Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Businesses IOS Software United States Apple Technology

Apple Is Now the Privacy-As-A-Service Company 92

Posted by BeauHD from the privacy-first dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Apple's truly transforming into a privacy-as-a-service company, which shows in the way that it's implementing both the new single sign-on account service, as well as its camera and location services updates in iOS 13. The SSO play is especially clever, because it includes a mechanism that will allow developers to still have the relevant info they need to maintain a direct relationship with their users -- provided users willingly sign-up to have that relationship, but opting in to either or both name and email sharing.

Apple's work with camera providers is also unique -- providing actual on-device analysis of footage captured by third-party partners to deliver things that security device makers have typically offered as a value-add service themselves. That includes apparent identification of visitors to your home, for instance, and sending alerts when it detects people, as well as being able to differentiate that from other kinds of motion. That's going above and beyond simply protecting your data: It's replacing a potential privacy-risk feature with a privacy-minded one, at a service level across an entire category of devices. The new location services feature also makes it possible to provide single-use location permissions to apps, putting all the control with users instead of with service providers.

"Other new features, including HomeKit firewalling of specific services and devices, are similar in tone, and likely indicate what Apple intends to do more of in the future," the report adds. "Combined with its existing efforts, this begins to paint a picture of where Apple plans to play in offering a comprehensive consumer services product that is substantially differentiated from similar offerings by Google and others."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Is Now the Privacy-As-A-Service Company More

Apple Is Now the Privacy-As-A-Service Company

Comments Filter:
  • Maybe in their reality distortion field, and certainly not when you live in China (where the bow the to government and give them all the date; though allegedly in the USA, too).
  • Currently, there are six separate articles about Apple on the Slashdot front page. Isn't there a special page for them?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 )

      Because we're on day two of five of Apple's annual developer conference, WWDC. They started yesterday with a slew of hardware and software announcements.

    • Currently, there are six separate articles about Apple on the Slashdot front page. Isn't there a special page for them?

      Because all the Apple-haters and Apple-lovers will generate views and lots of posts.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Crazy how the largest company in the world is gaining attention for advances in technology. Give me something relevant, like updates on the GNU kernel.

    • Normally I agree with Slashdot getting too Apple heavy at times.

      But this year at WWDC they had quite a lot of pretty big announcements, so each of the stories individually is worth discussing, especially true of the privacy steps they are taking as they are pretty significant and affect everyone, not just Apple device owners.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      You can use filter to ignore Apple stories.

  • Effort means something (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @05:04PM (#58709800)

    At least Apple is putting in an effort. Even if it is a walled garden with premium cost. I don't need to remind the Apple haters what their competition does.

    So if you truly want privacy either pay the Apple tax or build your own Linux / BSD box.

    • The reality is that we are moving into a world of paid privacy. Only the wealthiest will be able to afford anything like desirable privacy, which will mostly mean you won't be aware of the information you're exposing.

      Those at the bottom will have no privacy. It will be motivated by a combination of welfare compliance, parole/criminal justice compliance, and near constant video surveillance. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with slumlords being allowed to run security cameras inside their rentals -- b

      • The reality is that we are moving into a world of paid privacy. Only the wealthiest will be able to afford anything like desirable privacy, which will mostly mean you won't be aware of the information you're exposing.

        Those at the bottom will have no privacy. It will be motivated by a combination of welfare compliance, parole/criminal justice compliance, and near constant video surveillance. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with slumlords being allowed to run security cameras inside their rentals -- because private property, because crime and as some justification that it helps them make "affordable" housing available by inhibiting vandalism and criminal activity.

        Unfortunately the widely used business model of everything being "free" has created this situation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      By what standard is Apple better than Google on privacy?

      Neither sells your private data. Both have advertising programmes. Both offer similar services - cloud storage, email, mapping, personal assistants.

      With Google you get shown more ads, but merely seeing ads is not a violation of your privacy and you can disable the personalization.

  • How to have *actual* privacy. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The way you have privacy isn't by giving everything you do to company $X and then trusting that they will be real swell guys and not disclose it onward.

    The way you have privacy is by not giving them the data to begin with.

    Any single-sign-on intrinsically gives your behavior to company $X, whoever that is. They can then reverse course tomorrow and sell everything you've done from their archives.

    Any "remotely managed keys" encryption, same problem. You are simply trusting $X not to disclose what you do.

    The

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      Two points on this:
      1. AirDrop has exactly the peer-to-peer mechanism you described
      2. Your privacy can be violated without you doing a damned thing. Unless you can prevent all conceivable data about you (photos, your friends' names, your own name, your family's names) getting onto social media, which is damn near impossible. That's what FB's shadow profiles are all about.

  • Just no (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 )

    Privacy means I have an control my own data. The simple fact they have it is a breach of privacy. Data leaving my perimeter is unacceptable unless I explicitly allow it.

    • There is an effort at Apple compared to other companies. The problem I think is not only that of third-party applications, it is the capitalist ecosystem, and the phone is part of it. Ads, trackers (and all that goes with it) make it possible to create non-negotiable cash income for brands. It's very perverse, and as said before, Apple has made efforts on some points (as on Safari), but when you manage a business and you try to make income through ads on phone is super helpful. The question is: is this coll
  • How does Apple define privacy? [zerohedge.com]

  • Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @05:48PM (#58710002)
    This is a hilarious response. Google's oblivious CEO tried to rant not long ago about how "the average person can't afford to pay a premium for privacy". That's pretty much a direct quote. It appears Apple went "you know that's a really damned good idea" and just went ahead and did it. I mean I can't vouch for whether it's actually "private" but just straight up charging for the appearance of it over Google's "we'll sell all your shit every chance we get" schtick is hilarious.

    • just straight up charging for the appearance of it

      Is Apple really charging for this though?

      The phones they sell are about the same as high end Android phones, just way way more supportive of your privacy as each OS release comes along...

      "Login with Apple" isn't even unique to Apple products or platform. It can be used on the web for anyone, and I think Android as well. You don't need an Apple device, just an Apple ID (which you can create on the web).

      Privacy is more like a addition that doesn't really co

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Plus iOS updates are supported for at least 5 years after purchase of an iPhone or iPad, which is about 5 years longer than for the typical Android device.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Privacy is a right. You shouldn't have to pay for rights.

      Companies offering free services should still protect your privacy. Google is a good example - because they don't sell your private data, you retain your privacy. Unlike Facebook they don't give anyone else access to it.

      It's interesting that FUD has convinced so many people, yourself including, that Google is actually selling data. Never mind that it would be like Coca Cola selling he recipe for Coke, somehow a lot of people believe they have to pay f

  • Just like Facebook was ad-free for years when building their market share.

  • It is impossible for Apple to achieve this with the access to laws governments have. With government access comes black hat access who don't care about law and are perfectly willing to take advantage of all the clumsy holes that government leaves behind.

    Your privacy is your personal responsibility, no one can take information from you that you don't share or falsify to protect yourself. Apples marketing is appealing to those with a child like, naive state of being who idealize the company. That's not

    • It is impossible for Apple to achieve this with the access to laws governments have.

      Sorry Ivan, I don't understand. Surely even where you're from the Government has access to the laws. If they don't, you're simply confused about who the government is. Who does have access to the laws? Check there first, maybe that is your government?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by balbeir ( 557475 )
        Ah yeah, the one filled up to the rim with perverts that want to look at everyone's Tinder data :-)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        It is impossible for Apple to achieve this with the access to laws governments have.

        Sorry Ivan, I don't understand. Surely even where you're from the Government has access to the laws.

        That's ok. Apples intentions are irrelevant if the laws a government has access to under intelligence sharing agreements in other countries where Apple operate makes their intentions illegal in the *other* country. You didn't think the FBI was going to give up did you?

        Have you heard of five eyes, UKUSA, SIGINT, Echelon agreement? That's how, they are real binding legal agreements. Apple has to comply with the laws of *ALL* the countries it operates in.

        Step 1. Identify what you want and where the law

        • That is really weak analysis that ignores the laws on either side. Waving your hands does not create a loophole between them. It only delays the investigation.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrKaos ( 858439 )

            That is really weak analysis that ignores the laws on either side. Waving your hands does not create a loophole between them. It only delays the investigation.

            I did two 40 page submissions to government analyzing the effect proposed survielance laws would have on industry in my country and the international effect based on the agreements I specified in my post. Late 2018 I posted a summary of that analysis. [slashdot.org]

            • I would never read 40 pages of crap by a guy who has isms, that are full of beliefs.

              Horse shit needs to be reduced to a concise level to be worth analyzing.

              Have you heard of five eyes, UKUSA, SIGINT, Echelon agreement? That's how, they are real binding legal agreements. Apple has to comply with the laws of *ALL* the countries it operates in.

              Then you go on to explain a shell game that would be completely illegal in the US. It is just a hand-wavy, "they could do this thing I thought of, and since I don't know anything about the details, maybe it would be legal!"

              You quite clearly do not understand the basic underlying legal principles involved in the scenario you describe. That would not encou

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                Horse shit needs to be reduced to a concise level to be worth analyzing.

                Cool mate - it's not worth my time explaining.

                Then you go on to explain a shell game that would be completely illegal in the US. You quite clearly do not understand the basic underlying legal principles involved in the scenario you describe.

                Clearly you've never read the Echelon agreement or have an understanding of intelligence sharing arrangements.

                I would never read 40 pages of crap by a guy who has isms, that are full of beliefs.

                80 pages pages of crap picked up by legal professionals. Have a nice day.

  • As a service, having this option for SSO in their apps is pretty great - for both devs and users. I'm glad Apple is pushing privacy, even if their pricing is making it available only to the upper classes. At the very least it brings attention to how Facebook and Google manage your data.

  • Strange arguments here (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garote ( 682822 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:02AM (#58711580) Homepage

    I see a lot of people griping here, as in TFA, that Apple is "selling" privacy at a "premium". That's a pretty wacky accusation.

    You can buy a used iPhone 5S - a pretty dang good smartphone by today's standards even though it's seven years old - for FIFTY BUCKS. Drop your current SIM into it and sign into Apple's services and use them - email, chat, cloud backups, synchronization, maps - and apple gets NONE OF YOUR MONEY.

    Fifty bucks, one-time fee, and Apple doesn't just refrain from mining and selling your data to others, they actually put in effort to encrypt and protect it. Yeah fifty bucks is still good money to any family on a tight budget, but it's not exactly the rarified heights of the middle class or something, and some random used Android phone with similar specs will cost you almost as much.

    So why all the high-handed claims that Apple only offers privacy to the rich? They are effectively handing it to the poor as well, by supporting their years-old used products with regular software (e.g. security) updates.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close