[davinci123]

Privacy is a myth in today's world. It has become a marketing anthem for many including Apple. If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.

Also do you realize everything you do offline is being collected as well - your credit card transactions (visa knows more about you than Google), camera at traffic stops or your favorite restaurants, government listening to your phone call, etc. etc.

[CharlesW]

> If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.

In Google’s case. In Apple’s case I’m giving them money for products and services. The money Apple makes from my data is meaningless when compared to Google’s M.O.

[smoldesu]

So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less?

Neither of them are particularly transparent or accountable from a privacy perspective. It's kinda funny that someone would acknowledge the helplessness of the present duopoly, then claim they feel safe inside the lion's cage because "I already fed him earlier".

[drivebycomment]

In what ways are Apple and Google not transparent about their privacy practices ? I think both are quite clear and upfront about where the lines are, compared to pretty much everyone else.

Accountable is interesting - they are as accountable as any other company, and if anything, both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.

[smoldesu]

> both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.

People say this a lot, but why does nobody care so far?

I'd posit the simple answer is "it's easier not to", but also that governments are happy to reinforce a duopoly they control. We already know both Google and Apple are PRISM members as well as involved in the international FIVE-EYES network. That never really stained their reputation, despite being a universal backdoor. Google has exploited and broken YouTube several times over, but nobody stopped using it in objection. Apple moved their servers into government-owned Chinese datacenters, and nobody protested it financially.

The threat to their actual reputations is almost non-existent, from what I've seen. If people cared, we wouldn't be fixing FAANG's problems 10 years after-the-fact.

[CharlesW]

> So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less?

I don't feel very captive. Plus Apple devices have great resale value should Apple's interests ever stop aligning with mine.

[smoldesu]

I don't feel very captive on my Samsung handset either. All that emotion does very little to let me read the modem firmware, much less ensure the privacy of the device. That's what OP's point was, that you were responding to. They were saying that privacy is always a reductive argument; your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe. That feels more like you're addressing your own insecurity instead of what the commenter actually wrote.

[CharlesW]

> …your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe.

That's an interesting interpretation, but what I actually did was point out the elephant in the room — that Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.

Given two business models — one based on monetizing your data and behavior, the other based on accepting money for goods and services — which would you say is more pro-privacy?

[smoldesu]

> which would you say is more pro-privacy?

Whichever one you trust with less data. Neither of them can be held to a bar of inscrutability because both of them manufacture surveillance devices. You can't even deny it.

> Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.

Their business model has nothing to do with the topic of privacy-washing though. That's why I responded to you in the first place; your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense. It's a quaint fairy-tale you tell yourself to justify storing sensitive data with them. I'm not going to jostle you awake, but I am going to remind you that they're no more transparent in their approach than Google. If anything, your original comment highlights just how effective the duopoly is; both of these adtech companies are being treated like Marvel vs DC instead of Moloch vs Satan.

So... as far as privacywashing is concerned, I'd trust neither of them. They're both proven snakes who lie about their opaque infrastructure and do little to contribute to society's collective safety, online or individually.

[zlg_codes]

This can be changed. It becomes a lot harder to track people when they get pissed off and destroy your surveillance network.

None of the conditions in this situation are ironclad.

[davinci123]

lo and behold: https://karl-voit.at/cloud/