Is privacy coming back?

[Chuck Wintle]

Tim Cook says there is no back door. He said they cannot comply with any warrants because they do not have the key. However, if you store things in their cloud services, those are stored data and warrants can gain them access to that. In short, if you leave the cloud access off, and just use the phone, it's said to be pretty safe from anything that's out there today.

In general, I really like his statement about "you are not their product". That's so different than Google. To Google, we are their product.

Do you really believe that data sent out from a phone will be safe from those who wish to spy? Perhaps time cook is a little naive judging from his statements. I somehow think that the NSA or any other branch of the government has the means to get data. We are powerless as citizens to stem the flow.

[David Weaver]

So if anyone is still reading this, I'd say my take is these privacy claims are 90% marketing and 10% reality.

Me, too. Even if they are currently true, it's temporary. I no longer worry much about privacy, I don't think it's (absolute privacy) something we're going to get as users. Worrying about it can drive you nuts and there's nothing you can do about it other than make a reasonable effort and then let it go at that.

[Pat Barry]

"If you not paying for it, you are not the customer, you are the product."

What? This is very nonsensical but does make you think a bit. I think what they really meant was "If you not paying for it, you are not the customer, you stole the product."

[Phil Thien]

What? This is very nonsensical but does make you think a bit. I think what they really meant was "If you not paying for it, you are not the customer, you stole the product."

No, it means that outfits like Facebook sell information about your online habits, what is found in your profile, the types of links you're inclined to click on, etc. So you do become their product, in a way. Their customers aren't their users, their customers are advertising agencies, companies marketing products, etc.

But the expression really needn't differentiate between those companies that charge and those that don't. Even the companies behind the products for which you pay are selling data about you.

[Jerome Stanek]

If it is encrypted and only you have the key what good is it when you are online sending info to someone else. they would not be able to use it

[Phil Thien]

If it is encrypted and only you have the key what good is it when you are online sending info to someone else. they would not be able to use it

It is the contents or memory of the phone that is encrypted. So the authorities cannot easily examine (for example) the contents of your photo albums to find evidence of a crime.

At least that is the idea.

[Scott Shepherd]

And contrast ello's statement that I posted on the first thread to this one posted today about Facebook's ads following you around now....

http://mashable.com/2014/09/29/facebook-ads-atlas/

Two very different business models. One creepy, one not so creepy

[Jason Roehl]

What? This is very nonsensical but does make you think a bit. I think what they really meant was "If you not paying for it, you are not the customer, you stole the product."

I agree with Phil on this. In the past, retail companies had very broad-based advertising campaigns, with only a few techniques for limiting their target demographics. Men's products were advertised during football games, women's products were advertised during soap operas. But, research has shown that the more targeted and specific the advertising, the more likely a sale is. Combine that with the internet, for which people are unwilling to pay, other than initial access, and you get many companies who, based on your surfing for free and their traffic volume, serve you up to companies that actually sell a tangible product or service. If you're surfing to X and Y, and those companies know that most who surf to X and Y also like Z, they'll advertise it to you.

Just think of all the software on your computer. How much of it did you directly pay for?

Chrome, Safari or Firefox?
Adobe reader?
Flash player?
Antivirus?
Media players?
SketchUp?
Google Earth?

The list goes on and on and on...and that's just what's resident on your computer, to say nothing of websites.

Even SMC here is quite valuable to advertisers, I'm sure. Members SAID they wanted to keep SMC ad-free, but when it came to a vote of dollars, they really didn't as a whole. I think few people want to subscribe to all the web content which interests them, just for the sake of maintaining a completely ad-free internet experience.

[Keith Outten]

I would think your contact list would be encrypted now and a host of other data sources stored on your phone.

[David Weaver]

I wonder how long it will be until we see court orders for individuals to get the data and provide it. Though if it's truly near impossible to get (at least with normal resources), i guess they'd have to rely on your honesty for now.

If it keeps police from taking your phone while you pull over of using one of those pull-aside devices that extracts data, that's good. They're welcome to look at my phone, but only if they ask nice. they could find such risky things as pictures of hand tools and texts about amish neighbors.

[John Coloccia]

If it keeps police from taking your phone while you pull over of using one of those pull-aside devices that extracts data, that's good. They're welcome to look at my phone, but only if they ask nice. they could find such risky things as pictures of hand tools and texts about amish neighbors.

I can't imagine the situation where I'd willingly consent to ANY search, ever, under any circumstances. If they have a reason to search, they will do it with or without your permission. If they have no reason to search, they'll try to intimidate you into giving them permission to go on a fishing expedition. They may even say things like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let me search. It's making me think you have something to hide." Fine, think that all you want. Legally, that means diddly squat. Exercising your rights can not be used as probable cause. Voluntarily submitting to a search can not possibly EVER help you. Let me repeat that. It CAN NOT POSSIBLY ever help you, because if they had probable cause, they would be within their rights to arrest you and conduct a search, with or without your permission. They'll make it seem like you're just saving yourself a lot of grief if you let them do what they want, but the fact is that it can only possibly lead to MORE grief if their fishing expedition turns up anything that might make them scratch their head. You know, if you look hard enough in any of my vehicles, there's a decent chance you might turn up a stray piece of ammo that fell out of a box, or something like that. Heavens, they might even find a pocket knife...a WEAPON!

Seriously, don't ever submit to any search under any circumstances. I have enough police officer friends and acquaintances that I've talked to about this that all tell me the same thing...it can't help and it can only hurt, and if they want to give you a hard time, believe me that they will find SOMETHING to give you grief about. At a minimum, they'll ruin your afternoon.

[Phil Thien]

This sort of reminds me of some interesting court cases, where the courts have ordered individuals to provide passwords to access encrypted data. In a few cases that have made the news, the individuals have refused to hand-over the password, and the courts have held them in contempt (and in jail).

What I've always wondered was, why not just provide a fake password. Tell them it is "ILOVEAMERICA" and when they say it doesn't work, tell them it did for you last time you use the system. Tell them you'll type it in for them, and give it a shot. Shrug your shoulders and tell them they must have done something to screw-up the system.

Now petition a higher court for your release, arguing that you've cooperated to the best of your ability.

[John Coloccia]

This sort of reminds me of some interesting court cases, where the courts have ordered individuals to provide passwords to access encrypted data. In a few cases that have made the news, the individuals have refused to hand-over the password, and the courts have held them in contempt (and in jail).

What I've always wondered was, why not just provide a fake password. Tell them it is "ILOVEAMERICA" and when they say it doesn't work, tell them it did for you last time you use the system. Tell them you'll type it in for them, and give it a shot. Shrug your shoulders and tell them they must have done something to screw-up the system.

Now petition a higher court for your release, arguing that you've cooperated to the best of your ability.

I believe the latest legal theory on this is that you can't be forced to provide passwords, or anything like that, because it's akin to self-incrimination. Obviously, that's the correct call. I believe in some countries in Europe (I forget where off the top of my head) there is legislation that specifically forces you to turn over passwords.

It wasn't too uncommon back in the day for "hackers" to setup their computers so that an incorrect boot sequence would proceed to scramble the hard drive. Maybe the next step is to include a regular password and a doomsday password.

[David Weaver]

I can't imagine the situation where I'd willingly consent to ANY search, ever, under any circumstances. If they have a reason to search, they will do it with or without your permission. If they have no reason to search, they'll try to intimidate you into giving them permission to go on a fishing expedition. They may even say things like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let me search.

I wouldn't actually do it, either, in reality. I've seen many videos from defense lawyers and detectives showing how they can get you stuck in a bind when you're completely innocent. One former detective, who was then a law student, did a good job of describing a typical scenario where he more or less did a diversion getting you to leak details about other possible things to hold you on while you're being careful to avoid trouble about what you think he's asking you about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk

In reality, I have little exposure to the police and like most of the folks I've met, because the worst I've had dealings with was getting a ticket on a bicycle.

[John Coloccia]

In reality, I have little exposure to the police and like most of the folks I've met, because the worst I've had dealings with was getting a ticket on a bicycle.

You scofflaw! How'd you manage that?

I think the last ticket I got was on my motorcycle. He had me dead to rights...there was nothing to discuss. He was very nice for giving me a ticket with a rather creative speed, as opposed to the speed I was REALLY going. That was back in '98, or so. Now I drive like an old lady.