Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Apr 2013 14:09 UTC
Apple "All of those questions, messages, and stern commands that people have been whispering to Siri are stored on Apple servers for up to two years, Wired can now report. Yesterday, we raised concerns about some fuzzy disclosures in Siri's privacy policy. After our story ran, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller called to explain Apple's policy, something privacy advocates have asking for." Apple cares about your privacy.
Thread beginning with comment 559425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: caring
by Alfman on Sun 21st Apr 2013 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: caring"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

"Do you feel it's fair to say that you are pressured to not commit murder because it's illegal?"

Well, it's not in my own constitution anyways, but generally speaking I think it's absolutely the case. I believe there were a lot more murders in the lawless wild west and probably also places like the roman empire where murder was rampant (at least according to Hollywood, any historians feel free to correct this misconception). People find murder appalling today because that's what we were raised to believe, but these same people are fine with it in war because that's what we were raised to believe and our laws make it ok.


"Do you feel it's fair to say that Apple planned to keep this data until the end of time until this one article so they changed their policy overnight?"

My point apparently hasn't sunken in yet. Apple undoubtedly WOULD keep the data IF they thought they could get away with it without public criticism. Good companies can ANTICIPATE public criticism BEFORE it gets to that point. I still view this as a form of public pressure, and it's good when things happen this way.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: caring
by jared_wilkes on Sun 21st Apr 2013 20:35 in reply to "RE[8]: caring"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Well, it's not in my own constitution anyways, but generally speaking I think it's absolutely the case.


It's against YOUR constitution to commit murder, but generally MOST PEOPLE absolutely would commit murder if they weren't "pressured" by the law not to? Seriously? You're going to argue that? Based on what?

I believe there were a lot more murders in the lawless wild west and probably also places like the roman empire where murder was rampant (at least according to Hollywood, any historians feel free to correct this misconception).


Oh... based on MOVIES set 150 or 4000 years ago. Good argument.

My point apparently hasn't sunken in yet. Apple undoubtedly WOULD keep the data IF they thought they could get away with it without public criticism. Good companies can ANTICIPATE public criticism BEFORE it gets to that point. I still view this as a form of public pressure, and it's good when things happen this way.


Your point is understood by me and it's wrong. We don't write articles about the entire population everyday saying, "John Doe Finally Pressured into Not Killing." It's absurdity to claim that Apple was pressured or finally acted in response to a single article. Another example, if Google announced Maps updates tomorrow, it would be nonsense to say, "Google finally responds to competitive pressure from Apple Maps." You can regressively say that it is generally true that companies respond to competitive pressures or you can point to a year old blog post that says Apple Maps will hurt Google, but if I made that claim in comments or in an article, people would have every right to say there is no basis for such a claim. Argue and argue all you want about how you can justify that which you have no evidence for (or are you going to mention Westerns again?) but my sole point initially was that "finally" was fundamentally absurd and something you rarely see being perpetrated against any company other than Apple in a generally routine, systematic, and accepted fashion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: caring
by Alfman on Mon 22nd Apr 2013 01:02 in reply to "RE[9]: caring"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

"It's against YOUR constitution to commit murder, but generally MOST PEOPLE absolutely would commit murder if they weren't 'pressured' by the law not to? Seriously? You're going to argue that? Based on what?"

Please don't stoop this low, I never indicated that most people would commit murder. I think it was tasteless to use murder as an example (my example was taxes), but the point stands even at the extreme of murder. The laws and consequences for it are undoubtedly better at discouraging it than having no laws or consequences at all. If this is wrong, then ask yourself why there are laws on the books against murder?


"Oh... based on MOVIES set 150 or 4000 years ago. Good argument."

It was half joking there, there's no denying humanity can be brutal when there are no rules.


"Your point is understood by me and it's wrong. We don't write articles about the entire population everyday saying, 'John Doe Finally Pressured into Not Killing.' It's absurdity to claim that Apple was pressured or finally acted in response to a single article..."


You are obviously not getting it. Your too stubborn in your quest to defend apple at all costs that you don't realize that this criticism is waged at all corporations. Corporations don't care except to the extent that it would hurt sales, apple is not an exception. This is what Laurence, Soulbender, and I have been saying from the get go. If you truly did get it, then you'd have to admit that your argument is a straw man because I certainly never said apple's actions are a response to a single article. This article is not relevant to my views at all.

Edited 2013-04-22 01:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3