Apple accused of selling user data

[kirashi]

1 hour ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

Apple Music actually plays a lot more songs out of the artists libraries than Spotify does. It does a lot less filtering of the hits than Spotify does in my experience. I actually went back and checked to see if Spotify had the songs I hadn't heard there that I did on Apple Music

56 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

A lot. In the US alone, Apple Music users have surpassed Spotify. I think Apple Music pays higher royalties compared to Spotify. 

I've heard the same things as you guys have, so that makes more sense that Apple Music is more prevalent in the USA, and offers more selection... at least among top 40 artists or other popular content. My comment was more of a reddit-style sass-provoker, where I was half expecting someone to tell me "Not even close man, the real question is who uses Apple Music over Tidal?" but that didn't happen  

 

Honestly, there isn't and probably never will be any single "best" streaming service so long as the entertainment industry continues living in the 1980's with exclusivity deals, time limited releases, and other such anti-consumer garbage, so use whatever streaming service has the media you want to enjoy, on the devices you want to enjoy it on, at a price you can afford, with the features you need.

 

[SenKa]

9 minutes ago, kirashi said:

I've heard the same things as you guys have, so that makes more sense that Apple Music is more prevalent in the USA, and offers more selection... at least among top 40 artists or other popular content. My comment was more of a reddit-style sass-provoker, where I was half expecting someone to tell me "Not even close man, the real question is who uses Apple Music over Tidal?" but that didn't happen  

 

Honestly, there isn't and probably never will be any single "best" streaming service so long as the entertainment industry continues living in the 1980's with exclusivity deals, time limited releases, and other such anti-consumer garbage, so use whatever streaming service has the media you want to enjoy, on the devices you want to enjoy it on, at a price you can afford, with the features you need.

 

I also get Apple Music for free, so free is always better!

[RoseLuck462]

1 hour ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

The real question is who uses iTunes over Apple Music? 

 

I do, I like owning albums.

 

I’ve never gotten any junk mail related to any purchases I’ve made anywhere on my Apple stuff.

 

Those people must be using shady apps due to not knowing any better or something.

[laminutederire]

46 minutes ago, justpoet said:

This is…very obviously different.  Data is data.  Video is video.  Sex is sex.  Sex is not a video.

Apple has put in its terms and conditions for developers a LOT of restrictions on being able to sell, recombine, and re-use data that they get.  They've actively been going after developers and apps on the app store to either have them fixed or removed as well (this has recently been in the news).

 

To your point, just because somebody is allowed to access something doesn't mean they're allowed to do anything they want with it.  To use your very flawed analogy, it would be something like saying "sure, you can film this and use it in the future, but you can't sell it to other people"…but then somebody else who saw it made a copy and then sold it.

 

In short, once you allow a third party to access all your data, you can't be surprised that they then use/share/sell it based on THEIR (non)privacy policy, rather than Apple's, even if Apple has in the contract that the developer isn't allowed to do so.

Sure apple is perfect.

It's not a flawed analogy, since those people didn't give consent for their data when allowing a local permission to an app, so it's a fair complaint.

[justpoet]

43 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Sure apple is perfect.

It's not a flawed analogy, since those people didn't give consent for their data when allowing a local permission to an app, so it's a fair complaint.

Apple is far from perfect…but actually, those people did.

They gave the app permission to do whatever the app says it wants to do with their data by giving it their data.  That's how data works.  If you don't trust the app, don't give it your data!

[ARikozuM]

 

2 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Color me SHOCKED.

Is that a yellow or a blue? 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Apple is far from perfect…but actually, those people did.

They gave the app permission to do whatever the app says it wants to do with their data by giving it their data.  That's how data works.  If you don't trust the app, don't give it your data!

Irrelevant.  Apple advertise that:
 

Quote

Your heart rate after a run. Which news stories you read first. Where you bought your last coffee. What websites you visit. Who you call, email or message.

Every Apple product is designed from the ground up to protect that information. And to empower you to choose what you share and with whom.

 

 

Even though it says you are empowered to choose what you share (everyone already is), it does not state that apps will do that. Apple have explicitly implied to its customers that their information is safe.   Finding a sentence in the fine print of an apps EULA does not absolve apple of this obligation/claim.

[IAmAndre]

2 hours ago, kirashi said:

Nah, the REAL question is "Who uses Apple Music over Spotify?"

 

2 hours ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

The real question is who uses iTunes over Apple Music? 

Actually Apple Music is catching up on Spotify: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/apple-music-has-reportedly-passed-spotify-in-paid-subscribers-in-the-us.html

[IAmAndre]

I bet Apple will find a way to consider this a feature...

[justpoet]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Even though it says you are empowered to choose what you share (everyone already is), it does not state that apps will do that. Apple have explicitly implied to its customers that their information is safe.   Finding a sentence in the fine print of an apps EULA does not absolve apple of this obligation/claim.

You just chose to share with that app.  There's nothing at all false in the statement made in the Apple advertisement you quote.  Apple can't protect you from yourself, nor should they.  You just made the choice to share your data with somebody that isn't Apple.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The list they present is direct from a data seller, pertains almost solely to apple products and services.  There are only three ways I can think for this to be the case:

 

1. the evidence is all manufactured

2. the evidence is true, but apple did not specifically sell it themselves and only made the data available through app developers (either by allowing it or failing to prevent it physically).

3. Apple sold the data themselves.

 

Given one of apples biggest draw cards is that your data does not get sold, this is an issue for them regardless of 2 or 3.  And only a very slim chance number 1 is true.

 

Apple developers to have access to some telemetry gathered from devices, as per pointed out when you boot the machine for the first time. 2 is most likely true as 3 would have been out in the open immediately, especially with the publicity surrounding Apple - likely to gain more money by the story than the data.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

You just chose to share with that app.  There's nothing at all false in the statement made in the Apple advertisement you quote.  Apple can't protect you from yourself, nor should they.  You just made the choice to share your data with somebody that isn't Apple.

You have missed the point, why would any consumer believe their data is being shared when apple said it won't?      Fine print in an apps ToS means nothing in this situation.   Apple have declared you are safe, it's now their responsibility to ensure that.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, floofer said:

Apple developers to have access to some telemetry gathered from devices, as per pointed out when you boot the machine for the first time. 2 is most likely true as 3 would have been out in the open immediately, especially with the publicity surrounding Apple - likely to gain more money by the story than the data.

Then that leaves apple red faced with their claims of data privacy meaning very little as they do/can not control it.  

 

 

[justpoet]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You have missed the point, why would any consumer believe their data is being shared when apple said it won't?      Fine print in an apps ToS means nothing in this situation.   Apple have declared you are safe, it's now their responsibility to ensure that.

Apple declared you are safe but you may do what you want.  YOU said to give your data to the app and let it have its way with it.  Apple said ok and let you do that.  There's ZERO responsibility here on Apple for that, despite Apple doing their best to have apps changed that do this, remove them from the store when found, etc.  The correct targets for the lawsuits are the individual apps that are mistreating the data outside of their developer contract, and more so the data brokers who are directly doing what the laws being used in the suit are targeting.  Apple warned the user the app wanted the data, and the user said "Allow".

 

Then again, some idiot dumped coffee on themselves and successfully sued McD for selling them hot coffee.  So anything is possible in the courts when justice isn't appropriately served.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Apple declared you are safe but you may do what you want.  YOU said to give your data to the app and let it have its way with it.  Apple said ok and let you do that.  There's ZERO responsibility here on Apple for that, despite Apple doing their best to have apps changed that do this, remove them from the store when found, etc.  The correct targets for the lawsuits are the individual apps that are mistreating the data outside of their developer contract, and more so the data brokers who are directly doing what the laws being used in the suit are targeting.  Apple warned the user the app wanted the data, and the user said "Allow".

 

Then again, some idiot dumped coffee on themselves and successfully sued McD for selling them hot coffee.  So anything is possible in the courts when justice isn't appropriately served.

If Apple doesn't want the user data given out, and it happens, they are in the fault. You can't have a closed ecosystem that is meant to be more secure and still let security slip. I don't agree that suing Apple is the right way to go, but this may be a needed step to further privacy laws. 

 

Also, coffee should NEVER be above burning point when being stored for customers. That's just bad thinking on McD's part. 

[mr moose]

Just now, justpoet said:

Apple declared you are safe but you may do what you want.  YOU said to give your data to the app and let it have its way with it.  Apple said ok and let you do that.  There's ZERO responsibility here on Apple for that, despite Apple doing their best to have apps changed that do this, remove them from the store when found, etc.  The correct targets for the lawsuits are the individual apps that are mistreating the data outside of their developer contract, and more so the data brokers who are directly doing what the laws being used in the suit are targeting.  Apple warned the user the app wanted the data, and the user said "Allow".

 

Then again, some idiot dumped coffee on themselves and successfully sued McD for selling them hot coffee.  So anything is possible in the courts when justice isn't appropriately served.

 

Again, apple advertised their products as safe and secure, by allowing apps to do this they are not providing their customers with the product they promised.

 

Quote

“What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.”

Apple promise this unconditionally, so they need to ensure this happens.   Especially given most users have no idea what they are agreeing to in the fine print.

 

 

 

 

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Apple promise this unconditionally, so they need to ensure this happens.   Especially given most users have no idea what they are agreeing to in the fine print.

Nor should users be expected to read legalese.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

Nor should users be expected to read legalese.

Exactly.   Customers are mostly just everyday people who in many cases do not know what 3rd party even means let alone all the other fine print in the great swaths of terms they must agree to,  all they know is apple promised a private phone where my data would not be sold or collected by anyone.

[justpoet]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Apple promise this unconditionally, so they need to ensure this happens.   Especially given most users have no idea what they are agreeing to in the fine print.

OK, you're no longer allowed to type on a forum, log into a website, send a photo, or ever even think about doing anything with a social media platform.  That's not how any end user EVER expects what Apple said to be done, so obviously your "unconditionally" portion of the statement is false.

 

Ignorance is not a legal get out of jail free card, which is especially true for end users who are individuals accountable for their own actions.  However, that also applies to companies and platforms.  But, "user contributed content"…be it youtube, a forum, FaceBook, or an App Store…has long been "moderate after reports"…even though there are already vetting processes involved with all of the above to try and make things "more appropriate".  While many would like to see that change, and laws in some countries are trying (debatable if in proper ways, but they're trying), that's just not how it is, nor how it has been expected for a very long time.

 

Just because you want Apple to be held liable for what people tell their devices to do, doesn't mean they should be.  The same is true with things like texting while driving.  Just because a driver says they're in the passenger seat when the car is moving, so bypasses the system, doesn't mean Apple, Google, Samsung, etc should be held accountable for everybody that is distracted while driving.  Individual personal responsibility is what the judicial system is based on, and the individual said "Allow".

[justpoet]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Customers are mostly just everyday people who in many cases do not know what 3rd party even means let alone all the other fine print in the great swaths of terms they must agree to

I would agree with this.  However, current law allows third parties to do whatever they want if they tell you they're going to (even in small and confusing ways) and you say "ok".  New laws, and then going after said third parties, are the way to appropriately tackle the issue.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

OK, you're no longer allowed to type on a forum, log into a website, send a photo, or ever even think about doing anything with a social media platform.  That's not how any end user EVER expects what Apple said to be done, so obviously your "unconditionally" portion of the statement is false.

That makes no sense.  No one promised my PC or windows was secure.  And when Apple do not advertise conditions but just make blanket statements about security then it is unconditional.

 

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Ignorance is not a legal get out of jail free card, which is especially true for end users who are individuals accountable for their own actions.  However, that also applies to companies and platforms.  But, "user contributed content"…be it youtube, a forum, FaceBook, or an App Store…has long been "moderate after reports"…even though there are already vetting processes involved with all of the above to try and make things "more appropriate".  While many would like to see that change, and laws in some countries are trying (debatable if in proper ways, but they're trying), that's just not how it is, nor how it has been expected for a very long time.

None of that even relates to this case, apple advertise their phone is private then it wasn't. 

 

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Just because you want Apple to be held liable for what people tell their devices to do, doesn't mean they should be.

Absolutely it does,  if they don't do what they are advertised to do then that is false advertising, I call it fraud.  Apple promise privacy, they should provide it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

 The same is true with things like texting while driving.  Just because a driver says they're in the passenger seat when the car is moving, so bypasses the system, doesn't mean Apple, Google, Samsung, etc should be held accountable for everybody that is distracted while driving.  Individual personal responsibility is what the judicial system is based on, and the individual said "Allow".

Again you are not making any sense, none of that even remotely relates to the issue at hand here.

 

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

I would agree with this.  However, current law allows third parties to do whatever they want if they tell you they're going to (even in small and confusing ways) and you say "ok".  New laws, and then going after said third parties, are the way to appropriately tackle the issue.

 

It doesn't mater what the law allows,  it matters what the law does not allow, and that is for companies to misrepresent their products.  When apple says your phone is private without any sufficient qualifiers, then that is the way their phone should be.   Most of these "agreements" you think are acceptable are buried in an ass ton of intentionally confusing language.  And this is before we even bring up all the marketing and hoohah people make about it being a closed system solely to protect the customer.  So much for them having control over 3rd party apps to prevent this from happening.

[kirashi]

51 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

 

Actually Apple Music is catching up on Spotify: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/apple-music-has-reportedly-passed-spotify-in-paid-subscribers-in-the-us.html

Mhm, I know that  However, Apple Music doesn't integrate with any social network, so my friends & cannot see what we're listening to in real-time like we can with Spotify, and the human-made playlists and AI-catered artist radio stations on Spotify built from Paul Lamere's algorithms give me a much more customized listening experience. That being said, I don't live in an Apple ecosystem household despite having iPads, so Apple Music isn't the right choice for me compared to those who might have & enjoy a Macbook, iPhone, iPad, and HomePod speaker.

[justpoet]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't mater what the law allows,  it matters what the law does not allow, and that is for companies to misrepresent their products.

Actually, what law allows is exactly what is at issue here.

 

As for misrepresentation, common knowledge is also included in that for advertisement, such as that you can send your data places with a web browser or an app, such as interacting on social media.  Apple saying their phone is private isn't misrepresentation.  The phone is private…the apps you added and then told to take your data aren't.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Actually, what law allows is exactly what is at issue here.

 

As for misrepresentation, common knowledge is also included in that for advertisement, such as that you can send your data places with a web browser or an app, such as interacting on social media.  Apple saying their phone is private isn't misrepresentation.  The phone is private…the apps you added and then told to take your data aren't.

you mean like this:

Quote

Your heart rate after a run. Which news stories you read first. Where you bought your last coffee. What websites you visit. Who you call, email or message.

Every Apple product is designed from the ground up to protect that information.

 

Yep, clearly they have gone out of their way to let you know apps in their heavily guarded app store are not apart of this.

[IAmAndre]

13 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Mhm, I know that  However, Apple Music doesn't integrate with any social network, so my friends & cannot see what we're listening to in real-time like we can with Spotify, and the human-made playlists and AI-catered artist radio stations on Spotify built from Paul Lamere's algorithms give me a much more customized listening experience. That being said, I don't live in an Apple ecosystem household despite having iPads, so Apple Music isn't the right choice for me compared to those who might have & enjoy a Macbook, iPhone, iPad, and HomePod speaker.

Yeah you're talking about very particular cases. I don't think many people are bothered because they can't share what they're listening to in real time.