6 ms·

I don’t think that’s completely fair. It basically puts Apple in the same bucket as Google or OpenAI. Google obviously tracks everything you do for ads, recomme

I don’t think that’s completely fair. It basically puts Apple in the same bucket as Google or OpenAI. Google obviously tracks everything you do for ads, recommendations, AI, you name it. They don’t even hide it, it’s a core part of their business model. Apple, on the other hand, has made a pretty serious effort to ensure that no employee can access your data on these AI systems. That’s hugely different! They’re going as far as to severely restrict logging and observability and even building and designing their own chips and operating systems. And ensuring that clients will refuse to talk to non-audited systems. Yes, we can’t take Apple’s word for it. But I think the third party audits are a huge part of how we trust, and also verify, that this system will be private. I don’t think it’s far to claim that “Apple knows what you’re doing.” That implies that some one, at some level at Apple can at some point access the data sent from your device to this private cloud. That does not seem to be true. I think another facet of trust here is that a rather big part of Apple’s business model is privacy. They’ve been very successful financially by creating products that generate money in other ways, and it’s very much not necessary or even a sound business idea for them to do something else. While I think it’s fair to be skeptical about the claims without 3rd party verification, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Apple’s approach isn’t better for your data and privacy than openAI or Google. (Which I think is the broad implication — openAI tracks prompts for its own model training, not to resell, so it’s also “only openAI knows what your doing.”)

verisimi 2y ago
It's completely fair, because regardless of third party audits, chips, etc, there are backdoors right along the line, that are going to provide Apple and the government with secret legal access to your data. They can simply go to a secret court, receive a secret judgment, and be authorised to secretly view your data. Does anyone really think this is not already the case? There is no transparency. A licensed third party auditor would not be able to tell you this. We have to operate with the awareness that all data online is already not private - no need to pretend/imagine that Apple's marketing is actually true, and that it is possible to buy online privacy utopia.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  The best protection against "secret orders" is to use mathematics. Build your system so that it can't be decrypted, don't log anything etc. Mullvad has been doing this with VPNs and law enforcement has tested it - there's nothing for them to get. Same has been proven with Apple not allowing FBI to open an iPhone, because it'd set a precedent. Future iPhone versions were made so that it's literally impossible for even Apple to open a locked iPhone. There's no reason why they wouldn't go to same lengths on their private cloud compute. It's the one thing they can do that Google can't.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    > Same has been proven with Apple not allowing FBI to open an iPhone, because it'd set a precedent. Future iPhone versions were made so that it's literally impossible for even Apple to open a locked iPhone. Right, but I have no reason to think that this isn't a marketing ploy either, just another story. There is simply no way that Apple is as big as it is, without providing whatever data the government requires. Corporations and governments are not your friend.
    - theshrike79 2y ago
      Apple will obey government orders to give data they have and can access. No government order short of targeting a specific backdoored update to a specific person will allow them to give data they can't access. And if you're doing something that can make a TLA force Apple to create a targeted iOS update just for you, it's not something regular people can or should worry about. Apple keeps normal people safe from mass surveillance, being protected from CIA/NSA required going Full Snowden and it's not a technological problem, you need to change the way you live.
      - verisimi 2y ago
        Do you not remember Edward Snowden? Eg this sort of info: > The scandal broke in early June 2013, external when the Guardian newspaper reported that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. > The paper published the secret court order directing telecommunications company Verizon to hand over all its telephone data to the NSA on an "ongoing daily basis". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 You seem to think that 10 years, under cover of secret orders, that this is NOT going on now. Not Apple! People's lovely trusting natures in corporations and government never ceases to amaze me.
devjab 2y ago
I think it’s pretty fair. This example isn’t about Apple but about Microsoft, but we’ve had a decade long period where Microsoft has easily been the best IT-business partner for enterprise organisations. I’ve never been much of a fan of Microsoft personally, but it’s hard to deny just how good they are at building relationships with enterprise. I can’t think of any other tech company that knows enterprise the way Microsoft does, but I think you get the point… anyway they too are beginning to “snoop” around. Every teams meeting we have is now transcribed by AI, and while it’s something we want, it’s also a lot of data in the hands of a company where we don’t fully know what happens with it. Maybe they keep it safe and only really share it with the NSA or whichever American sneaky agency listens in on our traffic. Which isn’t particularly tin-foil-hat. We’ve semi-recently had a spy scandal where it somewhat unrelated (this wasn’t the scandal) was revealed that our own government basically lets the US snoop on every internet exit node our country has. It is what it is when you’re basically a form of vassal state to the Us. Anyway, with the increased AI monitoring tools build directly into Microsoft products, we’re now handing over more data than ever. To get the point, we’re currently seeing some debate on whether Chromebooks and Google education/workspaces should be allowed in schools. Which is a good debate. Or at least it would be if the alternative wasn’t Microsoft… Because does it really matter if it’s Google or Microsoft that invades your privacy? Apple is increasingly joining this trend. Only recently it was revealed that new Apple devices have some sort of radio build into them, even though it’s not on their tech sheets. Or in other words, Apple has now joined the trend of devices that can form their own internet by being near other Apple devices. Similar to how Samsung and most car manufacturers have operated for years now. And again if sort of leads to… does it really matter if it’s Google or Apple that intrudes on your privacy? To some degree it does, of course, I’d personally rather have Microsoft or Apple spy on me, but I would frankly prefer if no one spied on me.
chem83 2y ago
What makes you think that internal access control at Apple is any better than Google's, Microsoft's or OpenAI's? Google employees have long reported that you can't access user data with standard credentials, for example. Also, what makes you think that Apple's investments on chip design and OS is superior to Google's? Google is known for OpenTitan and other in-house silicon projects. It's also been working in secure enclave tech (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265625), which has been open-source for years. You're making unverifiable claims about Apple's actual implementation of the technical systems and policies it is marketing. Apple also sells ads (App Store, but other surfaces as well) and you don't have evidence that your AI data is not being used to target you. Conversely, not all user data is used by Google for ad targeting.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  > What makes you think that internal access control at Apple is any better There are multiple verified stories on the lengths Apple goes internally to keep things secret. I saw a talk years ago about (I think) booting up some bits of the iCloud infrastructure, which needed two different USB keys with different keys to boot up. Then both keys were destroyed so that nobody knows the encryption keys and can't decrypt the contents.
  - padolsey 2y ago
    What's funny is that, in all these orgs, it ends up being the low-tech vulns that compromise you in the end. Physical access, social engineering, etc. However, I'm really impressed by the technical lengths Apples goes to though. The key-burning thing reminds me of ICANN' Root KSK Ceremonies.
  - p_l 2y ago
    The stories about Apple keeping things secret usually go about protecting their business secrets from normal people, up to doing probably illegal actions. Using deniable, one-time keys etc. are... not that unusual. In fact I'd say I'm more worried about the use of random USB keys there instead of proper KMS system. (There are similar stories with how doing a cold start can be difficult when you end up with a loop in your access controls, from Google, where a fortunately simulated cold-start showed that they couldn't access necessary KMS physically to bootstrap the system... because access controls depended, after many layers, on the system to be cold-started).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Sporktacular 2y ago
"ensuring that clients will refuse to talk to non-audited systems." I'm trying to understand if this is really possible. I know they claim so but is there any info on how this would prevent Apple from executing different code to what is presented for audit?
- p_l 2y ago
  Unless they pass all keys authorized by the system to third parties that ensure appropriate auditing, none. And at least after my experiences with T2 chip, I consider Apple devices to be always owned by Apple first...
- brookst 2y ago
  The servers provide a hash of their environment to clients, who can compare it to the published list of audited environments. So the question is: could the hash be falsified? That’s why they’re publishing the source code to firmware and bootloader, so researchers can audit the secure boot foundations. I am sure there is some way that a completely malevolent Apple could design a weakness into this system so they could spend a fortune on the trappings while still being able to access user information they could never use without exposing the lie and being crushed under class actions and regulatory assault. But I reject the idea that that remote possibility means the whole system offers no benefit users should consider in purchasing decisions.
  - Sporktacular 2y ago
    Sure I'm missing something, but isn't that just an untrusted server self-reporting its own hash? Apple publishes the bootloader source and we'd have to assume it's what's actually running and reporting honestly the hash of the OS it's hosting. So we need to go earlier in the chain. In the end, from afar, we don't know if we're communicating with an actual Secure Enclave/SGX whatever or something that just acts like one. Matt Green's posts about it so am sure it's been thought out - but hard to understand how it doesn't just depend on employees doing the right thing, when if you could, you would need all the rigmarole.
    - 2y ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"I think another facet of trust here is that a rather big part of Apple's business model is privacy. They've been very successful financially by creating products that generate money in other ways, and it's very much not necessary or even a sound business idea for them to do something else." If a third party wants that data, whether the third party is an online criminal, government law enforcement or a "business partner", this idea that Apple's "business model" will somehow negate the downsides of "cloud computing", online advertising and internet privacy is futile. Moreover, it is a myth. Apple is spending more and more on ad services, we can see this in its SEC filings. Before he died, Steve Jobs was named on an Apple patent application for showing ads during boot. The company uses "privacy" as a marketing tactic. There is no evidence of an ideological or actual effort to avoid the so-called "tech" company "business model". Apple follows what these companies do. It considers them competitors. Apple collects a motherload of user data and metadata. A company that was serious about privacy would not do this. It's a cop out, not a trade off. To truly avoid the risks of cloud computing, online advertising and associated privacy issues, choosing Apple instead of Google is a half-baked effort. Anyone who was serious about it would choose neither. Of course, do what is necessary, trust whomever; no one is faulting anyone for making practical choices, but let's not pretend choosing Apple and trusting it solves these problems introduced by so-called "tech" company competitors. Apple pursues online advertising, cloud computing and data collection. All at the expense of privacy. With billions in cash on hand, it is one of the wealthiest companies on Earth, does it really need to do that. In the good old days, we could call Apple a hardware company. The boundaries were clear. Those days are long gone. Connect an Apple computer to a network and watch what goes over the wire wth zero user input, destined for servers controlled by the mothership. There is nothing "private" about that design.
- troyvit 2y ago
  > Of course, do what is necessary, trust whomever; no one is faulting anyone for making practical choices, but let's not pretend choosing Apple and trusting it solves these problems introduced by so-called "tech" company competitors. Apple pursues online advertising, cloud computing and data collection. All at the expense of privacy. With billions in cash on hand, it is one of the wealthiest companies on Earth, does it really need to do that. Yeah. I feel like the conversation needs some guard rails like, "Within the realm of big tech, which has discovered that one of its most profitable models is to make you the product, Apple is really quite privacy friendly!"
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dmattia 2y ago
Disclaimer: I used to work on Google Search Ads quality models > Google obviously tracks everything you do for ads, recommendations, AI, you name it. They don’t even hide it, it’s a core part of their business model. This wasn't the experience I saw. Google is intentional about which data from which products go into their ads models (which are separate from their other user modeling), and you can see things like which data of yours is used in ads personalization on https://myadcenter.google.com/personalizationoff https://myadcenter.google.com/personalizationoff or in the "Why this ad" option on ads. > and it’s very much not necessary or even a sound business idea for them to do something else I agree that Apple plays into privacy with their advertising and product positioning. I think assuming all future products will be privacy-respecting because of this is over-trusting. There is _a lot_ of money in advertising / personal data
wdr1 2y ago
Apple uses your information for advertising as well. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertising/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... It also exempts itself from normal tracking opt-outs in iOS. It has _another_ set of settings you need to opt out off to disable _their_ advertising tracking. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105131 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105131

verisimi 2y ago

It's completely fair, because regardless of third party audits, chips, etc, there are backdoors right along the line, that are going to provide Apple and the government with secret legal access to your data. They can simply go to a secret court, receive a secret judgment, and be authorised to secretly view your data. Does anyone really think this is not already the case? There is no transparency. A licensed third party auditor would not be able to tell you this. We have to operate with the awareness that all data online is already not private - no need to pretend/imagine that Apple's marketing is actually true, and that it is possible to buy online privacy utopia.

theshrike79 2y ago
The best protection against "secret orders" is to use mathematics. Build your system so that it can't be decrypted, don't log anything etc. Mullvad has been doing this with VPNs and law enforcement has tested it - there's nothing for them to get. Same has been proven with Apple not allowing FBI to open an iPhone, because it'd set a precedent. Future iPhone versions were made so that it's literally impossible for even Apple to open a locked iPhone. There's no reason why they wouldn't go to same lengths on their private cloud compute. It's the one thing they can do that Google can't.
- verisimi 2y ago
  > Same has been proven with Apple not allowing FBI to open an iPhone, because it'd set a precedent. Future iPhone versions were made so that it's literally impossible for even Apple to open a locked iPhone. Right, but I have no reason to think that this isn't a marketing ploy either, just another story. There is simply no way that Apple is as big as it is, without providing whatever data the government requires. Corporations and governments are not your friend.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    Apple will obey government orders to give data they have and can access. No government order short of targeting a specific backdoored update to a specific person will allow them to give data they can't access. And if you're doing something that can make a TLA force Apple to create a targeted iOS update just for you, it's not something regular people can or should worry about. Apple keeps normal people safe from mass surveillance, being protected from CIA/NSA required going Full Snowden and it's not a technological problem, you need to change the way you live.
    - verisimi 2y ago
      Do you not remember Edward Snowden? Eg this sort of info: > The scandal broke in early June 2013, external when the Guardian newspaper reported that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. > The paper published the secret court order directing telecommunications company Verizon to hand over all its telephone data to the NSA on an "ongoing daily basis". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 You seem to think that 10 years, under cover of secret orders, that this is NOT going on now. Not Apple! People's lovely trusting natures in corporations and government never ceases to amaze me.

devjab 2y ago

I think it’s pretty fair. This example isn’t about Apple but about Microsoft, but we’ve had a decade long period where Microsoft has easily been the best IT-business partner for enterprise organisations. I’ve never been much of a fan of Microsoft personally, but it’s hard to deny just how good they are at building relationships with enterprise. I can’t think of any other tech company that knows enterprise the way Microsoft does, but I think you get the point… anyway they too are beginning to “snoop” around. Every teams meeting we have is now transcribed by AI, and while it’s something we want, it’s also a lot of data in the hands of a company where we don’t fully know what happens with it. Maybe they keep it safe and only really share it with the NSA or whichever American sneaky agency listens in on our traffic. Which isn’t particularly tin-foil-hat. We’ve semi-recently had a spy scandal where it somewhat unrelated (this wasn’t the scandal) was revealed that our own government basically lets the US snoop on every internet exit node our country has. It is what it is when you’re basically a form of vassal state to the Us. Anyway, with the increased AI monitoring tools build directly into Microsoft products, we’re now handing over more data than ever. To get the point, we’re currently seeing some debate on whether Chromebooks and Google education/workspaces should be allowed in schools. Which is a good debate. Or at least it would be if the alternative wasn’t Microsoft… Because does it really matter if it’s Google or Microsoft that invades your privacy? Apple is increasingly joining this trend. Only recently it was revealed that new Apple devices have some sort of radio build into them, even though it’s not on their tech sheets. Or in other words, Apple has now joined the trend of devices that can form their own internet by being near other Apple devices. Similar to how Samsung and most car manufacturers have operated for years now. And again if sort of leads to… does it really matter if it’s Google or Apple that intrudes on your privacy? To some degree it does, of course, I’d personally rather have Microsoft or Apple spy on me, but I would frankly prefer if no one spied on me.

chem83 2y ago

What makes you think that internal access control at Apple is any better than Google's, Microsoft's or OpenAI's? Google employees have long reported that you can't access user data with standard credentials, for example. Also, what makes you think that Apple's investments on chip design and OS is superior to Google's? Google is known for OpenTitan and other in-house silicon projects. It's also been working in secure enclave tech (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265625), which has been open-source for years. You're making unverifiable claims about Apple's actual implementation of the technical systems and policies it is marketing. Apple also sells ads (App Store, but other surfaces as well) and you don't have evidence that your AI data is not being used to target you. Conversely, not all user data is used by Google for ad targeting.

theshrike79 2y ago
> What makes you think that internal access control at Apple is any better There are multiple verified stories on the lengths Apple goes internally to keep things secret. I saw a talk years ago about (I think) booting up some bits of the iCloud infrastructure, which needed two different USB keys with different keys to boot up. Then both keys were destroyed so that nobody knows the encryption keys and can't decrypt the contents.
- padolsey 2y ago
  What's funny is that, in all these orgs, it ends up being the low-tech vulns that compromise you in the end. Physical access, social engineering, etc. However, I'm really impressed by the technical lengths Apples goes to though. The key-burning thing reminds me of ICANN' Root KSK Ceremonies.
- p_l 2y ago
  The stories about Apple keeping things secret usually go about protecting their business secrets from normal people, up to doing probably illegal actions. Using deniable, one-time keys etc. are... not that unusual. In fact I'd say I'm more worried about the use of random USB keys there instead of proper KMS system. (There are similar stories with how doing a cold start can be difficult when you end up with a loop in your access controls, from Google, where a fortunately simulated cold-start showed that they couldn't access necessary KMS physically to bootstrap the system... because access controls depended, after many layers, on the system to be cold-started).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Sporktacular 2y ago

"ensuring that clients will refuse to talk to non-audited systems." I'm trying to understand if this is really possible. I know they claim so but is there any info on how this would prevent Apple from executing different code to what is presented for audit?

p_l 2y ago
Unless they pass all keys authorized by the system to third parties that ensure appropriate auditing, none. And at least after my experiences with T2 chip, I consider Apple devices to be always owned by Apple first...
brookst 2y ago
The servers provide a hash of their environment to clients, who can compare it to the published list of audited environments. So the question is: could the hash be falsified? That’s why they’re publishing the source code to firmware and bootloader, so researchers can audit the secure boot foundations. I am sure there is some way that a completely malevolent Apple could design a weakness into this system so they could spend a fortune on the trappings while still being able to access user information they could never use without exposing the lie and being crushed under class actions and regulatory assault. But I reject the idea that that remote possibility means the whole system offers no benefit users should consider in purchasing decisions.
- Sporktacular 2y ago
  Sure I'm missing something, but isn't that just an untrusted server self-reporting its own hash? Apple publishes the bootloader source and we'd have to assume it's what's actually running and reporting honestly the hash of the OS it's hosting. So we need to go earlier in the chain. In the end, from afar, we don't know if we're communicating with an actual Secure Enclave/SGX whatever or something that just acts like one. Matt Green's posts about it so am sure it's been thought out - but hard to understand how it doesn't just depend on employees doing the right thing, when if you could, you would need all the rigmarole.
  - 2y ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"I think another facet of trust here is that a rather big part of Apple's business model is privacy. They've been very successful financially by creating products that generate money in other ways, and it's very much not necessary or even a sound business idea for them to do something else." If a third party wants that data, whether the third party is an online criminal, government law enforcement or a "business partner", this idea that Apple's "business model" will somehow negate the downsides of "cloud computing", online advertising and internet privacy is futile. Moreover, it is a myth. Apple is spending more and more on ad services, we can see this in its SEC filings. Before he died, Steve Jobs was named on an Apple patent application for showing ads during boot. The company uses "privacy" as a marketing tactic. There is no evidence of an ideological or actual effort to avoid the so-called "tech" company "business model". Apple follows what these companies do. It considers them competitors. Apple collects a motherload of user data and metadata. A company that was serious about privacy would not do this. It's a cop out, not a trade off. To truly avoid the risks of cloud computing, online advertising and associated privacy issues, choosing Apple instead of Google is a half-baked effort. Anyone who was serious about it would choose neither. Of course, do what is necessary, trust whomever; no one is faulting anyone for making practical choices, but let's not pretend choosing Apple and trusting it solves these problems introduced by so-called "tech" company competitors. Apple pursues online advertising, cloud computing and data collection. All at the expense of privacy. With billions in cash on hand, it is one of the wealthiest companies on Earth, does it really need to do that. In the good old days, we could call Apple a hardware company. The boundaries were clear. Those days are long gone. Connect an Apple computer to a network and watch what goes over the wire wth zero user input, destined for servers controlled by the mothership. There is nothing "private" about that design.

troyvit 2y ago
> Of course, do what is necessary, trust whomever; no one is faulting anyone for making practical choices, but let's not pretend choosing Apple and trusting it solves these problems introduced by so-called "tech" company competitors. Apple pursues online advertising, cloud computing and data collection. All at the expense of privacy. With billions in cash on hand, it is one of the wealthiest companies on Earth, does it really need to do that. Yeah. I feel like the conversation needs some guard rails like, "Within the realm of big tech, which has discovered that one of its most profitable models is to make you the product, Apple is really quite privacy friendly!"

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dmattia 2y ago

Disclaimer: I used to work on Google Search Ads quality models > Google obviously tracks everything you do for ads, recommendations, AI, you name it. They don’t even hide it, it’s a core part of their business model. This wasn't the experience I saw. Google is intentional about which data from which products go into their ads models (which are separate from their other user modeling), and you can see things like which data of yours is used in ads personalization on https://myadcenter.google.com/personalizationoff https://myadcenter.google.com/personalizationoff or in the "Why this ad" option on ads. > and it’s very much not necessary or even a sound business idea for them to do something else I agree that Apple plays into privacy with their advertising and product positioning. I think assuming all future products will be privacy-respecting because of this is over-trusting. There is _a lot_ of money in advertising / personal data

wdr1 2y ago

Apple uses your information for advertising as well. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertising/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... It also exempts itself from normal tracking opt-outs in iOS. It has _another_ set of settings you need to opt out off to disable _their_ advertising tracking. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105131 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105131