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 559435
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: caring
by MOS6510 on Mon 22nd Apr 2013 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: caring"
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Jared may be considered stubborn defending Apple, but he is right that Apple didn't got pressured in revealing the retention period of Siri data.

What is more impressive is people still trying to claim Apple DID got pressured, even when they didn't, because apparently all companies and people are under constant pressure to behave a certain way.

I consider pressure an active force influenced on someone or something to achieve something. Apple, or any other company, can live by the law and still be pressured to do something. Just following the law or in this case just answering a question doesn't equal giving in to pressure.

Do you feel pressured to stop for a red light?

If you don't obey the law there could be consequences. This is what you evaluate when you are tempted to break a law. Being pressured is being forced to do or change something.

Despite laws people are still getting murdered, sometimes in groups. I doubt many murders were prevented, because someone was pressured by the law not to kill someone.

It's a kind of deja vu, but each time people try to accuse Apple of something, someone points out they are wrong and then people go to great lengths to twist and turn to try and prove Apple is in the wrong anyway.

In this case were are talking about a spokeswoman answering a question. How did we get from her to movies set in the past, the Roman Empire and the dark side of human nature?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: caring
by Alfman on Mon 22nd Apr 2013 09:23 in reply to "RE[11]: caring"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MOS6510,

"I consider pressure an active force influenced on someone or something to achieve something."

I'll concede there might be different types of pressure. What you are referring to is more like an active campaign against the company to get them to change. That doesn't fit here. Never the less, there is public pressure for companies not to do the wrong thing in the first place without waiting for a direct confrontation, which is what I've been referring to.

"Do you feel pressured to stop for a red light?"

Don't you? Other examples could be a stop sign, or school speed zone. Many people adapt their behaviour to avoid consequences and not because they want to. Corporations are the same way. If we get rid of all these silly examples, I think that maybe you and I could agree on this point.


"Despite laws people are still getting murdered, sometimes in groups. I doubt many murders were prevented, because someone was pressured by the law not to kill someone."

I do disagree here, without laws, there would be a lot more violent crime. I believe there is a deep rooted connection from a young age to follow the rules. Maybe I'm wrong.


"In this case were are talking about a spokeswoman answering a question. How did we get from her to movies set in the past, the Roman Empire and the dark side of human nature?"

Blame Jared for that tangent, I was just responding to the murder question and trying in vein to run with it. I didn't like the example either because it was hardly representative of typical people. On that note, I should thank you for choosing a red light example instead ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[13]: caring
by MOS6510 on Mon 22nd Apr 2013 09:40 in reply to "RE[12]: caring"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I was once stopped by 3(!) policemen for walking through a red light, but never mind that.

I agree that laws and rules prevent unwanted actions and events. But what I argue is that "pressure" is something that is actively applied and doesn't need to have a basis in law.

Apple isn't breaking any laws offering an iPhone without a keyboard. One can apply pressure to have them build on with a keyboard. Pressure was put on Apple to make Tim Cook visit Chinese workers for example.

A red light or a law forbidding murder are things you are aware off when planning your next move, but these laws don't actively apply pressure. They are more a factor in a combination of personal morals, needs/wants and calculated risks.

Laws you can break or obey, pressure you can resist or give in to.

Regardless of definitions, I don't think companies would do really nasty things or they would lose their customers. It gets bad when they band together and you're left with no choice.

Reply Parent Score: 2