One of these things is not like the other. DuckDuckGo and Proton were founded on the basis of protecting privacy and not sharing personal data. The other is part of the cabal.
Insofar as we have limited options on mobile phones: Currently between a company built around profiting from data collection and a company built around profiting from selling hardware, the latter is the best possible choice.
(Android is mostly a lost cause even if you try and strip Google out of it, and doing so in an even mildly secure fashion is beyond most people's competency. Most other OSes are more or less toys without even basic ability to replace a modern smartphone.)
Exactly. Apple is also one of the participants in the NSA's PRISM [1] domestic surveillance program. Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself, but more tellingly it's also indicative of the NSA's appreciation for the amount and quality of unique and identifiable data that Apple has or can readily obtain on their users.
> Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself
Why? Apple is legally required to hand over the court ordered data whether or not they participate in the FBI's data integration program. By implementing a proper data integration system, Apple can standardize audits and alerts and make sure the FBI gets only what is required and not somebody else's data by accident as might happen if the data were sent by hand each time.
I'd recommend checking out the article and other reading on PRISM. PRISM is operated by the NSA and involves egregious breaches of personal privacy including bulk collection of loosely targeted data, warrantless data retrieval in some instances, the collection and use of "inadvertently collected data" and more. This entire period of extreme surveillance and secret courts, which are in effect kangaroo courts, will likely be looked at in the history books similar to how you look at things like the Stasi. Keep in mind that the Stasi was founded in 1950 and prosecutions only began once East Germany fell, some 40 years later.
> PRISM is operated by the NSA and involves egregious breaches of personal privacy including bulk collection of loosely targeted data, warrantless data retrieval in some instances, the collection and use of "inadvertently collected data" and more.
No, according to Snowden's documents, PRISM is a data processing system that consumes data sent to the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit following a Section 702 order for communications sent to or from a specific foreign user not in the US.
The wiki page's synopsis are contradictory as usual, but the original images as well as Snowden's comments are not ambiguous. The slides show real time access to video, voice, VOIP, etc.
Snowden's synopsis was, "In general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT [signals intelligence] databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want."
Quoting Greenwald who received the information and disclosure directly from Snowden: "...even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision." Greenwald said low level Analysts can, via systems like PRISM, "listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents. And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst."
> The slides show real time access to video, voice, VOIP, etc.
For the specific users whose data was requested in the Section 702 request.
> Quoting Greenwald who received the information and disclosure directly from Snowden: "...even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision."
Funny how Snowden didn't have any evidence of this. All his documents match the description I gave you. The FBI's DITU is right there in the system diagram slide. This is just a misunderstanding of the documents by a low-level sysadmin who never actually saw the programs and a credulous reporter who didn't even try to check his facts.
Apple gave up their user data in China so they could make a buck and Google instead chose to leave China instead of giving up the data to make a buck.
Apple it is more data and more money made and therefore believe the largest selling data example we have had in my lifetime? Do you know any examples that are bigger?
This is also actually giving the data instead of targeting an ad.
Closed source, with many anti-user mechanisms. It's extraordinarily hard to investigate what your mobile device is doing at any time. One would require a Stingray and networking analysis gear to determine whom the packets are meant for - and even that is defeated with Pinned certs.
Primarily, the onus is on them to show that they do not have contractual allowances to sell data to internal or 3rd parties.
(Android is mostly a lost cause even if you try and strip Google out of it, and doing so in an even mildly secure fashion is beyond most people's competency. Most other OSes are more or less toys without even basic ability to replace a modern smartphone.)