Apple gathers user data to determine if they can trust users

they have that in china too?
only knew about this from s korea

>wanting identity to be anything beyond opt-in
cuck

America has always been home to big corps.
The fucking Adams family started the revolutionary war because their business was being hurt by taxes.
If you don't like it then fuck off and leave.

This isn't news, they have been doing this for years. The trust score is used to determine whether a user might use Apple Pay or other services for fraudulent activity. They want to verify that people are genuine.

>Apple gathers user data to determine if they can trust users
>Apple shills will defend this
INb4 Apple shill, but Microsoft and Google both do this. If you value basic human rights, use a FOSS OS.

Convince me otherwise instead of making such a pointless post. We're not here to give you attention, we're here to discuss the matter.

As stated, validity in data is more important to me. There's no detriment to me if Apple knows how many calls I make a day.

>implying it is absolutely necessary to give up privacy for convenience
this is simply people amassing power so they can remove the power of choice (aka free will) from the masses
those in power made the choice to remove your privacy, not the other way around

>you have a choice! use our product and give up every intimate detail about yourself for the rest of your life or NOT, in which case you can use this other product which doesn't even work right and even 3rd world countries won't touch
This is illusion of choice. Illusion of free will.

>he believes this does anything
LOL

Attached: Dmx4MA0UYAER5Ea.jpg (971x546, 49K)

>we only rape you orally! GOOGLE rapes you in the ASS. aren't we better? Apple is the shit! buy an iphone bud

What makes this information sensitive and desirable to be protected if you're not doing something to abuse a system susceptible to this kind of attack?
Why would it be bad to validate someones humanity and tie them to their committed data as a form of validation?

>i'm 14: the post

What if someone finds out that the 4 stars I gave an app is how I really felt?

>I'm willing to give up my privacy for more than just convenience.

Attached: )))))))))))))))))).png (1361x810, 1.13M)

I don't think he remembers turning the Bluetooth off.

Privacy is a basic human right. Not something that needs to be justified.

also,
>What makes this information sensitive and desirable
The information has value to them. The information is monetized. Which means if they take the information without consent IT IS THEFT just as real if it were someone stole money from your wallet directly. Even if this information has zero value to yourself, the fact it's desired means it still has value which can be translated to a dollars and cents. Information gathering without consent is theft of money.
In the past we had Neilson machines and people were paid for the private information they provided. Now that information that is valued and monetized is stolen without consent.

>Privacy is a basic human right. Not something that needs to be justified.
If you can't justify it, how am I supposed to sympathize with you or understand your position whatsoever.
I swear you people are complaining just for the sake of complaining since nobody can present a solid argument against this.

I tried to listen but people are downright refusing to even participate in discussion.

care to explain or provide the link so I can read what's written? faggot!

>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin,Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin

In what way is this giving up liberty. Under no circumstances do you have to participate in this.
You people are even worse. Literally use a different product/service or create your own. That's the entire point of capitalism.

>oh no the state of the market has become so bad, I guess I HAVE TO accept that

If you think you're so right, if you think this is actually important, then do something about it. You stand to make money and benefit the country as a whole.
>but I don't want to
You deserve nothing.
- Anonymous Jow Forums 2018

>Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say"
-Edward Snowden

Attached: Screenshot_20180929-132659.png (1080x1920, 278K)

That's not the argument I made at all, is it.
What's stopping you from validating your hypothesis?
You want to treat this as an actual travesty against liberty but you're not willing to do anything about it.
It's you who has nothing to say, other than echos of others who have no relevance today.

How about you start thinking and acting for yourself instead of making ironic posts on the internet.

Despite this, I'm confident you'd fail in your endevours because this isn't actually as important as you think it is. You have a warped view on what's happening, and instead of being reasonable and giving the benefit of the doubt you assume the worst. Assumptions are not something to form a basis off of.

>manipulate the way you shop, vote, and think
>no examples as to how
FUD

>Under no circumstances do you have to participate in this.
If Apple keeps it a secret then how are people suppose to choose to not participate?!?
That's like saying "Under no circumstances do you have to be struck by lightning. Simply don't be standing in the same spot the lightning bolt hits like 99% of people." If you don't know how can you choose not to participate?

>how am I supposed to sympathize with you or understand your position whatsoever.
You poor person I almost pity you. Have you never experienced the basic concept of privacy in your entire life? Can you NOT imagine what it would be like if that was taken away.
Here's an experiment you can try. You're posting on an anonymous image board right now. Post a pic of your face, tell us where you work, how much you make, your age, marital status, religious status. Sure we might judge you on these small facts, but why would it matter? What am I going to do to you if I know all this stuff about you? I'm not going to do anything but attempt to secretly judge your entire life based on a few random facts. Why should that bother you at all?
Oh I should remind you, anything you post will be on the internet FOREVER. Like I said, I won't do anything but secretly judge you but 10 years from now someone else might find this information and reject a job application or DOX you or god know what.

you're not arguing for privacy anymore, all you do is scare people into closing off, staying in shadows, ceasing communication

>to determine if THEY can trust users
did i put my pants on backward

If everything your do is public and not private, how can someone frame you? That makes no sense. Literally alibi in action.

relinquishing privacy is not a per-requisite for communication

or did you forget you're posting on anonymous basket weaving forum?

Starting off with a condescending remark has caused me to disregard your post.
At what point did you think that was going to make me care about an issue you're already trying to avoid talking about.

Learn to present your case if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise people are just going to ignore you like I'm going to do.

Facebook ads

In what way are they manipulative?

This just send a red alert to the CIA to spy you even more.

>Learn to present your case if you want to be taken seriously
You can't post on an anonymous internet forum while claiming you can't understand the need for privacy.
Please post here your name, address, photos, and other personal identifying information which removes your privacy to the total strangers in this thread right now.
If you CAN'T do this, then YOU DO understand and empathize/sympathize with people who wish to have privacy and are simply lying to yourself and us.

sadly this, maybe not CIA but in a world where everyone's privacy is violated, the few people who do protect it stick out like a sore thumb and trigger red flags

>have no frens
>be untrustworthy to apple
>not even apple is your fren evne though you pai them
such is life of incel

the higher it is, the less likely it is that you are a virgin loser with no friends and pussyless

>strawman
We're not talking about names, addresses, etc are we?
You're deflecting yet again. I legitimatley wonder if you're being sincere or if this is some ploy to gain attention more than anything else.
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about since you're struggling to find any through line.
Literally just pulling tangents out of the air.
You have 1 more post before I leave.

bump

GTFO

In sincerity, I'm sorry the world doesn't agree with you. I hope you consider working on your discussion skills if you want to try and influence policy. Here or elsewhere.

In earnest though, as I've made clear, I doubt there is any merit to your side though, so the difficulty will be on your end to convince people why you think things like this are a right and why they should give it to you. Currently, you have no reason for anyone to pay attention or to respect it, so work on both of those.

Later.

>In sincerity, I'm sorry the world doesn't agree with you.
>later

fuck off bootlicker

fpbp

If this is your attitude I can only imagine what your reflection looks like. Do you feel like the boot is crushing you? That would explain the angst.
Truly sorry for you. I can't guarantee that I'll have the time but I'll keep the thread open for you if you want to discuss something sincerely. Expect long delays between responses.

>I'm sorry the world doesn't agree with you.
Incorrect. You're assuming "the world" choose to give up their privacy. They did not. It simply happened without anybody realizing it till it already happened. It happened slowly, secretly, clandestinely, and behind a shroud of technological expertise the layman could never possibly hope to understand. Now their privacy is held hostage. "You can have your privacy back if you give up your smartphones" is the current argument. This is not a REAL choice, it is an illusion of choice.
Nobody agrees lack of privacy is good. They're just afraid to loose their smartphones.

also, not this guy but I agree with the sentiment
kindly fuck off please

already have you dipshit, and what I've done for myself is none of your concern, but you implying that this ISN'T a huge breach of privacy is utterly baffeling, why do you think this is a good thing? why is it good that corporations and government entities knowing more than anyone else ever SHOULD know about you is a good thing?
>implying the tracking programs used aren't trying to manipulate
then why is it every fucking adsense ad I see on a website is advertising for a product i barely researched? why is it conatantly reminding me to purchase said product? how is that not manipulative?

because no one does that, you're presenting a logical fallacy as a fact when no one abides by it
your argument is shit

>because no one does that
Then what's the issue?

>>manipulate the way you shop, vote, and think
>>no examples as to how
2016 elections (pic related)
the elections happening today for 2018.
Facebook is already sending out flags they're under attack and they're not able to stop it.

The several years back the government announced they developed a program that when fed enough information it could every action a person would make with 99% accuracy. The limiting factor in how accurate the program was is how much information you feed it. Given enough information it could not only predict a persons actions, but recommend how to control them.
Now imagine 20 years from now. Every action you take on the internet has been cataloged for decades. That program gets leaked. You now become a pawn of any individual in possession of that program and your internet history. If you don't advocate privacy now, you are resigning yourself to a future where the individual you no longer exists and is simply an extension of the person holding your internet history.

Attached: Trump-UN-laugh.jpg (2049x1537, 322K)

For years I've been on the fence, but today is the day "nothing to hide" has been proven as the only valid stance to have for a better society. Ironic that privacy advocates are the ones to convince me.

Accountability for ones actions are necessary.

are you retarded? everyone doesn't do everything in fucking public, and since they don't, they don't want their private information gone through like their luggage at an airport
how is this so complicated for you to understand?

Attached: 15d.gif (500x382, 167K)

>Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, "I don't really worry about invasions of privacy because I don't have anything to hide." I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, "Here's my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you're not a bad person, if you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide. Not a single person has taken me up on that offer."
-Glenn Greenwald

fucking glow harder you bootlicking faggot

Attached: glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters.jpg (720x405, 15K)

>they don't want their private information gone through like their luggage at an airport
Why should I care though? Autistic kids don't like loud noises. What's the significance.

>this pussy ass reply

Attached: brainless npc.png (732x844, 29K)

oh, so you ARE retarded, that's fine
mind sharing with me your private and work e-mail accounts, the passeords to said e-mail accounts, your login credentials to websites you visit including your banking website(s), your government identification number i.e. SSA ID numbers for US citizens, as well as all your sociak network accounts and login credentials? No? that's why you shoukd care you absolute moron

Attached: 738B60A3-678B-408D-88D4-92B07B7F0408.jpg (938x974, 89K)

Account control != account monitoring.
I don't want to be impersonated, but I have no problem with people seeing what I'm doing.
The only reason I wouldn't give out access to my email is because I don't want Glenn to redirect my fucking paystubs.
All he's done is conflate 2 separate issues.
He's lumping multiple things under the umbrella of "privacy" when they're not.

This is the same as people posting "post your credit card then".
That's a matter of security, not privacy.
If you want to know how much money I have, I'll tell you. If you want to control my money, I'm not going to allow that.

I relish in the fact that one day you rats are going to be exposed and there's obviously nothing you can do about it. You can't stop progress. Your criminal activities and spambot flooding days are numbered.

Privacy protects people.
Yes, it protects criminals from the law, but mostly it protects innocent civilians. The same way criminals drive cars but mostly innocent civilians drive them.
Why treat everyone be treated as criminals? Why does everyone need to be punished?

>if everything is known about everyone, we'll know who all the criminals are
Stop being an idealistic child.
This world is not perfect. It will NEVER be perfect. You can never achieve 100% no privacy. You are merely advocating for a world where innocent civilians publish 100% of everything and a few criminals retain their privacy/secrecy and use all the public knowledge as a tool to take advantage of everyone else.

Ironically I would be able to give you my bank account number if it was tied to me personally through some biometric sensor.
This is the arguemtn of access control vs security through obscurity.
All this does is highlight the flaws in modern systems and ironically push for more so called "privacy violations".

>biometric sensor.
bio-metric data can be faked.
India is finding this out the hard way right now.
They're super fucked and don't now how to solve their problems.

Attached: gattaca.jpg (390x166, 9K)

Why is this thread full of negroes of the glowing variety?

Why do people feel like it's a punishment to be open and honest? Why would a society where this is enforced be a bad thing?
The question gets right to the point, what ARE you trying to hide that SHOULD be hidden?

Regardless of your opinions on the matter you can't ignore the sexual rights activists of recent years. Dropping the notion that we need to hide certain aspects of ourselves has liberated these people from a life of fear and judgment.
Imagine forcing this in every regard. What are you hiding, and why are you hiding it? What if nobody could hide it, would you still have fear in it being exposed?

I reject this notion. We as a species need to have a hard transition into honesty and openness. We need to stop saying "this is how it's been so it must remain this way" and instead say "I am afraid of being persecuted for this, I think we as a society need to change how this is looked at because I am not unique in my actions or opinions".

I don't think things like Freenet are actually good, if data is deemed illegal, it either should not flow, or the laws should be changed.

Anything else is a grey halfstep that accomplishes nothing in the long term.
Which is fine, but I get real sick of people pretending they care when in reality they don't, they just want to preserve their own personal methods of circumventing the system, they don't actually care about the issue but claim they do.

>Stop being an idealistic child.
Stop being a weak willed defeatist.

That's only an example. The point is that it is a SEPARATE issue. The issue you're describing there is again another security issue, not a privacy matter.

>literally just an estimate of "is this a real person using this device?"
>absolutely no identifiable information stored
>retards are going to fill out a captcha that *actually* tracks them to call me an apple shill over this post

because it's a disinfo shill thread
nothing to see here, is anyone else getting sleepy? I'm really sleepy

how do you rationalize this making all private information about you public, literally makes you a mind controlled pawn. That isn't hyperbole, it's historical fact.
how do you rationalize giving up your free will in exchange for smart phone access?

>He dinks this means anything
Found the big brain boy

my own private conversations for one thing, whag I decide to share between myself and another party is the business of ONLY myself and the other party, not Google's, Apple's, Yahoo, NSA, CIA, GCHQ, fucking none of them
>why do people feel it's a punishment to beopem and honest
because you're forcing people to, books like Brave New World and 1984 were made to be a warning about tyrannical governments and rescinding rights, liberties, and livelihoods being forcibly altered for the controlling interests of a select few, it wasn't meant to be a fucking handbook on the subject
Human nature will always exist, there is no transcendental phase and faggots like yourself who think that we need to force each other into this phase are the crux of the issue, you're in denial about what humanity is and what it means to be human
if you think it's ok to force people to do your will then you are in for a rude awakening

Prove this does anything

What you said is a common misconstruction.
You can't say that all information is public and then treat it as if only your information is public. The same that applies to you suddenly applies to all.
The so called power and control ceases to exist since we all come to equal ground.

The people "in control" now would be just as exposed as you are. That's the whole point.

I'm not sure what the post you're quoting is even trying to imply.
Saying "the elections" is not a valid example since it doesn't explain how people were supposedly "controlled".
More importantly, it's not applicable though since even in a hypothetical situation it's dependent on some people having privacy and others not. Which is not the proposal.

I stand firm that if we were all transparent there would be no unfair means of exploitation.

When your force to choose because of how necessary a smartphone is, yes
[spoiler] anal sounds better though [/spoiler]

Prove it doesn’t.

I was mowing my lawn at 9:30 AM using my Bluetooth headphones.

Attached: A566B3D0-594D-419D-9A13-BF0ADA6E9A51.png (1876x1200, 80K)

>The people "in control" now would be just as exposed as you are. That's the whole point.

So, in the world you're proposing, the one factor that gives you power over all other humans is your individual privacy. If one person breaks the rules and retains their privacy, they hold power over everyone else. In such a world the most valuable thing would be your privacy. YOU ARE ARGUING FOR PRIVACY. Do you see the problem with this "brave new world" that you are proposing?
>but, people will just follow the rules
No, everyone simply won't.

1984 is a work of fiction, nothing more. The fantasy restrictions are the works of some person just as the outcome of those restrictions. You're right that it's not meant to be taken seriously.

>Human nature will always exist, there is no transcendental phase
What world are you living in? On a daily basis the entire species puts its animal instincts behind itself. We've ALREADY transcended multiple times. There's not a gun to our heads forcing us to cower in fear like people seem to say.
This doesn't have to be absolute.
Are we all just apes that would kill, rape, and shit naturally? Yes. Do we still do that sometimes? Yes. Are we at a high enough percentage of people not doing that? I think so.
There's no legitimate reason this can't work in practice. Are some people going to make hasty judgments? Sure, but what is the harm in that when the majority don't.

>you're in denial about what humanity is and what it means to be human
Oh the irony.

>if you think it's ok to force people to do your will then you are in for a rude awakening
It shouldn't have to be forced. That's the whole point.
The only thing people are forced to do now is hide and cower. And to me, that is the travesty, much greater than anyone's personal vanity.

>If one person breaks the rules and retains their privacy, they hold power over everyone else.
Do criminals get away with it when they retain their privacy? Lot of control they have.

Prove being on Jow Forums doesn't immediately put you under actively manned surveillance. There's a point where you need to either chill the fuck out or get off the grid entirely user.

>The submissions are designed so Apple cannot learn the real values on your device.
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

Meanwhile, Android had countless privacy issues.
>oneplus has been caught stealing user data
>xiaomi has been caught stealing user data
>samsung's trash SMS app sends random pictures to random people

Attached: lol.png (1757x237, 45K)

I wish people would stop being paranoid about being on the list.
This is part of my proposal.
What if everyone found out you posted on Jow Forums. What a nightmare!
I'm sure nobody else you know secretly posts on Jow Forums.

If people stopped hiding their own "marks", we'd all be better off. People need to band together instead of being cowards.
>I can't believe Jeff posts on Jow Forums, I'd never do such a thing and neither would anyone I associate with. They're all pedophile criminals as far as I can tell without basis.

contrast with this
>Have you heard? Jeff posts on Jow Forums
>>me too, so does me nan, so does the leader of country X, it's just an anonymous forum, who cares

Most of them defend the CoC so I'm sure getting a social credit score from Apple is something they jerk their tiny penises over.

>I'm so angry, take over my life, apple!!!

>1984 is a work of fiction, nothing more. The fantasy restrictions are the works of some person just as the outcome of those restrictions. You're right that it's not meant to be taken seriously.
>the fucking irony of this post
the fact that unwarranted surveillance being forced on the general populace due to the false narrative of "security against terrorism" proves that 1984 was more of a handbook used by those in control than just a simple work of fiction
>We've ALREADY transcended multiple times.
that's a bold claim, mind explaining how we've trascended when the VERY human traits of greed, vanity, envy, and control are still issues wr have to deal with on a daily basis?
>Oh the irony.
pot meet kettle, you've contradicted yourself in the paragraph prior to this one
>It shouldn't have to be forced. That's the whole point.
>The only thing people are forced to do now is hide and cower.
ever stop to think that they're forced to do this because it's a reaction to the force by ommission? if the corporations and govt entities and elites who forced this upon us were upfront with what exactly they were planning on doing, do you think the general populace would have been so welcoming?

>What if everyone found out you posted on Jow Forums. What a nightmare!
This is an actual nightmare, though. Picture people assuming that you, posting on Jow Forums, is the same as someone posting on /b/ or Jow Forums. What defense would you have against that? Besides having an army of moral busybodies dox you and get you fired, I mean.

wait, you think captchas are to prevent spam?

Why should I need a defense? The onus should be on the other person to not make a hasty conclusion.

What does this have to do with Ellen?

did you know when the founding fathers dreamed up America I was in complete secrecy and privacy. They literally held secret meetings in deep underground meeting rooms for fear their ideas would have them persecuted.
Free speech and free thought can not exist in a world where they're open to judgement and misinterpretation by all.
Freedom can not exist without privacy.

>The onus should be on the other person to not make a hasty conclusion.
People don't always act rationally.
People don't always act impartially and fairly.
People are not always understanding or tolerant.
For you to expect this, shows you are either immature in the ways of the world, or are simply delusional.

>the fact that unwarranted surveillance being forced on the general populace due to the false narrative of "security against terrorism" proves that 1984 was more of a handbook used by those in control than just a simple work of fiction
You have preconceived notions it seems.
I don't think we can discuss fairly with this bias in place.

>that's a bold claim, mind explaining how we've trascended when the VERY human traits of greed, vanity, envy, and control are still issues wr have to deal with on a daily basis?
I listed them in the post you're quoting.
You've listed the ones we need to overcome next.
The issue you have is that you see this as impossible when history says otherwise.
We're obviously capable of stuffing it. Even the ones you listed today.
Obviously not everyone succumbs to that all the time. Do you yourself feel chained to these emotions or do you overcome them?

>pot meet kettle, you've contradicted yourself in the paragraph prior to this one
I wish you would have pointed it out because I don't see it.
All I see is disagreement.
I feel like we can advance as a species and you don't. History is on my side here.

>ever stop to think that they're forced to do this because it's a reaction to the force by ommission
What's your proposal to this cyclical issue. How is inaction going to change anything.
You've identified the problem but have stopped there.

>For you to expect this
>expect this
>discussion about ideals
lmao

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT LOL

this option is disabled by default though. I expect like 99% of people with iphones don't enable that.

This is probably the only time the current year argument is founded.
We're not in colonial Britain and the state of the world has changed in multiple ways.

Do you see the amount of extremist views people post publicly attached to their name without detriment? This is the real world today and it's different than it was then.

I'll accept the argument that our current freedom stems from privacy, not that privacy must be maintained to maintain freedom. A catalyst is not always fuel.
Our nation is built on bloodshed and here we are discussing in peace.

explain this meme

In videogames NPC's are "non-playable characters" who lack agency.