[ZDNet] Apple's Tim Cook: Silicon Valley has created privacy-violating 'chaos factory' - Page 5 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[ZDNet] Apple's Tim Cook: Silicon Valley has created privacy-violating 'chaos factory'

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #41 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-24-2019, 12:02 PM
professional curmudgeon
 
looniam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,484
Rep: 776 (Unique: 446)
Quote: Originally Posted by skupples View Post
i think what they mean to say is, back in the day only sleazy n shady sites did, what is now basic tech business practice.

tech firms adopted porno add bomb practices cuz they work. Where do you think Trump gets his wives?!
that would still be wrong, data mining simply do not exist. full stop.
even the first cookies, were session only, stored in ram and would be deleted by the browser when the session was closed.

businesses first scoffed at the idea of e-commerce. todd rundgren gave a keynote speech in 96 at a music conference and i watched as sony, capital, and ??? laughed at his idea that the internet would revolutionize music distribution. "ha! we got CDs! nothing is better!"

i have no sympathy for the recording industry complaining about piracy.

Remember the golden rule of statistics: A personal sample size of one is a sufficient basis upon which to draw universal conclusions.
Upload the computer to Dropbox and provide a link to it so others may download it to examine and give advice for repairs.
loon 3.2
(18 items)
CPU
i7-3770K
Motherboard
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
GPU
EVGA 980TI SC+
RAM
16Gb PNY ddr3 1866
Hard Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb
Hard Drive
1 TB Seagate
Hard Drive
3 TB WD Blue
Optical Drive
DVD DVDRW+/-
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 750 G2
Cooling
EKWB P280 kit
Cooling
EK-VGA supremacy
Case
Stryker M [hammered and drilled]
Operating System
Win X
Monitor
LG 24MC57HQ-P
Keyboard
Ducky Zero [blues]
Mouse
corsair M65
Audio
SB Recon3D
Audio
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1
▲ hide details ▲


looniam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-25-2019, 08:44 AM
Watercooler
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 512
Rep: 34 (Unique: 28)
I find it sadly hilarious that oligarch like Tim Cook is talking about privacy. Perhaps he means Apple's privacy, since they are known for being locked down and fighting tooth and nail to prevent any but them (or authorized by them) to work on and repair anything Apple.

Tim Cook has said tech companies should be gatekeepers of information and it is their duty to decide what is considered good and bad. Then it's their responsibility to subsequently squash which is labeled bad in their view. In other words, they are all wise universal power to tell the plebes what they should and shouldn't want to know, hear and/or see. So much for free speech in Tim Cooks world.

Expansionist
(17 items)
CPU
Intel Core i7 5930K
Motherboard
EVGA X99 FTW K
GPU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 K|NGP|N
GPU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 K|NGP|N
RAM
G.Skill Trident Z
Hard Drive
Western Digital Black 4TB
Hard Drive
Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSD
Optical Drive
Pioneer BDXL Blu-Ray
Power Supply
Seasonic X1250W
Cooling
Custom Liquid Cooling System
Case
CaseLabs Merlin ST10
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Dell S2716DG
Keyboard
Azio - Armato
Mouse
Mionix Castor
Mouse
EVGA
Audio
Creative Labs Blaster ZX
▲ hide details ▲
Questors is offline  
post #43 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-25-2019, 10:49 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
skupples's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 17,820
Rep: 533 (Unique: 302)
the gate keeper theory of journalism is obscene... however, I think if you break it down far enough, it's all gate keeping... It's just the intentional ideological version that causes issues... Which is now the only version of information delivery we know in mass.

R.I.P. Zawarudo, may you OC angels' wings in heaven.
If something appears too good to be true, it probably is.
skupples is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #44 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-25-2019, 10:38 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
1Kaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 272
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
Quote: Originally Posted by looniam View Post
because there are nefarious agents committing acts to invade your privacy doesn't mean there is no fundamental privacy or the expectation of privacy
Here's where we disagree. I believe, if there are nefarious agents committing acts to invade my privacy, I should understand that I have no privacy. Therefor, there is no fundamental privacy. As long as there is a way, there's a will.

You can spout legal precedence all you want, but there's no guarantee that anyone is going to follow the law. The law allows for prosecution should a criminal be caught, that is, if the law has any reach in the country they are in.

The bottom line is, if it is fundamentally possible, I should take whatever precautions I can to make sure my information isn't obtained. In the world of piracy (copied information that is illegal to own), there's a saying "Hail Hydra". For every head you cut off, 3 more reproduce. For every copy of data you take down, 3 more have been reproduced elsewhere. Once my information is in the wild, I can never be certain it will return.

P.S. The U.S. has no desire to create privacy, because we are using all that information to feed AI. China does not allow individuals privacy. You have to get permission just to use a VPN. What do you think they are doing with all that data? The AI arms race has already begun.
1Kaz is offline  
post #45 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-25-2019, 11:27 PM
professional curmudgeon
 
looniam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,484
Rep: 776 (Unique: 446)
Quote: Originally Posted by 1Kaz View Post
Here's where we disagree. I believe, if there are nefarious agents committing acts to invade my privacy, I should understand that I have no privacy. Therefor,
Spoiler!
ah, thats a long line of fallacious reasoning.

if someone came and took your ball; would you never of had a ball? does it then cease to exist? so you should always expect someone to steal your ball?

no, not everyone obeys laws and regulations however, that does not dictate to give up the principles they protect. its what a society with its values, norms and mores will allow or tolerate; not whether or not someone is breaking the law.

but you are welcome to your defeatist attitude.

Remember the golden rule of statistics: A personal sample size of one is a sufficient basis upon which to draw universal conclusions.
Upload the computer to Dropbox and provide a link to it so others may download it to examine and give advice for repairs.
loon 3.2
(18 items)
CPU
i7-3770K
Motherboard
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
GPU
EVGA 980TI SC+
RAM
16Gb PNY ddr3 1866
Hard Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb
Hard Drive
1 TB Seagate
Hard Drive
3 TB WD Blue
Optical Drive
DVD DVDRW+/-
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 750 G2
Cooling
EKWB P280 kit
Cooling
EK-VGA supremacy
Case
Stryker M [hammered and drilled]
Operating System
Win X
Monitor
LG 24MC57HQ-P
Keyboard
Ducky Zero [blues]
Mouse
corsair M65
Audio
SB Recon3D
Audio
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1
▲ hide details ▲


looniam is offline  
post #46 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-26-2019, 12:59 PM
Robotic Chemist
 
Asmodian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 2,485
Rep: 180 (Unique: 120)
Quote: Originally Posted by looniam View Post
no, not everyone obeys laws and regulations however, that does not dictate to give up the principles they protect. its what a society with its values, norms and mores will allow or tolerate; not whether or not someone is breaking the law.
I see, your argument that the Internet used to care about privacy is that Society at large used to care more but the legal and hardware infrastructure is the same or better today. So the only change in regards to the internet and privacy is how Society reacts to what has always been possible and legal but is more widespread and is commonly understood to be happening today.

If a website was tracking you in the 90s you wouldn't have known about it and it would have been perfectly legal. I really do not see how privacy protection can be argued to be worse today. We should probably do something to regulate it, similar to phone and mail, but I do not see how the first decade of the Internet can be thought of as "the good ol' days" with regards to Internet privacy.
Asmodian is offline  
post #47 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-26-2019, 02:53 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
1Kaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 272
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
Quote: Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
If a website was tracking you in the 90s you wouldn't have known about it and it would have been perfectly legal. I really do not see how privacy protection can be argued to be worse today. We should probably do something to regulate it, similar to phone and mail, but I do not see how the first decade of the Internet can be thought of as "the good ol' days" with regards to Internet privacy.
The biggest difference being, websites in the 90's didn't have the omnipresence links to hundreds of thousands of other websites, allowing them to track your browsing trends across multiple websites. They also hadn't developed javascript tracking as much. It is possible for them to tell the difference between you and someone else using your computer, based upon mouse movements and clicks. That is what Tim Cook is against. The U.S. is unlikely to do anything about privacy until we have large enough sets of data that we don't need more to feed AI. Tim Cook is very concerned about AI and the directions it can go.
https://www.businessinsider.com/appl...s-data-2018-10

Bottom line, the US, China, and Russia are all in a cold war to develop AI first and make it the best AI. The more data they feed AI, the faster it can grow. There is a lot of debate about how AI should be used, if it should be allowed to run autonomous weapons, etc. There's been very little discussion on how to build a moral compass of AI and just what that means for society. Tim Cook is advocating that we should build a moral compass for AI that includes respecting privacy. If we stop and build a compass, our AI may develop slower and other countries may use their AI to exploit others. No doubt, AI will need a moral compass at some point or it poses a significant risk to society. That development part will probably happen as AI transitions out of the narrow field into widespread use. If it doesn't, society is probably screwed.

The reason AI isn't mainstream; there's a lot of overlap between private and public uses. AI that can sort your photos for you can also be used to categorize satellite images. AI that can tag photos with facial reorganization can be used for target identification on weapon systems. As long as their are nations we don't want to have this technology, it cannot be available to the masses. The age of AI is already here, we just don't see it yet.

Quote: Originally Posted by looniam View Post
ah, thats a long line of fallacious reasoning.

if someone came and took your ball; would you never of had a ball? does it then cease to exist? so you should always expect someone to steal your ball?

no, not everyone obeys laws and regulations however, that does not dictate to give up the principles they protect. its what a society with its values, norms and mores will allow or tolerate
I would have had a ball that got stolen, which means I wouldn't have a ball anymore. If I bought another ball, I would understand that it too can be stolen. I may take precautions, such as writing my name on the ball and taking it home instead of leaving it by the court.

Principles do not offer protection. I would never steal a bike, but that didn't prevent someone from stealing mine off my front porch. I always lock my bikes now.

The best route is educating people to the possible outcomes and teaching them how to protect themselves. We should always strive to have principles, but we should never assume that someone else shares those principles.

Last edited by 1Kaz; 06-26-2019 at 03:09 PM.
1Kaz is offline  
post #48 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-26-2019, 05:01 PM
professional curmudgeon
 
looniam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,484
Rep: 776 (Unique: 446)
Quote: Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
I see, your argument that the Internet used to care about privacy is that Society at large used to care more but the legal and hardware infrastructure is the same or better today. So the only change in regards to the internet and privacy is how Society reacts to what has always been possible and legal but is more widespread and is commonly understood to be happening today.

If a website was tracking you in the 90s you wouldn't have known about it and it would have been perfectly legal. I really do not see how privacy protection can be argued to be worse today. We should probably do something to regulate it, similar to phone and mail, but I do not see how the first decade of the Internet can be thought of as "the good ol' days" with regards to Internet privacy.
no, that isn't my argument nor could you extrapolate that from my reply since it is discussing bad actors aka nefarious agents (people doing bad things). that is not directly related to the infrastructure of the internet; which is not animate or can't care about privacy.

again, it was a day when not only could you be private but also anonymous on the internet, type away on your keyboard w/o being monitored while you clutched a copy of the anarchistic cook book.

Quote: Originally Posted by 1Kaz View Post
I would have had a ball that got stolen, which means I wouldn't have a ball anymore. If I bought another ball, I would understand that it too can be stolen. I may take precautions, such as writing my name on the ball and taking it home instead of leaving it by the court.

Principles do not offer protection. I would never steal a bike, but that didn't prevent someone from stealing mine off my front porch. I always lock my bikes now.

The best route is educating people to the possible outcomes and teaching them how to protect themselves. We should always strive to have principles, but we should never assume that someone else shares those principles.
we do agree more than disagree. but i must insist principles are what offers protection but it doesn't mean the principles themselves don't need protections. your bike is stolen but you don't call the police, so would you ever get it back?

sure, it doesn't work out in real life that calling the cops gets your bike returned and/or the thief facing consequences. w/o taking action against the thief nothing will deter them from doing it again. to be clear, i would agree to being practical and lock up your bike afterwords though but you, yourself said you would never steal a bike; that's a principle offering protection.

no?

E:
i agree with being realistic on what to expect and protecting yourself today. i also agree with educating others - just saying.

Remember the golden rule of statistics: A personal sample size of one is a sufficient basis upon which to draw universal conclusions.
Upload the computer to Dropbox and provide a link to it so others may download it to examine and give advice for repairs.
loon 3.2
(18 items)
CPU
i7-3770K
Motherboard
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
GPU
EVGA 980TI SC+
RAM
16Gb PNY ddr3 1866
Hard Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb
Hard Drive
1 TB Seagate
Hard Drive
3 TB WD Blue
Optical Drive
DVD DVDRW+/-
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 750 G2
Cooling
EKWB P280 kit
Cooling
EK-VGA supremacy
Case
Stryker M [hammered and drilled]
Operating System
Win X
Monitor
LG 24MC57HQ-P
Keyboard
Ducky Zero [blues]
Mouse
corsair M65
Audio
SB Recon3D
Audio
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1
▲ hide details ▲


looniam is offline  
post #49 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-26-2019, 05:29 PM
Robotic Chemist
 
Asmodian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 2,485
Rep: 180 (Unique: 120)
Quote: Originally Posted by looniam View Post
no, that isn't my argument nor could you extrapolate that from my reply since it is discussing bad actors aka nefarious agents (people doing bad things). that is not directly related to the infrastructure of the internet; which is not animate or can't care about privacy.

again, it was a day when not only could you be private but also anonymous on the internet, type away on your keyboard w/o being monitored while you clutched a copy of the anarchistic cook book.
You could think you were anonymous....

So why is the Internet less private now than it was then? It isn't because the laws, hardware, or client side software has changed. Web sites could and did abuse the data they had on their users. I simply don't see how the 90s can be considered a golden age of privacy on the Internet when there were basically zero privacy protections. We had less data on the Internet but the privacy of that data wasn't any better than it is today, it was probably even worse.

I agree with Tim Cook, we have created a problem, but we started creating it as soon as we started using the Internet. Don't let our naivete during the 90s fool you into thinking that was a better time.
Asmodian is offline  
post #50 of 57 (permalink) Old 06-26-2019, 07:20 PM
professional curmudgeon
 
looniam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,484
Rep: 776 (Unique: 446)
Quote: Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
You could think you were anonymous....

So why is the Internet less private now than it was then? It isn't because the laws, hardware, or client side software has changed. Web sites could and did abuse the data they had on their users. I simply don't see how the 90s can be considered a golden age of privacy on the Internet when there were basically zero privacy protections. We had less data on the Internet but the privacy of that data wasn't any better than it is today, it was probably even worse.

I agree with Tim Cook, we have created a problem, but we started creating it as soon as we started using the Internet. Don't let our naivete during the 90s fool you into thinking that was a better time.
first of all, it wasn't think, it was know. that has been explained how several times and not by just myself. the retort you have is less than conjecture; you have some whacky reasoning if something didn't exist because it had no protections.

never considering it didn't NEED them. you know, when privacy wasn't an issue and you completely deny the hardware software/hardware changes since.

but you insist it wasn't there, so yeah, wouldn't fit your narrative. in which not one single premise is true.

you probably can't "see in the 90s" if you were there but certainly can't in your head. sorry.

"cool story bro" file:
a buddy of mine worked as a tech for verio in cleveland in 94-96. nice big A/C room with the phones lines running in connecting to the modems connected to the T3 backbone. at no time did they monitor connects unless troubleshooting a particular modem. at most the mac address shows up however no phone number that called. but that in of itself has nothing to help identify a person. (you need to be in actual possession of it)

what you keep trying to exert simply did not exist.

Remember the golden rule of statistics: A personal sample size of one is a sufficient basis upon which to draw universal conclusions.
Upload the computer to Dropbox and provide a link to it so others may download it to examine and give advice for repairs.
loon 3.2
(18 items)
CPU
i7-3770K
Motherboard
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
GPU
EVGA 980TI SC+
RAM
16Gb PNY ddr3 1866
Hard Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb
Hard Drive
1 TB Seagate
Hard Drive
3 TB WD Blue
Optical Drive
DVD DVDRW+/-
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 750 G2
Cooling
EKWB P280 kit
Cooling
EK-VGA supremacy
Case
Stryker M [hammered and drilled]
Operating System
Win X
Monitor
LG 24MC57HQ-P
Keyboard
Ducky Zero [blues]
Mouse
corsair M65
Audio
SB Recon3D
Audio
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1
▲ hide details ▲


looniam is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off