You ask for others to provide sources to back up their comments, but don't provide any of your own.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+privacy+efforts&oq=app...
https://www.apple.com/lae/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989608/apple-data-down...
When you are the one making a claim refuting what is generally considered common knowledge, you're expected to provide SOME citation of your disputed claim... not to mention it's such a common internet troll tactic to spew BS just to make people do research to prove you're full of it that it's just kind of common courtesy to start with links (assuming you aren't a troll).
http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng...
There is a valid discussion to be had as to whether UX or data privacy should be prioritized, but I'm inclined towards UX--most people just want to get the best search results possible.
If anything, on the UX <--> privacy scale, I'd argue Apple has sometimes been prioritizing privacy too highly as of late. As a heavy user of custom Applescripts, the new TCC dialogs introduced in Mojave have been causing me a lot of grief.
_Of course_ it's possible to prove a negative. Why do people insist on repeating this as if it's actually true?
No, they aren't.
One, disproving a negative claim is exactly proving the opposite (positive, if the same style of expression is used) claim (and vice versa), so it can't be harder to both prove and disprove negative claims, even if they were real distinct classes.
Second, “positive” and “negative” claims are largely phrasing choices; it's quite possible to have positive and negative claims that are semantically equivalent.
Additionally, in this case, the claim that a company can be trusted is much more difficult to prove than the claim that they cannot be. Burden of proof, difficulty of proof, and whether the claim is expressed as a positive or a negative have no intrinsic link.
Are you saying that Apple can be proven a company that can be trusted to keep user data secure?