from the proposition-for-invasion-of-your-privacy dept.
Leaders today must be ready to take a stand on thorny social and political issues. A case study by Nien-hê Hsieh and Henry McGee examines how Apple CEO Tim Cook turned calls for data access into a rallying cry for privacy, and the complexities that followed:
Apple CEO Tim Cook didn't come to his post with an activist agenda, yet when law enforcement officials began pressuring the company to hand over iPhone users' data without their permission, Cook took what he believed was a moral stance to protect consumers' privacy.
[...] "We believe that a company that has values and acts on them can really change the world," Cook said in 2015, a year after Apple debuted new privacy measures that blocked law enforcement from accessing its customers' data. "There is an opportunity to do work that is infused with moral purpose." He said shareholders who were only looking for a return on investment "should get out of the stock."
A Harvard Business School case study and its revision, Apple: Privacy vs. Safety (A) and (B), illustrates the complex ramifications that companies should consider when putting their stake in the ground on challenging societal issues like privacy. The authors of the case offer a suggestion for CEOs: Few corporations can expect to steer clear of the lightning-rod issues of the day, so perhaps it's best to meet them head on as part of the job.
"What is new is the expectation that a company will have a position on social and political issues," says Nien-hê Hsieh, the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at HBS, who coauthored the case. Staking out a clear social position can actually help a company's bottom line, boosting employee morale, making workers more productive, and attracting customers who feel they can trust the company, say the authors.
Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
Previously:
Europe Agrees New Law to Curb Big Tech Dominance
Your iCloud Data is "Phenomenal" to Law Enforcement Agencies
Apple's "Do Not Track" Button is Privacy Theater
iPhone Apps No Better for Privacy Than Android, Oxford Study Finds
Related Stories
iPhone apps no better for privacy than Android, Oxford study finds:
"Overall, we find that neither platform is clearly better than the other for privacy across the dimensions we studied," say the academic paper entitled "Are iPhones Really Better for Privacy?" and presented by researchers from the University of Oxford.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, it may be because an Irish team earlier this year came to similar conclusions about the privacy of the Android and iOS core operating systems, apps notwithstanding. Meanwhile, an American researcher in 2020 found that the security of iOS apps was roughly equal to that of Android apps.
[...] The researchers analyzed the code, permissions and network traffic of 12,000 randomly selected free apps from each platform that had been updated or released in 2018 or later. Each app was run on a real device, either a first-generation iPhone SE running iOS 14.2 or a Google Nexus 5 running Android 7 Nougat.
They found that nearly all (89%) of the Android apps contained at least one tracking library, which was almost always Google Play Services. The numbers weren't much lower on iOS, where 79% of apps had at least one tracking library, most likely Apple's own SKADNetwork, which tracks which ads a user clicks on.
Apple's 'Do Not Track' Button Is Privacy Theater:
Earlier this year Apple received ample coverage about how the company was making privacy easier for its customers by introducing a new, simple, tracking opt-out button for users as part of an iOS 14.5 update. Early press reports heavily hyped the concept, which purportedly gave consumers control of which apps were able to collect and monetize user data or track user behavior across the internet. Advertisers (most notably Facebook) cried like a disappointed toddler at Christmas, given the obvious fact that giving users more control over data collection and monetization, means less money for them.
By September researchers had begun to notice that Apple's opt-out system was somewhat performative anyway. The underlying system only really blocked app makers from accessing one bit of data: your phone's ID for Advertisers, or IDFA. There were numerous ways for app makers to track users anyway, so they quickly got to work doing exactly that, collecting information on everything from your IP address and battery charge and volume levels, to remaining device storage, metrics that can be helpful in building personalized profiles of each and every Apple user.
[...] Here's the thing. There's been just an absolute torrent of studies showing how "anonymizing" data is a gibberish term. It only takes a few additional snippets of data to identify "anonymized" users, yet the term is still thrown around by companies as a sort of "get out of jail free" card when it comes to not respecting user privacy. There's an absolute ocean of data floating around the data broker space that comes from apps, OS makers, hardware vendors, and telecoms, and "anonymizing" data doesn't really stop any of them from building detailed profiles on you.
Apple's opt-out button is largely decorative, helping the company brand itself as hyper privacy conscious without actually doing the heavy lifting required of such a shift [...]
In other words, it's B.A.D. (Broken As Designed).
I've found this story on CodePre.com:
A secret recording of a presentation by a surveillance company has revealed how Apple has aided law enforcement agencies and state-sponsored surveillance programs by providing iCloud data. The presentation also revealed that with data from the likes of Facebook and Google, unsuspecting targets could be tracked within a three-foot radius.
The revealing presentation in question was delivered by PenLink's Scott Tuma at the National Sheriffs Association winter conference and was recorded by Tech Inquiry founder Jack Poulson. Organizations like PenLink are nondescript service providers that work behind the scenes to help the US government track criminals. PenLink is based in Nebraska and earns $20 million each year for the services it provides. He gained notoriety as a wiretapper in the 2000s when his services helped convict Scott Peterson of gruesome murders. Serves federal authorities such as the FBI, DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and local and state police.
Forbes reports that Tuma called Apple's assistance (when required by court order) through iCloud backups and data "phenomenal." "If you did something wrong, I bet I could find it in that backup," he said. Meanwhile, the iPhone maker claims that it allows users to encrypt their backups. He also says that he responds to law enforcement agencies directly upon request and not through private companies like PenLink. The company has also publicly refused to unlock iPhones in the past for the privacy and security of users.
Other surprising revelations in Tuma's presentation suggest that PenLink can exploit activity on almost any social media platform, including those that advertise foolproof end-to-end encryption. Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and Google.
Europe Agrees New Law to Curb Big Tech Dominance
Europe agrees new law to curb Big Tech dominance:
European lawmakers have agreed on new rules which they hope will curb the dominance of Big Tech companies.
Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), giants such as Google and Apple will be forced to open up their services and platforms to other businesses.
[...] The announcement is the biggest regulatory move yet from the EU to act against what it defines as "anti-trust" or anti-competitive behaviour from mainly US technology businesses.
"The agreement ushers in a new era of tech regulation worldwide," said German MEP Andreas Schwab, who led the negotiations for the European Parliament.
[...] The targets of the law include WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, iMessage, the App Store, Google Play and many other services belonging to large tech firms.
The EU wants to give users more choice over how people send messages. The new rules would require that technology make their messaging services interoperable with smaller competitors.
However, Apple said it was "concerned that some provisions of the DMA will create unnecessary privacy and security vulnerabilities for our users".
Meanwhile, Google said: "While we support many of the DMA's ambitions around consumer choice and interoperability, we're worried that some of these rules could reduce innovation and the choice available to Europeans."
The law will only affect companies with a value of more than €75bn (£63bn), annual sales of €7.5bn and at least 45 million monthly users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @07:07PM (1 child)
Pfft... Hardly matters.. you aren't gonna have it
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 15 2022, @07:13PM
Using math and telling people about it is one thing.
Apple using that math to actually make your phone secure is another thing.
And, whether or not the feds can break that encryption is a third thing.
I would only consider the first thing to be a human right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @07:14PM (5 children)
Does Apple offer the same privacy "rights" to users in China? Or is this a US thing?
The best assumption to make is that you have no privacy on your cell phone. The brand is irrelevant
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 15 2022, @10:54PM
And for whatever it's worth, Androids are much worse than iPhones [scss.tcd.ie] in this department.
My general assumption is that all data I give to any company, or place on any device with any proprietary software is going to be shared somewhere. And possibly data put on devices with proprietary hardware running open source software as well.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @11:10PM (3 children)
Android's business model is built on selling out users' private information and stopping support after two years.
Apple's is built on mollycoddling users with high-priced status symbols with a five-year life expectancy.
Apple may be worth a few hundred extra, depending on how you value your privacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @11:49PM (2 children)
Apple gear is also sturdy, quality hardware with an OS that is updated long past when Android phones are. Pay upfront (Apple), or pay down the line (Android). It's like with Japanese cars (not as true as it used to be) vs. American cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @11:56PM (1 child)
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/5/24/17389220/apple-bendgate-internal-documents-iphone-6-plus [theverge.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:08AM
I've dropped my iPhone 11 without a case into concrete several times. Glass is still intact.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @07:38PM (7 children)
"Staking out a clear social position can actually help a company's bottom line, boosting employee morale, making workers more productive, and attracting customers who feel they can trust the company, say the authors."
Complete bullshit. That's not what makes you money. Having a product or service that people will pay for will make you money. If course, if you have no real competition, whether for business reasons or political reasons (you are buddy-buddy with the Federal govt), then it doesn't matter and you can engage in politics.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @07:46PM (3 children)
Thus why we need laws to enforce privacy so that all the scummy capitalists willing to lie and cheat their way to marketshare can be properly sued out of existence. Btw, "can" was the keyword, google got a lot of mileage from "don't be evil" they just failed to prevent becoming evil.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:16AM (2 children)
It should be noted that "Don't be evil" is phrased as an admonition to others, not as a description of Google's ethics.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday June 17 2022, @08:06AM (1 child)
So you say Google's goal is to have a monopoly on being evil? :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 17 2022, @08:27AM
They hates competition, they do...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @09:27PM (1 child)
In a crowded marketplace, companies are desperate to differentiate themselves from one another. Having "ethics" is one way a company can differentiate itself. Consider DuckDuckGo. Without their privacy ethics, they would be roadkill. No one would use them. It's not like their search engine is that great. Of course, a company only has an incentive to have "ethics" if they can successfully signal those ethics to someone that cares and that matters to the company's bottom line. Employees and customers both qualify.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @02:33AM
It's harder to do what DuckDuckGo has done with physical gadgets, because if you really want to prove that your gadget respects privacy then you need to be open source from top to bottom. All the smaller companies trying to do that have failed - either gone out of business, or launched something so unusable that it will never capture 0.1% of the market. None of the major players with enough money to actually make a provably privacy-respecting phone work are interested.
My wild ass guess is that Apple respects privacy better than Google because Apple's business model isn't built around selling user data - at least not yet. But I don't know that Apple respects privacy so much better than Google that it matters. If Google sells my location data and purchase history to 94 companies, and Apple leaks my location data and purchase history to one company that sells it to Google and then Google sells it to 93 companies, Apple's superior privacy has not effectively made a difference.
And for what it's worth, I am not sure we can trust DuckDuckGo either. The site is proprietary, who knows what they collect? I still use the site, but it's out of hope and not conviction.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 15 2022, @10:56PM
Notice that they didn't actually say that the company in question would do anything substantive. You can "stake out a clear social position" with a nice cheap press release or a corporate Tweet, while at the same time completely ignoring that "clear social position" when it comes to anything that actually matters.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2022, @07:52PM (4 children)
Let me rephrase that for everyone:
"Is Privacy a Basic Human Right?"
Answer: YES.
Fuck iPhones, Android "Phones", IoT shit, laptops, desktops, and pads of paper. It's all the same.
Shit "In the cloud" (that is, outsourced servers in China) is different because you already handed your data over to someone else, but you don't understand that. Still, the same principals should apply here too.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @08:05PM (2 children)
Some people had something to say about that some time ago.
(Score: 5, Touché) by vux984 on Wednesday June 15 2022, @09:02PM (1 child)
Alas, the definition of 'reasonable' was left pretty wide-open.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:57PM
If I write a paper about you, whose paper is it?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday June 17 2022, @08:12AM
Why should the same chiefs apply there? Don't you think a diversity of leaders would be better? :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 15 2022, @08:14PM (3 children)
If I and anyone else is/are allowed to listen in on and record ANY Apple employee/executives conversations ANY TIME i/they want, then THEY can listen to mine. If not, then no.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @11:39PM (2 children)
BTW, what is tat, how can I get some, and where can I exchange it for the other thing?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday June 16 2022, @02:22PM
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tit-for-tat.html [phrases.org.uk]
I mean, if you're into that kind of kink. There are others that are like minded. It seems pretty crazy to literally everyone else.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday June 17 2022, @08:20AM
According to Merriam-Webster, [merriam-webster.com] a tat is
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @08:18PM (5 children)
"We think the government should have to abide by the Constitution"
But of course even when they do the right thing, they do it in the worst possible way.
No, that is NOT an expectation. The expectation is the exact opposite of that. Literally no one but activists wants corporations to do this, and corporations take serious risks when they listen to the activists that infect their employee ranks, or even management.
Chick-fil-A
Hobby Lobby
Disney
Target
Netflix managed to do the smart thing. Good for them. They get to live another day until the ordinary market kills them. Take a look at Tesla. Their whole deal is selling high quality cars to people that their CEO doesn't like very much. That's how it should be. Society literally depends on this.
None of these companies are benefiting from their "position on social and political issues." The only company that has ever benefited from their social activism is maybe Ben & Jerry's, and have you noticed how much they are keeping their head down over the past few years?
Companies should only take positions on social issues when there is overwhelming support for the position and to do otherwise is a clear moral failure. Of course, in those situations you can expect that they will resist it until the last possible moment, because it will cost them money.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday June 15 2022, @10:39PM (3 children)
Bullshit. EVERY major corporation are *strong* social activists. That's the whole point of lobbyists.
The thing is, most of them are really only pursuing a society where the rich (especially their executives and investors, but there's a lot of common cause) have an easy time getting richer, and everyone else can get fucked.
Make no mistake - that's very much activism towards a certain kind of society, and more than a little extremist at that. Just because it's not portrayed as activism by the major media outlets doesn't make it any less so - it just means they're on board.
If you're okay with that, but have a problem with them making a stand for privacy, or gay rights, or any other position where they see money to be made supporting the opinion of the overwhelming majority (and it's almost always an overwhelming majority - they're in it for the money, and supporting a cause among that's genuinely contentious among their potential customer base is only going to harm profits)... Perhaps you should take a good long look in the mirror and ask yourself exactly who convinced you that an aristocratic boot on your neck is a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @10:52PM
No, large companies back causes that appeal to the wealthy and powerful. They can be hugely unpopular with most people because most people are neither wealthy nor powerful.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @12:15AM (1 child)
Lobbyists back things that make them money. That's not social activism, like, at all. As long as they stay in their lane and keep their lobbying directly related to their business, nobody cares. Maybe it's just "the way the game is played" or maybe it's that people understand that there's a difference between legitimate economic interests and things that corporations have no business getting involved in.
When Disney wants more copyright or special land use rules, that's in bounds. When Disney starts telling people how to raise their kids, they can fuck directly off.
Headline : Company producing children's entertainment declares war on parents, loses half its stock value
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @02:44AM
Corporate lobbying is social activism, because they typically lobby against taxes on the rich and corporate taxes - which cuts funding for social programs. Corporate lobbyists fight against labor laws, because it increases costs. They fight against gay rights and increased paid medical benefits and parental leave, because it increases costs.
So, the attitude that workers can't push their company on social and economic issues is just more of the rich shitting on everyone else. "Do what we say, or starve." Yay capitalism, yay America.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2022, @10:49PM
Religion and politics are topics best avoided in mixed company. Remember when that used to be held as a wise thing to adhere to? A company choosing some stand risks alienating a lot of customers AND employees. Just sell me your product without a side of sanctimonious preaching and demonization of anyone who doesn't agree with your absolutely superfluous corporate stand on hot topic "X". Corporate decides one day to jump on divisive stand "X" and declare that that's the company "value"? Really? Nobody consulted me. Guess the "corporate value" is either bullshit or else it really is and the company is the opposite of inclusive. I didn't join my company for politics, but to do a particular job that has nothing to do with politics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday June 15 2022, @09:29PM (1 child)
Is the act of witholding information from the populace a basic government right?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:14AM
But those govt people are the EXPERTS! You wouldn't want Joe Schmoe to have any input into what the govt does, would you? Joe Schmoe is not an EXPERT! He doesn't need to know anything the govt is doing. He could just slow the govt down.