XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 9/24/24 11:45 AM, Newyana2 wrote:   
   > On 9/24/2024 9:13 AM, -hh wrote:   
   >   
   >>> "Standard data protection is the default setting for your account.   
   >>> Your iCloud data is encrypted, the encryption keys are secured in   
   >>> Apple data centers so we can help you with data recovery, and   
   >>> only certain data is end-to-end encrypted."   
   >>>   
   >>> Translation: Apple have your data.   
   >>>   
   >>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Except that it wasn't in contention that Apple has one's data.   
   >>   
   >   
   >    Actually this started with me using the example of online iPhone   
   > backup as an example of how people trust Apple and don't care   
   > about their privacy. Alan then said the data is encrypted. This   
   > blurb and link are simply to show that Apple does, indeed, have   
   > access to the data by default.   
   >   
      
   Access to .. an encrypted file without the encryption key:   
   what's the commercial value of that?   
      
      
      
   >> What was in contention was your claim that Apple is like Google, in   
   >> claiming unlimited legal rights to it  (e.g. "we can do whatever we   
   >> damn well please with your data").   
   >>   
   >   
   >    They don't need to claim. It's already legal precendent.   
      
   Except that lawyers have been very astute in making sure that such uses   
   are clearly detailed in the ELUA agreement with the customer, so that if   
   it does go to court, they slam-dunk win.  You've not provided the   
   substantiation of any such legal language being present.   
      
      
      
   > There have   
   > been cases where courts demanded all email from a gmail customer,   
   > for example. But they don't demand it from the person. They demand   
   > it from Google. For you to put your files on their server gives them a   
   > degree of legal co-ownership.   
      
   Once again:   
   Access is to .. an encrypted file without the encryption key.   
      
      
   > It's similar with Microsoft's online   
   > data storage or Adobe's Photoshop rental. You data is no longer   
   > completely yours once you let them hold it.   
      
      
   Do they only hold data encrypted so that they can't access it?   
   Because that's what's required for you to claim similarity.   
      
      
   >    Of course, Google claims the right to rifle through your email.   
      
   Whereas Apple does not, plus due to the encryption, they made it so that   
   they also cannot do so even if they wanted to.   
      
      
   > Interestingly, attempts by non-gmailers to sue them over that have   
   > failed. Google's basic argument is, "Hey, everyone knows we're sleazeballs.   
   > Anyone writing an email to a gmail account can reasonably be expected   
   > to know that we're going to treat it as our property." And Google won!   
   > I suppose it comes down to the idea that "possession is 9/10ths of   
   > ownership".   
      
   No, its because they wrote it in for themselves in their EULA, and the   
   customer agreed to those service terms.   
      
      
   > It's also convenient for governments. Law enforcement demands   
   > that these companies hand over whatever they want. The companies   
   > pretend to resist. But in the end, only the customer has an interest   
   > in their own rights.   
      
   There's inevitably multiple interests from multiple parties. Another one   
   that's cropped up in small players has been "we will never..." privacy   
   promise, but then when the company gets bought up by a   
   Microsoft/whoever, that prior promise disappears.  IIRC, there's been   
   some instances where the buyer has gone on to sell that 'private'   
   customer data.  The question here for customers is how to address this   
   as a risk factor; one potential approach is to limit service use to a   
   corporate entity that's large enough to make buyouts unlikely.   
      
      
   >> Now the above language doesn't say that for Apple so please try again   
   >> to substantiate your assertion that Apple is free to do whatever they   
   >> want.   
   >>   
   >   
   >    :) I'm not going to substantiate anything.   
      
      
   That was probable from the start; now that you've positively confirmed   
   that you're no better than a troll making baseless accusations, that's   
   all that the public needs to know about your utter lack of credibility.   
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)