Apple has to invent a time machine before you'll offer any forgiveness? They made a mistake, if previous behavior was so egregious that no improvements going forward will suffice, then from where I stand the only remaining option is to use other vendors.

IMO, a company that really took privacy seriously would never, ever have let humans listen to Siri recordings without explicit user content. There is in fact nothing Apple can say post-mortem to change this.

Now, whether any of the mainstream alternatives are better for privacy is a legitimate question—but at this point, I don't think anyone should choose Apple because of their privacy claims. If there are no more incidents in the next five years, maybe we can reconsider at that point, but that is how long it should take for Apple to regain trust. (That, or Apple opening their systems to public audit, which will never happen.)

>Google has been able to track your location using Google Maps for a long time. Since 2014, it has used that information to provide advertisers with information on how often people visit their stores. But store visits aren’t purchases, so, as Google said in a blog post on its new service for marketers, it has partnered with “third parties” that give them access to 70 percent of all credit and debit card purchases.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607938/google-now-tracks-...

I've been on the exact opposite side of this argument for the past year, both here on the internet and IRL. Sure, we can't look inside Apple's systems, but if they say they're doing X Y and Z, we ought to believe them. Apple knows that if something comes to light after they've billed themselves as a privacy company, it will be a big scandal, so they'll want to keep their word.

Well, here we are, and now I feel stupid. Fool me once...

However, Google can still adopt Apple's position that data collection should be turned off by default and only turned on by the users after you explain what will be done with the data.

They won't since spying on users is how they make the vast majority of their money, but they could.

There just isn't the manufacturing capability anywhere else in the world to compete with China. It's a shame that the world outsourced such an important skill but that's where we are.

Apple loves privacy, but they love money more.

Partly because Siri wasn’t Apple to begin with. It was a company they acquired with its own app, with established processes. M&A doesn’t necessarily replace all processes with new processes.

- All this digital privacy stuff is new to humanity

- We've only been trying to figure it out for a couple decades

- We're still learning—sadly, mostly through trial and error—all the ways in which people can come up with privacy-invading techniques and tools

- Motivated actors are clever, and think up ways to invade, violate, and compromise privacy, often in ways software/hardware makers haven't already thought of—but seem obvious in retrospect

- Apple's concern for privacy has emerged alongside its development of devices and software that can be used to invade privacy—they can only take action against a danger/threat after they've thought or become aware of it

- Again, all this stuff is new. We used to run e-commerce and punch in credit cards without thinking about SSL certs—cos shit was new, shiny, and magical.

We're all becoming increasingly aware of just how much privacy needs to be a core development premise of just about any technology. And we're currently stuck in a weird place of individuals and companies trying to increase privacy levels while other individuals, companies, and governments are trying to break it down, get backdoors, invade everyone's privacy and track them everywhere they go, etc.

tl;dr — Respecting, protecting, and increasing digital privacy is a constant process.

Remember, they plastered "What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone" ads all over CES this years while they kept transcribing Siri audio. And they did that until they got caught. Just like they throttled iPhone performance until they got caught and THEN they finally told users about that.

Why would they get a benefit of doubt?

Probably due to the comparatively small number of privacy incidents, coupled with the business models of those companies compared to Apple.

Apple may not be perfect but at least it feels like they are trying.

Google and Facebook are built on renting our privacy out to the highest bidders. The minutiae of our lives are their raw materials, and to make more money they have to find new and exciting ways of exploiting our information.

Apple is built on making things we want to buy, then selling us stuff to do, watch, play, read or hear on those things. They’re also very good at telling us about those things and why we might want to buy them.

So yes, privacy-first messaging comes across as more genuine when it comes from companies that aren’t designed from the ground up to scrape every bit of information about us that they possibly can.

Five or more years ago, I gave FB & Google the benefit of the doubt—when the first few major privacy fiascos came to light, making it clear that it was a big deal and privacy needed to be cared about. Sadly, Facebook and Google have repeatedly shown themselves to be actively hostile to user privacy, and continue to double and triple down on invading privacy and breaching trust. They've been the giants who have proven the need for making privacy a primary concern of all tech hardware/software—because they are dependent on breaching and invading privacy to earn their income.

Apple does not depend on providing third parties access to identifiable data and profiles to better target ads, identify users, and destroy privacy and anonymity to earn their income. This pretty much means a wholly different default outlook from Facebook and Google. Apple continues to not just market, but take active steps toward increasing privacy and data protection for its users across its hardware lineup. I'm not at all suggesting Apple isn't worthy of criticism when they fuck up—they absolutely are. I'm only responding to the question of why a certain feature may not have been opt-in to begin with—when it appears obvious in retrospect that it should have been.

In short, Apple still has my reserved, cautious trust. Facebook and Google have long since lost it, and I can't even imagine what they might be able to do to ever earn it back.

When Apple starts building the privacy-related reputation that Google and Facebook have, I'll be all over the hate train. As it stands, as someone who believes he really cares about digital privacy for himself and others, I never thought about the fact that a Siri recording might be listened to by humans—but now, in retrospect, of course it was (I would have wanted to listen to recordings to grade my own software's responses), and of course it should have been opt-in to begin with.