7 ms·

"AI convergence is going to lay bare organizational deficiencies in a way previous revolutions didn't`' Your quote really hit me. I trust Apple to respect my p

"AI convergence is going to lay bare organizational deficiencies in a way previous revolutions didn't`' Your quote really hit me. I trust Apple to respect my privacy when doing AI, but the thought of Microsoft or Google slurping up all my data to do remote-server AI is abhorrent. I can't see how Microsoft or Google can undo the last 10 years to fix this.

olddustytrail 2y ago
[flagged]
- abhpro 2y ago
  That might be "trust" in a relative sense
- practicemaths 2y ago
  [flagged]
cchance 2y ago
Have to agree, apple seems to put a really strong emphasis above all else on your shit is your shit and we don't want to see it.
- m463 2y ago
  But this is not true. that's the thing. Apple is very intrusive. Macos phones home all the time. ios gives you zero control (all apps have internet access by default, and you cannot stop it) Apple uses your data. you should be able to say no. And as for your data, they do other things too, a different way. Everything goes to icloud by default. I've gotten new devices and boom, it's uploading everything to icloud. I've seem privacy minded parents say no, but then they get their kid an iphone and all of their stuff goes to icloud. I think apple should allow a personal you-have-all-your-data icloud.
  - sgarland 2y ago
    A key difference is that Apple isn’t then selling the info it has on you to advertisers. I don’t think any large tech company is morally good, but I trust Apple the most out of the big ones to not do anything nefarious with my info.
    - tsunamifury 2y ago
      They absolutely are. And they give it to governments upon request. Their privacy stories are marketing first.
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        They are selling data to advertisers? I would like to know more about that.
        mgiampapa 2y ago
        Google isn't. They are the advertising engine and sell to advertisers for reach, just like Facebook does. I trust Apple about as far as I can throw them too. They are inherently anti-consumer rights everywhere in their ecosystem. The "Privacy" angle is just PR.
        etempleton 2y ago
        I would say it is PR as much as it is a strategic differentiation. Their business model is too sell products and services directly to consumers. This is different from Microsoft who is selling to businesses who need data protection, but actually want to be able to monitor their employees and Google who wants to leverage your data / behavior to allow advertisers to effectively target you with ads. None of the big companies expressly sell your information. Not because they are altruistic, but because it is an asset that they want to protect so they can rent to the next person.
        2y ago
parl_match 2y ago
For what it's worth, those platform investments are the difference between Apple being applauded for this, and Microsoft being pilloried for Recall's deficiencies.
harry8 2y ago
> "I trust Apple..." I'm actually a little gobsmacked anyone on this forum can type those words without physically convulsing. The even more terrible part is I'm sure it's common. And so via network externalities the rest of us who do NOT trust any of these companies on the basis that all of them, time and again, have shown themselves to be totally untrustworthy in all possible ways, will get locked into this lunacy. I now can't deal with the government without a smartphone controlled by either google or apple. No other choice. Because this utter insanity isn't being loudly called out, spat upon, and generally treated with the withering contempt that these companies have so richly and roundly earned this decision is being made for all society by the most naive among us.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wraptile 2y ago
  Apple's marketing and branding is truly impressive when even Hackernews crowd, who'd you assume are very tech savvy, are eating it up all of the propaganda.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    “Wow, so many of these people neck deep into tech, privacy, and law disagree with me. It must be because they’re all suckers.”
    - wraptile 2y ago
      Despite your snark - you'll never win an argument where trusting a for profit corporation is some sort of win over transparent secure system. Yes Apple might be better of the lesser evils but is this really where us as a privileged class of people who actually understand all this give up and give in? This is sad.
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        You’ll also never win an argument when assuming that the people you disagree with haven’t thought this through and come up with a different conclusion. The snark is from the implication that we’re either clueless or blind to it. The more likely explanation is that we have different priorities, and that we’re viewing the question from a different angle. That doesn’t make us ignorant or unprincipled, any more than you disagreeing with me makes you naive or unserious. We have different ideas. That’s all. There’s no need to look down on each other for it.
anileated 2y ago
Since Apple is building ChatGPT integration into its devices, it’s clear that Apple’s users’ data is going to be slurped by Microsoft via ClosedAI servers now. It’s unlikely latency would permit them to proxy every request to fully mask end-user IPs (it’s unclear what “obscured” means), and they would probably include device identifiers and let Microsoft maintain your shadow profile if that could improve ChatGPT output (it may not require literally storing your every request, so denying that is weasel phrasing).
- kstrauser 2y ago
  I’ve been browsing with Private Relay since the day it became available. What’s this intolerable latency you’re talking about?
  - anileated 2y ago
    Browsing is not the same as using a personal assistant. First, it takes much less compute to serve a page than to run an LLM query. LLMs are slow even if you eliminate all network. Second, your expectations when browsing are not the same as when using a personal assistant. Right now even when I simply ask Siri to set a timer it takes more than a couple of seconds. Add an actual GPT in the mix and it’s laughable. In any case, even with a private relay, Apple’s phrasing does not deny sending device identifiers and allowing ClosedAI/Microsoft to build your shadow profile (without storing requests verbatim).
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      Nope, you’re moving the goalposts. You were talking about the latency of making a network call. I pointed out that Apple’s current proxying architecture has low latency for web browsing, with orders of magnitude larger requests moving through it. We’re not going to bring GPT slowness into the mix because that’s not what we were discussing.
      - anileated 2y ago
        No, I meant the cumulative latency that increases with every hop. You can’t fool physics. Not proxying is just faster and in case of an already super-slow server these seconds matter to any UX designer worth their salt.
4m1rk 2y ago
Google is not trusted because it was an AI company and needed your data. Apple just joined the club.
bayindirh 2y ago
When enrolling physical security keys to my accounts, only Google's process requested extra, identifiable fields in my key, generating a warning in Firefox, which can anonymize these fields. Google wants to track even my physical security key across sites to track me. How can I trust their AI systems with my data?
- dwaite 2y ago
  The attestation on (FIDO certified) security keys is a batch attestation, and meant to correspond to a a batch size of at least 100,000. So they were effectively asking for the make and model. There are non-certified authenticators which may have unfortunate behaviors here, such as having attestations containing a hardware serial number. Some browsers maintain a list and will simply block attestations from these authenticators. Some will prompt no matter what. There is also a bit of an 'Open Web' philosophy at play here - websites often do not have a reason to make security decisions around the make and models of keys. Having an additional prompt in a user conversion path discourages asking for information they don't need, particularly information which could be used to give some users a worse experience and some vendors a strong 'first-mover' market advantage. In fact, the motivator for asking for this attestation is often for self-service account management. If I have two entries for registered credentials, it is nice if I have some way to differentiate them, such as knowing one of them is a Yubico 5Ci while the other is an iPhone. Many parties (including Google) seem to have moved to using an AAGUID lookup table to populate this screen in order to avoid the attestation prompt. It also winds up being more reliable, as software authenticators typically do not provide attestations today.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    Both devices are Yubikey 5 series, and none of the other services asked for anything similar, or triggered any warnings. Moreover, none of the service providers auto-named my keys with make/model, etc. > If I have two entries for registered credentials, it is nice if I have some way to differentiate them, such as knowing one of them is a Yubico 5Ci while the other is an iPhone. First, Google doesn't differentiate the security keys' name even if you allow for that data to be read, plus you can always rename your keys to anything you want, at any of the service providers I enrolled my keys, so it doesn't make sense. Moreover, Firefox didn't warn me for any other services which I enrolled my keys, and none of them are small providers by any means. So, it doesn't add up much.
jeswin 2y ago
> I trust Apple to respect my privacy when doing AI... Depends on where you are. Apple will bend over backwards when profits are affected, as you can see in China. Ironically, the only time a large company took a stand at the cost of profits was in 2010 when Google pulled out of China over hacking and subsequently refused to censor. Google has changed since then, but that was the high watermark for corporates putting principles over profits. Apple, no.
- dwaite 2y ago
  > Google pulled out of China over hacking and subsequently refused to censor My impression is that they had little chance to survive in a Chinese market, competing with a severely limited product against state-sponsored search products while also being a victim of state-sponsored cyberattacks. It was the morally correct decision, but I don't know if they were leaving any money on the table doing so. I suspect the Google of today would also decide not to shovel cash into an incinerator.

olddustytrail 2y ago

[flagged]

abhpro 2y ago
That might be "trust" in a relative sense
practicemaths 2y ago
[flagged]

cchance 2y ago

Have to agree, apple seems to put a really strong emphasis above all else on your shit is your shit and we don't want to see it.

m463 2y ago
But this is not true. that's the thing. Apple is very intrusive. Macos phones home all the time. ios gives you zero control (all apps have internet access by default, and you cannot stop it) Apple uses your data. you should be able to say no. And as for your data, they do other things too, a different way. Everything goes to icloud by default. I've gotten new devices and boom, it's uploading everything to icloud. I've seem privacy minded parents say no, but then they get their kid an iphone and all of their stuff goes to icloud. I think apple should allow a personal you-have-all-your-data icloud.
- sgarland 2y ago
  A key difference is that Apple isn’t then selling the info it has on you to advertisers. I don’t think any large tech company is morally good, but I trust Apple the most out of the big ones to not do anything nefarious with my info.
  - tsunamifury 2y ago
    They absolutely are. And they give it to governments upon request. Their privacy stories are marketing first.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      They are selling data to advertisers? I would like to know more about that.
      - mgiampapa 2y ago
        Google isn't. They are the advertising engine and sell to advertisers for reach, just like Facebook does. I trust Apple about as far as I can throw them too. They are inherently anti-consumer rights everywhere in their ecosystem. The "Privacy" angle is just PR.
        etempleton 2y ago
        I would say it is PR as much as it is a strategic differentiation. Their business model is too sell products and services directly to consumers. This is different from Microsoft who is selling to businesses who need data protection, but actually want to be able to monitor their employees and Google who wants to leverage your data / behavior to allow advertisers to effectively target you with ads. None of the big companies expressly sell your information. Not because they are altruistic, but because it is an asset that they want to protect so they can rent to the next person.
        2y ago

parl_match 2y ago

For what it's worth, those platform investments are the difference between Apple being applauded for this, and Microsoft being pilloried for Recall's deficiencies.

harry8 2y ago

> "I trust Apple..." I'm actually a little gobsmacked anyone on this forum can type those words without physically convulsing. The even more terrible part is I'm sure it's common. And so via network externalities the rest of us who do NOT trust any of these companies on the basis that all of them, time and again, have shown themselves to be totally untrustworthy in all possible ways, will get locked into this lunacy. I now can't deal with the government without a smartphone controlled by either google or apple. No other choice. Because this utter insanity isn't being loudly called out, spat upon, and generally treated with the withering contempt that these companies have so richly and roundly earned this decision is being made for all society by the most naive among us.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wraptile 2y ago
Apple's marketing and branding is truly impressive when even Hackernews crowd, who'd you assume are very tech savvy, are eating it up all of the propaganda.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  “Wow, so many of these people neck deep into tech, privacy, and law disagree with me. It must be because they’re all suckers.”
  - wraptile 2y ago
    Despite your snark - you'll never win an argument where trusting a for profit corporation is some sort of win over transparent secure system. Yes Apple might be better of the lesser evils but is this really where us as a privileged class of people who actually understand all this give up and give in? This is sad.
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      You’ll also never win an argument when assuming that the people you disagree with haven’t thought this through and come up with a different conclusion. The snark is from the implication that we’re either clueless or blind to it. The more likely explanation is that we have different priorities, and that we’re viewing the question from a different angle. That doesn’t make us ignorant or unprincipled, any more than you disagreeing with me makes you naive or unserious. We have different ideas. That’s all. There’s no need to look down on each other for it.

anileated 2y ago

Since Apple is building ChatGPT integration into its devices, it’s clear that Apple’s users’ data is going to be slurped by Microsoft via ClosedAI servers now. It’s unlikely latency would permit them to proxy every request to fully mask end-user IPs (it’s unclear what “obscured” means), and they would probably include device identifiers and let Microsoft maintain your shadow profile if that could improve ChatGPT output (it may not require literally storing your every request, so denying that is weasel phrasing).

kstrauser 2y ago
I’ve been browsing with Private Relay since the day it became available. What’s this intolerable latency you’re talking about?
- anileated 2y ago
  Browsing is not the same as using a personal assistant. First, it takes much less compute to serve a page than to run an LLM query. LLMs are slow even if you eliminate all network. Second, your expectations when browsing are not the same as when using a personal assistant. Right now even when I simply ask Siri to set a timer it takes more than a couple of seconds. Add an actual GPT in the mix and it’s laughable. In any case, even with a private relay, Apple’s phrasing does not deny sending device identifiers and allowing ClosedAI/Microsoft to build your shadow profile (without storing requests verbatim).
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    Nope, you’re moving the goalposts. You were talking about the latency of making a network call. I pointed out that Apple’s current proxying architecture has low latency for web browsing, with orders of magnitude larger requests moving through it. We’re not going to bring GPT slowness into the mix because that’s not what we were discussing.
    - anileated 2y ago
      No, I meant the cumulative latency that increases with every hop. You can’t fool physics. Not proxying is just faster and in case of an already super-slow server these seconds matter to any UX designer worth their salt.

4m1rk 2y ago

Google is not trusted because it was an AI company and needed your data. Apple just joined the club.

bayindirh 2y ago

When enrolling physical security keys to my accounts, only Google's process requested extra, identifiable fields in my key, generating a warning in Firefox, which can anonymize these fields. Google wants to track even my physical security key across sites to track me. How can I trust their AI systems with my data?

dwaite 2y ago
The attestation on (FIDO certified) security keys is a batch attestation, and meant to correspond to a a batch size of at least 100,000. So they were effectively asking for the make and model. There are non-certified authenticators which may have unfortunate behaviors here, such as having attestations containing a hardware serial number. Some browsers maintain a list and will simply block attestations from these authenticators. Some will prompt no matter what. There is also a bit of an 'Open Web' philosophy at play here - websites often do not have a reason to make security decisions around the make and models of keys. Having an additional prompt in a user conversion path discourages asking for information they don't need, particularly information which could be used to give some users a worse experience and some vendors a strong 'first-mover' market advantage. In fact, the motivator for asking for this attestation is often for self-service account management. If I have two entries for registered credentials, it is nice if I have some way to differentiate them, such as knowing one of them is a Yubico 5Ci while the other is an iPhone. Many parties (including Google) seem to have moved to using an AAGUID lookup table to populate this screen in order to avoid the attestation prompt. It also winds up being more reliable, as software authenticators typically do not provide attestations today.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Both devices are Yubikey 5 series, and none of the other services asked for anything similar, or triggered any warnings. Moreover, none of the service providers auto-named my keys with make/model, etc. > If I have two entries for registered credentials, it is nice if I have some way to differentiate them, such as knowing one of them is a Yubico 5Ci while the other is an iPhone. First, Google doesn't differentiate the security keys' name even if you allow for that data to be read, plus you can always rename your keys to anything you want, at any of the service providers I enrolled my keys, so it doesn't make sense. Moreover, Firefox didn't warn me for any other services which I enrolled my keys, and none of them are small providers by any means. So, it doesn't add up much.

jeswin 2y ago

> I trust Apple to respect my privacy when doing AI... Depends on where you are. Apple will bend over backwards when profits are affected, as you can see in China. Ironically, the only time a large company took a stand at the cost of profits was in 2010 when Google pulled out of China over hacking and subsequently refused to censor. Google has changed since then, but that was the high watermark for corporates putting principles over profits. Apple, no.

dwaite 2y ago
> Google pulled out of China over hacking and subsequently refused to censor My impression is that they had little chance to survive in a Chinese market, competing with a severely limited product against state-sponsored search products while also being a victim of state-sponsored cyberattacks. It was the morally correct decision, but I don't know if they were leaving any money on the table doing so. I suspect the Google of today would also decide not to shovel cash into an incinerator.