Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls For Laws To Tackle 'Shadow Economy' of Data Firms (time.com) 113
Apple's chief executive has called for regulation to tackle the "shadow economy" of data brokers -- intermediaries who trade in the personal information of largely unsuspecting consumers -- as the company continues its push to be seen as supportive of privacy. Tim Cook, in an op-ed for Time Magazine published on Thursday, said: One of the biggest challenges in protecting privacy is that many of the violations are invisible. For example, you might have bought a product from an online retailer -- something most of us have done. But what the retailer doesn't tell you is that it then turned around and sold or transferred information about your purchase to a "data broker" -- a company that exists purely to collect your information, package it and sell it to yet another buyer. The trail disappears before you even know there is a trail. Right now, all of these secondary markets for your information exist in a shadow economy that's largely unchecked -- out of sight of consumers, regulators and lawmakers.
Let's be clear: you never signed up for that. We think every user should have the chance to say, "Wait a minute. That's my information that you're selling, and I didn't consent." Meaningful, comprehensive federal privacy legislation should not only aim to put consumers in control of their data, it should also shine a light on actors trafficking in your data behind the scenes. Some state laws are looking to accomplish just that, but right now there is no federal standard protecting Americans from these practices. That's why we believe the Federal Trade Commission should establish a data-broker clearinghouse, requiring all data brokers to register, enabling consumers to track the transactions that have bundled and sold their data from place to place, and giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily and online, once and for all.
Let's be clear: you never signed up for that. We think every user should have the chance to say, "Wait a minute. That's my information that you're selling, and I didn't consent." Meaningful, comprehensive federal privacy legislation should not only aim to put consumers in control of their data, it should also shine a light on actors trafficking in your data behind the scenes. Some state laws are looking to accomplish just that, but right now there is no federal standard protecting Americans from these practices. That's why we believe the Federal Trade Commission should establish a data-broker clearinghouse, requiring all data brokers to register, enabling consumers to track the transactions that have bundled and sold their data from place to place, and giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily and online, once and for all.
Few Good Solutions for Industry with Regulation (Score:3, Interesting)
These tech companies are starting to feel significant push back from consumers on data privacy issues, but they risk losing competitive advantage if they are the first to budge. The data is just to valuable. The government setting up laws which help protect privacy while creating a competitive environment where everyone is following the same rules is perhaps the only good option. They certainly aren't capable of governing themselves in a way which protects consumers (not that any other industry has ever been able to do that without government intervention).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All big tech companies harvest data, but Apple relies on it far less than Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon. So any restrictive laws will disproportionately hobble Apple's competitors. Tim is trying to frame this as "concern for the little guy", but it is really just self-interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Few Good Solutions for Industry with Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
All big tech companies harvest data, but Apple relies on it far less than Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon.
They don't just rely on it less: they collect less, and they've done so all along.
Moreover, Apple could have walked down the same path that Google, Microsoft, and others have gone down by collecting and monetizing more data on their customers, but they voluntarily chose not to do so when presented with that opportunity. Instead, they chose to align their business interests with those of their customers. That decision cost them opportunities at the time and has been suggested to have set them back technologically when it comes to mapping, voice assistants, and other areas, but it's starting to pay off now that people are slowly waking up to just what it is that they've been giving away all along.
So, yes, it's self-serving of them to hammer their competitors on privacy, but they only have the ability to hammer their competitors on privacy because they chose to NOT follow their competitors down the path of literally selling out users. That decision was a forward-thinking one at the time, and it's coming back to pay dividends now.
Re: Few Good Solutions for Industry with Regulatio (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there any real, specific examples of Microsoft monitizing (selling) the data they collect off hosts
Microsoft owns Linkedin, which has the same business model as Facebook.
Although it happened before Microsoft acquired them, Linkedin has used some extremely slimy business practices. They would deceive people into disclosing passwords to their email accounts, and then send out massive spams to their contacts. When I created my Linkedin account, I though "WTF are they asking for that?", but my spouse fell for it, and they auto-logged into her Yahoo account and spammed over a thousand people on her behalf, without her permission, many only casual acquaintances that she hadn't heard from in years and barely knew.
Re: (Score:3)
Just off the top of my head, check your network traffic if you have a fresh install of Windows 10. I recall reading on Slashdot a few years back that Google's servers are being sent some form of telemetry data from fresh installs. Oh, and what about the personalized ads that show up in Windows and Xbox? How do you think that happened? Then there's LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft, which is quite obviously in the business of selling access to user data.
I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface here, but yes, Micr
Re: (Score:2)
What about them? Never got one, never will.
That said, would you prefer the television model? Just serve up random ads to you? If ads are going to be part of the world, you pretty much have the choice of random ads, or ads restricted to things you might, just possibly, be interested in buying...
Don't know about you, but if I have to see ads, I'd rather see ads for products I might want rather than random whatever....
Oh, and amazin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By other "Tech" firms you mean google, data mining has always been their business.
Microsoft on the other hand started out like Apple, selling products - yet they chose to also follow google presumably out of greed to add an extra revenue channel.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually read Apple's terms of service a few years back (they're a surprisingly easy read compared to most I've read), and I don't recall anything resembling the sort of verbiage you're talking about. Could you cite it please?
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Expecting a capitalist business to do something that cuts into their profits is a fool's errand. That Apple even considers this means they have a plan that they think will benefit them, as well as the populace.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the #1 brokers of your data... (Score:5, Informative)
Acxiom [acxiom.com]
They have for decades been gathering info on first the US and later the world. They get mailing lists from the US post office. They cut the binders off US phone books and scan them. They get all the info off those warranty cards you send in, and all sorts of creative sources of information on you.
Even the US used them after 9/11 to try to hunt down people.
Hell, even major credit card companies use them to clean their databases.
I think they even now maybe own one of the credit bureaus, like Trans Union. If not owning them they are very cozy in business or used to be.
Re: (Score:1)
Even the US used them after 9/11 to try to hunt down people.
And this right here is why there will never be regulations to shut them down.
What people don't realize after hearing about things like PRISM is that a lot of US government spying is outsourced to companies like Acxiom. It might be illegal for the US government to collect the information they collect without a proper warrant - but it's not illegal for private companies to do it!
This isn't to say that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans themselves, just that they use all available sources, and that includes thes
Ah, sweet irony (Score:2)
" intermediaries who trade in the personal information of largely unsuspecting consumers "
Would Apple be quite so in favor of this we we, say, included hardware firms in the 'intermediaries' category?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. Apple tried to launch an ad network and it failed, so they staked out a differentiating position in favour of personal privacy. It's widely suspected that it's hurting them: Siri not retaining to everything ever said to it, for example. Individuals don't seem to care enough about their privacy to make it a winning business strategy, but maybe they can get some laws passed in favour of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. Apple tried to launch an ad network and it failed,
It failed because it wasn't giving advertisers "enough" user information.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Perhaps they have real principles and they were hurting them back then as well as now.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats a small part of the reason. Instead of cheerleading for apple please read and educate yourself. https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/the-downfall-of-the-walled-garden-heres-why-iad-failed/ [techcrunch.com]
After the first couple of of paragraphs reaptedly confirmed what I wrote I quit reading - why don't you quote the "real" reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh the sweet narrow mindedness of the apple worshiper, basking in the glow of the RDF.
So I'm narrow minded because you can't prove me wrong. Poor snowflake.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
" intermediaries who trade in the personal information of largely unsuspecting consumers "
Would Apple be quite so in favor of this we we, say, included hardware firms in the 'intermediaries' category?
Unlike Google and Facebook, Apple actually has a business model that doesn't involve strip-mining the dead bodies of our privacy looking for loose change.
I'm about as strong a free-market libertarian as one can be, but Google et al have gone waaaaay too far down the "doing evil" rabbit hole and they need to be reigned in.
You have no right to the PRIVATE DETAIL OF MY LIFE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU COLLECT IT SURREPTITIOUSLY.
IMO, they should have to FUCKING ASK for the EXACT details of what they want to collect, a
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, they should have to FUCKING ASK for the EXACT details of what they want to collect, and IF I say "OK", that OK automatically expires after, say, 90 days.
If you find a document through a web search engine, and it pops up a page-modal alert box asking for permission to collect and disseminate your interest profile in exchange for without-charge or discounted access to the document you are trying to read, would you find that acceptable? If you don't say "OK", then fine; the document's publisher doesn't get your personal data, and you don't get to read the document.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't Apple in various ways assisting and helping the U.S. government?
Yeah, the laws say they have to.
And, for that matter. the data collecting companies you want to defend as being better than Apple gladly do the same, - without protesting against putting backdoors into their products, like Apple has repeatedly done.
Re: (Score:2)
apple is the shadiest of all the big tech companies. Would never trust my personal data to them
You're spouting nonsense.
Simple enough (Score:2)
Make some changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and apply it to all consumer reports. Thus you get the following
Access to Your Report – The act requires reporting agencies to provide you with any information in your file upon request once a year.
Protected Access – The act limits access to your file to those with a valid need.
Accurate Reporting – If inaccurate information is discovered in your file, the reporting agency must examine the disputed information, usually within 30 days. If th
Tim Cook's principals vs Apple's biz agenda (Score:2)
I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyw
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go:
https://www.cultofmac.com/5499... [cultofmac.com]
https://privacy.apple.com/ [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apps are a more complex subject, and I know the last time this issue came up in an interview or call or whatever, Cook took a mulligan and said that Apple cannot control what third parties do with data that their apps collect.
Apart from selective permission control (which Android finally now also has), I have no idea what special measures (if any) Apple is taking to prevent apps from collecting info they have no right to, such as EMEI data, etc.
Ilsa
Re:Tim Cook's principals vs Apple's biz agenda (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it like this: Apple makes its money by selling you a physical device. After that, they provide a few services to keep you locked in. That's a very good business model, and doesn't rely on you giving up any appreciable privacy.
Give that, it's trivial for Apple to play up the privacy side of their business. It wasn't necessarily what they set out to do, but it fell in their lap, and now they're leveraging it because it gives them a competitive advantage.
But I think we can trust they'll continue on thi
Re:Tim Cook's principals vs Apple's biz agenda (Score:4, Informative)
I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyway).
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208501 [apple.com]
Understand and control the personal information that you store with Apple
As part of our commitment to your privacy, we’re making it easier than ever for you to review and take control of the data that you store with Apple. Data and privacy tools
We’ve introduced new data and privacy tools on your Apple ID account page. Sign in to your Apple ID account page on a Mac, PC, iPhone, or iPad. Then scroll down to Data & Privacy and select "Manage your data."
The complete set of self-service data and privacy tools is available to customers in over 240 countries around the world:
Get a copy of the data that you store with Apple that's associated with your Apple ID. Deactivate your Apple ID temporarily. Delete your Apple ID—and the data associated with it—permanently. Request a correction to your personal data.
Additional privacy improvements
To ensure that we’re meeting our own high standards for protecting the data we store on your behalf, we’ve conducted a comprehensive review of the instances where we collect and hold your data. As a result, Apple products now include new and updated data and privacy statements that make it easier than ever to understand how Apple will use your personal information. We show you these statements before you sign in with your Apple ID or turn on any new features that use your data.
We’re proud of our commitment to privacy and will continue to apply our industry-leading, privacy-by-design standard to ensure that great experiences don’t come at the expense of your privacy and security. For more information, visit apple.com/privacy.
Whats the difference between this and CC's (Score:4, Interesting)
This practice of selling information on your buying/browsing habits has been going on forever. And nobody really talked about it before, so again. Nothing different.
With that said though, I would expect any regulation to encompass any area where your private data is being sold.
Re: (Score:3)
First ... (Score:1)
Well, that's not going to happen anytime soon. So why sweat the small stuff?
Re: (Score:1)
Because I am not getting my 30% (Score:1)
Apple believes, like goblins, an object belongs to the creator. What the wizards and muggles call "price" is merely a license fee to use the object during the lifetime of the renter. When the renter dies the object should be returned to the maker and be re-rented. They do not accept as legal, the practice of passing goblin made objects like the
Re: (Score:1)
Tim Cook's basic complaint is that, this data that originates from the intense tracking by iOS devices is being bought and sold without giving Apple its due share.
I have to agree with this cynical view. Apple's IPhone invented surveillance capitalism, nothing that came before even dreamed of collecting so much user data. Before that, MACs were first to push what we now know as cloud integration.
Apple clearly fired the first shots in war on consumer privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Fuck you. Taxation is theft. (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything, Apple does far too little to reduce their tax bill. They should be zeroing it out the way that GE does.
Every dollar in government hands is dollar either wasted, or spent on causing bloody mayhem.
If you are not positing this from Somalia, then you are a hypocrite.
Freedom of speech and association (Score:2)
If you tell me a thing, I can share that thing. If I know a thing, I can sell that knowledge. These concepts have been enshrined into the United States law. You need a clear and pressing reason to restrict the right to free speech.
If you don't want your info shared, don't give it out.
They cannot let us opt-out (Score:3)
100% (or close to it) participation is critical to the business. Having both total access to us, as well as good quality/representational data, is crucial to the business. If the data is reduced by opt-out to any significant degree, the risk of a selection bias that makes the data marginally representational makes it virtually (!) USELESS.
So if you opt-out, and your favorite store knows you shop there but don't show up in their vast and viral marketing subconscious, they don;t know enough about you to expand their marketing, develop reliable trait definitions, and ultimately can't hit you as hard as they were paying for. And so they don't want to pay for semi-useless or less-useful data. The data aggregators lose revenue. And power. And they will fight back.
They will ignore your opt-out. Their surveillance will become even more covert. They will lie, and pay the fines (always insufficient to deter abuse). They will partner up with those who cannot be defied.
There isn't much we can do, short of punish the transgressors by refusing to do business with their willing partners, and that assumes we don't NEED to do business with these partners, some of which we will have to, no matter what.
Lost. We have lost.
more Apple trolling ? (Score:2)
When the summary says
"as the company continues its push to be seen as supportive of privacy."
- it is correct, the company does do that.
But the clear implication is that this effort is misleading. That Apple does not, in reality, support privacy. That is dishonest and doesn't belong on Slashdot.
The government themselves (Score:2)
LOL, too funny! (Score:2)
"Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls For Laws To Tackle 'Shadow Economy' of Data Firms "
No irony here, nosiree, not one bit, not even a smidgen.
PRISM (Score:2)
Junk encryption, US gov and mil working on US brands products and services.
US brands that think the US freedom of speech is sinful and that the internet has to be curated.
Brands that shadow ban, report and remove users content?
Now a US brand wants to tell the world about their understanding of terms like "privacy"?
Re: (Score:2)