Hacker News Reader

Comment by aub3bhat | Hacker News Reader

Consider the fact that Google open-sourced pioneering RAPPOR when it started using it for collecting information about malicious websites visited by the users on Chrome. Apple on the other hand is collecting far more invasive data about keystrokes while hiding the details of implementation. Why should we trust whoever apple trots out at its keynote? How is this different from people who trusted Theranos since its board was filled with former secretary of state and such.

Apples approach towards research and privacy is designed to make press headlines and fool reporters similar to Theranos. Its time to hold Apple to standards of Peer Review as practiced by Google, Facebook and others.

https://research.googleblog.com/2014/10/learning-statistics-...

View on HN

Apple on the other hand is collecting far more invasive data about keystrokes

Wait what?! Do you have any evidence of this or you just pulling this out of your butt?

"Improving quicktype predictions" => "sending keystrokes with randomized response"

https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/14/apple-differential-priva...

So you're citing crap bloggers that don't have a clue about what they are talking about, and don't present any evidence for what they write?

Good!

Just look at official Apple keynote video at 1 Hour 40 Minute mark. They clearly show Differential Privacy next to contextual typing suggestions.

The article contradicts your statement.

If you assume that the Apple implementation is perfect then sure it does contradict.

Hell given the amount of information people store on cloud, It might not even be a big deal.

But its not wrong to seek verification via peer review since they are making bold claims.

Your claim that they are collecting 'invasive' data is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and yet you falsely stated it as fact, while comparing Apple with Theranos.

Just look at official Apple keynote video at 1 Hour 40 Minute mark. They clearly show Differential Privacy next to contextual typing suggestions and mention it. There is no magic its software and if Apple claims to have made some Differentially Private method to provide contextual typing suggestions they ought to open up the system for inspections so that users can verify amount of information being transferred. And this is not unprecedented since its exactly what Google did. Otherwise Apple should get off the high horse.

Can you imagine Apple claiming to implement a non NIST crypto and refusing to divulge details claiming security by obscurity. Everyone would cry bloody murder.

Apples behavior couldn't be further from theranos in this case. Apple is essentially selling kool-aid and you are drinking it.

Google did nothing of the sort. They opened only a single feature of chrome to this kind of inspection.

Do you have any idea what kind of data google collects from Android users and stores as part of their profile?

I thought not.

They opened up the feature that they claimed used "differential privacy".

Sure but it is in no way comparable to what Apple is doing or claiming.

Apple makes some bold claims about how they respect user privacy and don't create profiles across their whole system.

Could there be bugs in that causing it to be imperfect? Sure.

Could they just be deceiving their customers? Very unlikely given the number of employees who would need to collide in such a fraud.

Asking Apple to open their systems to enable this to be audited is as reasonable as asking Google to open-source the search algorithm so it can be audited for political bias.

Are you calling for that too?

And just to be clear - Google doesn't make any claims about not creating a detailed identifiable profile on each user, incorporating all the data across all their services as they see fit.

If you are going to accuse Apple of lying, the burden of proof is on you.

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If Apple like Theranos claims to have developed "Novel Differential Privacy algo" / "finger prick blood testing", it ought to have its claims examined via peer review. The burden of proof lies on the entity making ground breaking claims.

So then you'd agree that Google, who claims that their search algorithm is not politically biased, should have its claims examined via peer review?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com