so out of control so quickly.
Google said exactly what “silo’d” means: [B]No data of any kind moves out of the Photo app,[/B]
Not for ads.
Not your interests,
Not identities of you, your friends or your family
No ATTEMPT to identify individuals, not even with facial recognition.
No data monetizing activities of any kind.
End of story. It might change one day but if it does you can be assured users and the public will get notice and have to agree to the changes. Google has made way too many public comments and assurances to avoid doing so without worry of serious consequences, both legally and to their brand.
Google doesn’t sell data to partners. That’s FUD. They sell targeted ad space based on anonymous data. Just like Apple. Neither company shares or sells your data for the purpose of advertising. Both companies data mine and make data anonymous for targeted ads. Apple does this through iAds. iAds has over 400 targeting options, 135 in iTunes alone. Everyone knows Google sells ad space. It seems few here realize Apple does the same thing. Targeted ads based on customer information.
Several problems with your claims. First Google does not sell any user data to “partners”. Simply reading their privacy policy would have told you that.
Second, they don’t make any effort to put an identity with a face. They don’t use your pictures to figure out who your sister is, your husband is or even who you are. They don’t use facial recognition to figure it out either Again something they’ve very specifically re-stated in just the last couple of days.
Third, Google also specifically stated that no information from pictures is used for targeting ads. That’s simple and straightforward. They don’t monetize your private pictures.
Fourth, there is no data gathered from them that travels outside that app itself, not even to another Google service. That means they could not use metadata attached to the pictures for anything not related to the Photo app. It doesn’t go anywhere else.
Fifth, not even you could believe Tim Cook was being truthful when he said “now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose” if referring to Google Photos as he was reported to. They cannot sell your private pictures. Period.
Tim Cook knew better but said it anyway in a disingenuous effort to attack a service potentially competing with his own companys. If he doesn’t have a legitimate complaint to make about Google Photos there’s absolutely no reason to make one up. If Apple has a competing service in the wings as has been suggested then let the product speak for itself. Half-truths do not look good, especially coming from the CEO.
Steve Jobs could be forgiven for a few bombastic and inaccurate statements. He was an emotional guy who sometimes blurted things out. It was understood who he was. That’s not who I thought Tim Cook was.
“Google will have to say so”
They can simply change the EULA at any time. Do you think anyone reads those? Do you think once someone has thousands of photos uploaded, they’re going to want to cancel the service?
They are also scanning your photos for content. That’s how some of those “automated” features work. Whether the data stays silo’d within the photos service has nothing to do with it being scanned, tagged, and indexed and looked through by another Google service to pull specific photos. This is something that’s already in the EULA which states Google reserves the right to use any photo uploaded to their service for advertising purposes.
Nothing Mr. Cook said was false or even half truths. Monetizing data doesn’t mean the direct selling off of data. It means making use of the data to make money. Which every service Google has ever started was and is all about. Personally I don’t think it’s bad thing as long as the users are kept in the know. But Google has a history of collecting data behind user’s backs and from under their feet.
In the quotes Tim Cook does not address any company by name, he is talking generally which is perfectly appropriate. The finger pointing was done by the writer of this article to make for a headline that makes people want to read the article as far as I can gather.
Sure you could deduct that Cook was talking about google and similar companies free services (Facebook also does stuff with your pictures and data for instance) … where free means “you pay for it with your personal data being mined and sold”. Is it wrong of him to say that paying for those services with your personal data? No, it is a opinion of his and his companies, it is shrewd tho.
I’m very glad that under Cook that march toward deep social integration with likes of Facebook was axed completely.
You lot need to seriously read the Terms and Conditions of using iCloud because you would seriously think that it was a secure & totally private service kept safe from the prying eyes of app makers, governments and Apple themselves – when in reality it isn’t.
“Apple and its partners and licensors may provide certain features or services (e.g., Find My iPhone, Find My Friends) that rely upon device-based location information using GPS (where available) and crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations. To provide such features or services, where available, Apple and its partners and licensors must collect, use, transmit, process and maintain your location data, including but not limited to the geographic location of your device and information related to your iCloud account (“Account”) and any devices registered thereunder, including but not limited to your Apple ID, device ID and name, and device type. ”
What about this on Removal of Content:
“You acknowledge that Apple is not responsible or liable in any way for any Content provided by others and has no duty to pre-screen such Content. However, Apple reserves the right at all times to determine whether Content is appropriate and in compliance with this Agreement, and may pre-screen, move, refuse, modify and/or remove Content at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, if such Content is found to be in violation of this Agreement or is otherwise objectionable.”
How about this on access to your account and content:
“You acknowledge and agree that Apple may, without liability to you, access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Account information and Content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or a third party, as Apple believes is reasonably necessary or appropriate, if legally required to do so or if Apple has a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users, a third party, or the public as required or permitted by law.”
Finally, here is a paragraph on content made available by you on iCloud:
“Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you.”
I agree.
The federal government lies in public all the time. When there is no one to hold them accountable, what’s the difference?
The worst part about America is misplaced trust. Just because someone holds up their hand and says “we won’t” or “we didn’t” does make it true…and believing it outright is a logical fallacy.
It doesn’t matter what Google has said or promised or even is actually doing with their Photos app.
All that anyone needs to know is that trusting Google with personal data is one of the dumbest things anyone can do, and only the wholly uninformed or stupidly naive will do so.
Are you serious? I don’t know of any celebs that got their Androids hacked. It was all Apple devices.
Will Apple become an information technology company (ie will they at some point quit making hardware products)? If not will they continue to make hardware products as an enabling technology?
In what world does an IT company not make hardware? What would you call IBM? Or HP? Or Cisco? Or Dell?
Well said.
So….. what you’re saying is…. iCloud Photo Library won’t be free next week?
Cook is clearly jealous of Google’s success with Photos. Both Google and Apple were guilty of following the NSA dictates. Apple doesn’t “always” know what to do. They have already proved this when they “last” didn’t know what to do, without Steve.
Tim Cook thinks much more far…
Why to buy an iPhone of 64Go or 128Go?
Free storage…… Vidéo + Pictures (16Mb pictures and 1080P vidéos)
WHAT is “much more far”?
It’s not 300$ for 112Go ?
And pay for more than 5go iCloud?
Iphone 5c is just 300$ with 8Gb….. memory is just tooo expensive !!!! With Apple
Fact is, Apple is behind on web services. Its highly successful strategy of using iTunes software to create a digital hub in the home sold a lot of Apple hardware. But it also left the company woefully ill prepared to provide cloud computing in the post PC era. iCloud continues to stumble forward like a neglected toddler. Birthed as .Mac in 2002, it awkwardly transitioned into MobileMe (remember iTunes Ping in 2010?) before completely embarrassing itself with the “celebgate” scandal of 2014.
People who want privacy — that truly want it — should fight for it. Nobody’s questioning that. But many will sacrifice a sense of privacy for a better or more convenient experience.
I bet your the embarrassed one now that we know it wasn’t an iCloud issue but a phishing issue the celebs fell for. And we also know that more Google accounts where hacked by this guy than iCloud accounts.
I’m totally with apple on the issue of not using customer data to leverage advertising. If I have to pay a little more for the hardware to cover the costs then I prefer that above the google model of ‘free’ services actually paid for by routine monitoring of my private messages etc.
NOT with apple on the deliberate obstruction of law enforcement.
I’m not convinced about the key under the matt for the cops analogy. If cops have search warrant then I have to open the door for them or they knock it down. Following this analogy, what apple is doing is the physical world equivalent of me offering to keep a criminals stolen goods, child porn, plans for his next crime etc in my own house – hidden from the cops – who have a lawful search warrant to search his house.
If I did that in the real world I would be liable for assisting the criminal. Apple may say that they don’t know what is in the encrypted info on, or travelling through, their servers. But law enforcement and security services are clearly telling them SOME of it is illegal and/or assisting criminals and they are continuing to provide that assistance.
Just like my private house, on a routine basis no one should have access to my private data. With a court order then law enforcement should have access and apple shouldn’t obstruct that.
I think apple is making these decisions on a business appraisal not an ethical one.
Google does not monitor your private messages. The company watches the Web sites you go to, and then plant the ads you would have gotten anyway based upon your viewing history. If your “private data” includes email, then the NSA has long monitored and kept these for use, anyway. Routinely.
the point is that does everybody value privacy above money and convenient , take google photo for example , i have a bunch of photos , and i selected auto backup on my iCloud account , soon i found there is not enough space. so i either manage it or buy more storage , this is both inconvenient ( I’m lazy ) and not really worth paying ( coz buying sth for my laziness ). on the other hand google provide unlimited storage, wut a clear winner . I think if ur photo content does not have sth that really matters to be used by some company ( e.g. ur are not celebrity , not a millionaire , not a government officer , not a public figure ) I’d say money and convenient have a higher priority than privacy . moreover , as those information may use for advertisement , promoting products that suits u more , Y not ??