Link to original post:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/hiner/poll-apple-or-google-which-do-you-trust-more-with-your-data/8236
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
although it's not possible for me to be more distrustful of both than I already am.
It's not just them. It's Facebook and Yahoo and probably LinkedIn and other 'social networking' privacy holes. And that's just those who may be intentionally playing fast and loose with your information. Sony didn't deliberately plan to reveal the info from all those games this weekend. At least all Microsoft used to do was try to screw you out of your money.
I used to be amazed at the physical challenges people would endure to just to get a free T-shirt. Now I'm flabbergasted at the personal and financial information they'll give away for even less reward.
Edited - I voted to trust Google more than Apple, by the way.
It's not just them. It's Facebook and Yahoo and probably LinkedIn and other 'social networking' privacy holes. And that's just those who may be intentionally playing fast and loose with your information. Sony didn't deliberately plan to reveal the info from all those games this weekend. At least all Microsoft used to do was try to screw you out of your money.
I used to be amazed at the physical challenges people would endure to just to get a free T-shirt. Now I'm flabbergasted at the personal and financial information they'll give away for even less reward.
Edited - I voted to trust Google more than Apple, by the way.
It's all very "six of one, half dozen of the other" with almost every company isn't it? Like mentioned bellow data is the new currency. It's value is incalculable.
On a side line of this away from the cooperate aspect I'm always amazed that with minimal research how easy it is for any random person to learn so much about an individual. Last year one of the big Halloween party's theme was mysticism. A few friends and I did some "fortune telling" by looking at raffle tickets, which contained the persons name, phone#, address and email. One of us would mumbo-jumbo for 5 minutes while back stage the rest of us hit up the internet for info on our own target.
The effect was quite impressive to the audience and (hopefully) eye opening when we revealed at the end of the show that our "spirit oracle" was basically ... Google.
Surely it's a good thing none of us would ever use out "powers" for evil.
On a side line of this away from the cooperate aspect I'm always amazed that with minimal research how easy it is for any random person to learn so much about an individual. Last year one of the big Halloween party's theme was mysticism. A few friends and I did some "fortune telling" by looking at raffle tickets, which contained the persons name, phone#, address and email. One of us would mumbo-jumbo for 5 minutes while back stage the rest of us hit up the internet for info on our own target.
The effect was quite impressive to the audience and (hopefully) eye opening when we revealed at the end of the show that our "spirit oracle" was basically ... Google.
Surely it's a good thing none of us would ever use out "powers" for evil.
They are both terrible. Who isn't, is what I'd like to know. Which one has the most foul data "misplacement" is practically random.
You can pragmatically count me as trusting Google more, as I frequently use the search engine, and occasionally bits of the other services. Apple would only ever become a concern if I had a Mac, with whatever you give up for running OS X. Quicktime, I use once a year maybe, so whatever they can assume about me from onlapping allocthonous deposition on a prograding clinoform, they are welcome to it.
You can pragmatically count me as trusting Google more, as I frequently use the search engine, and occasionally bits of the other services. Apple would only ever become a concern if I had a Mac, with whatever you give up for running OS X. Quicktime, I use once a year maybe, so whatever they can assume about me from onlapping allocthonous deposition on a prograding clinoform, they are welcome to it.
Just Google it.
allochthonous - Geological material that has been transported and then accumulates elsewhere is allochthonous, and sediment carried by a river is allogenic.
I guess that puts me in the trust Google more camp.
allochthonous - Geological material that has been transported and then accumulates elsewhere is allochthonous, and sediment carried by a river is allogenic.
I guess that puts me in the trust Google more camp.
on the basis that kids are not committing suicide in China to make the owners their 30 pieces of silver, but hey, that's just me...
The point about being under the privacy microscope holds a lot of weight. Also Larry Page is an information visionary who I believe is truly trying to make the world better by organising information. Steve Jobs is just trying to sell another iphone. Information is Google's business, hardware is Apple's business. I think I'd trust my information with the company that specialises in information.
I would in fact trust a company with my personal data if I'm sure they don't care. Google's in the information business allright which also means that they are processing your data and using it for various purposes. Targeted advertisements, behavioral studies, product improvement, etc. Apple gives a rats ass about your personal info, they just care about the products they sell. Why would they care where you are or what you're doing? If one thing maybe statistical data to improve sales.
So I find it odd that many people are choosing Google. Maybe that's because more people use a Google product than an Apple one and can't really comment on Apple.
So I find it odd that many people are choosing Google. Maybe that's because more people use a Google product than an Apple one and can't really comment on Apple.
I picked Apple, not because I trust them more, but because Google is in the information distribution business. After reading Apple's response, I was VERY DISAPPOINTED with the spin they chose to take.
I use Google, but I know that they have the ability to track everything I do and may sell the information to others. Apple is the same way, but they earn most of their money by selling devices.
If the question said "Neither," I am positive that would get the most votes.
I use Google, but I know that they have the ability to track everything I do and may sell the information to others. Apple is the same way, but they earn most of their money by selling devices.
If the question said "Neither," I am positive that would get the most votes.
I own a mac and I still say I trust Google a little more than apple, precisely for your statement. Apple doesn't care which leaves room for getting sloppy. Google on the other hand is nothing without us which is why they have to do everything to make sure we trust them. Also, the way FCC watches them, they are more likely to stay honest. Lastly, I see all the permissions and chose whether or not to grant access. Simply changing some preferences can help with people's anxiety.
I too believe that although it may seem that both institutions would have "Greed" or "Profit" on their mind, I don't see it holding true for Google. Why else would a great majority of their products be FREE? How many things are FREE in this world today? Not many by my count.
Again, Steve Jobs and Apple are out to make a buck and sell you the latest and greatest piece of technology which I don't disagree with at all. I myself am a technologist and love to see (and play) with the new technological "toys". However, I feel that Larry Page and Google are truly out on a mission to DIGITIZE this beautiful world we live in and it's not going to be easy. My vote goes to GOOGLE
Just my opinion! Have a great one my friends!
Again, Steve Jobs and Apple are out to make a buck and sell you the latest and greatest piece of technology which I don't disagree with at all. I myself am a technologist and love to see (and play) with the new technological "toys". However, I feel that Larry Page and Google are truly out on a mission to DIGITIZE this beautiful world we live in and it's not going to be easy. My vote goes to GOOGLE
Just my opinion! Have a great one my friends!
That's the issue. Google is as capitalistic of a company as Apple, but they don't sell products. They are the biggest advertising firm in the world and use their free products (often thrown together from acquisitions and open source projects) to gather information and distribute their ads. Chrome is great and free but is a nice way of making sure every search query you do winds up in their database. Android is nice and free but it's a way of making all your emails, contacts and calendar info pass through their hands by binding it largely to their services. Who was it at Google who said that their goal was to acquire every piece of data ever created?
For Apple your data is useless. Google exploits it for profit. But they will both make sure that data does not unwillingly leave their hands that's for sure. They are both huge respected companies and what is a breeze to a small business is a thunderstorm to them.
I trust them both, but if I have to visit a website which I'd like no one to know about I still open up Safari instead of Chrome. The only company I don't trust at all is Facebook because I'm 100% sure they have access to your messages and all your info and do care what you post even if it's just to review flagged content.
For Apple your data is useless. Google exploits it for profit. But they will both make sure that data does not unwillingly leave their hands that's for sure. They are both huge respected companies and what is a breeze to a small business is a thunderstorm to them.
I trust them both, but if I have to visit a website which I'd like no one to know about I still open up Safari instead of Chrome. The only company I don't trust at all is Facebook because I'm 100% sure they have access to your messages and all your info and do care what you post even if it's just to review flagged content.
isn't hardware anymore. It is content: iTunes, AppStore etc. The next logical content is your data.
Having said that: I am not wishy-washy when I honestly distrust both of them - and others - equally.
Having said that: I am not wishy-washy when I honestly distrust both of them - and others - equally.
Skyhooks CEO Ted Morgan describes Google's data collection as clearly much more insidious and pervasive than Apple's. Apple's response to the issue is clearly more transparent than Google's who effectively deny the problem because they claim it's 'opt in' - not true. Once again, the politics of Apple-hate shape people's responses even when the facts are in dispute.
http://read.bi/moeSS0
http://read.bi/moeSS0
Given that Skyhook is working with Apple on projects they "can't discuss" and suing Google because carriers switched to Google's services, it's hard to not take everything he says on this topic with a grain of salt. Add to those facts that he runs a company that competes directly in data collection, and one has to question how much of this is him grabbing for publicity.
Additionally, he claims Google is less safe than Apple because we know Google stores their info on a server and Apple says they don't. Because one must believe everything Apple says? And, for that matter, the carriers store similar info on their servers....so what makes Google more dangerous than the carriers? I have to think that an online-centric tech company with some of the best minds in computing would have a more secure server than the carriers.
In addition, how is Google's tracking not opt-in? Have you used a new android phone? You have the option before you even use the phone to choose whether the information is sent to Google. It's not buried in the EULA, it's a screen with two choices - opt in or opt out. I have yet to see definitive proof that Android users who opt-out are still tracked. If they are, it must be in a much better hidden file than iOS.
Additionally, he claims Google is less safe than Apple because we know Google stores their info on a server and Apple says they don't. Because one must believe everything Apple says? And, for that matter, the carriers store similar info on their servers....so what makes Google more dangerous than the carriers? I have to think that an online-centric tech company with some of the best minds in computing would have a more secure server than the carriers.
In addition, how is Google's tracking not opt-in? Have you used a new android phone? You have the option before you even use the phone to choose whether the information is sent to Google. It's not buried in the EULA, it's a screen with two choices - opt in or opt out. I have yet to see definitive proof that Android users who opt-out are still tracked. If they are, it must be in a much better hidden file than iOS.
I am the owner of my data and it is my wish for my data to remain private. My data is not for public or other users consumption
If you connect to a cell network, you're tracked, and the data is stored.
If you search the internet, you leave crumbs all over the web.
...you might "own" your data, but most places you go will have a waiver saying you allow them to keep some and to use it.
Complete privacy is an illusion. Relative privacy is all you can have in a functional society.
If you search the internet, you leave crumbs all over the web.
...you might "own" your data, but most places you go will have a waiver saying you allow them to keep some and to use it.
Complete privacy is an illusion. Relative privacy is all you can have in a functional society.
If your existence has ever been recorded anywhere then it is available somewhere whether you use the internet and a smartphone/cellphone orlive in the middle of nowhere completely off the grid. There is far more publicly available information about everyone out there than most people would be comfortable with if they knew the full extent of it.
I do not trust anything American. Edgar J Hoover head of FBI; probably one of the most evil men ever born; so how could the FBI be anything but bent like the sevret service etc. These set the tone of American sneakiness. No, America is not my chosen destination. Unfortunately most of the electronics comes from there; although the components are manufactured in China, so we have to deal with them. I tolerate Google because I do not put personal details on it that I would not broadcast to the world at large anyway.
Stovies
May I suggest that's an unfair generalization / characterization? Before doing so, you might want to look at the person/nation you're stigmatizing through their eyes, back at your own. Not all Americans are sneaky anymore than all people from the UK (your nation) are stiff and pompous. I've personally met many from the UK who are a joy, most recently on a trip to Disney World. I invite you to come to my country sometime, despite your inclinations, and let us try to improve your opinion.
May I suggest that's an unfair generalization / characterization? Before doing so, you might want to look at the person/nation you're stigmatizing through their eyes, back at your own. Not all Americans are sneaky anymore than all people from the UK (your nation) are stiff and pompous. I've personally met many from the UK who are a joy, most recently on a trip to Disney World. I invite you to come to my country sometime, despite your inclinations, and let us try to improve your opinion.
Nope, England never had any self-indulgent kings or crooked ministers. We've got the market cornered on corruption on this side of the pond. Let's just forget the near-slavery of the East India Company; no reason to compare their policies to modern electronics manufacturers.
Trust neither.Personal information is a cash cow, that's how the world turns now.
Amazing how many people, throughout the world, give away their entire lives on social networking sites........and then whine when their "privacy" is invaded!
Apple, Google? Everyone's at it!
Amazing how many people, throughout the world, give away their entire lives on social networking sites........and then whine when their "privacy" is invaded!
Apple, Google? Everyone's at it!
Between the two I trust Google more with my data. Everyone makes mistakes, often it is a matter of failing to fully consider all aspects of an action. But between the two I know that Google is and has long been in the business of information gathering and that it is in their own best interest to keep that information private.
Unfortunately it is already too late for most of us, the amount of information out there that is freely available about us without our knowledge is truly terrifying if you think about it.
Of course I should also point out that I don't own or use any Apple products. Their products are too closed for my tastes.
Unfortunately it is already too late for most of us, the amount of information out there that is freely available about us without our knowledge is truly terrifying if you think about it.
Of course I should also point out that I don't own or use any Apple products. Their products are too closed for my tastes.
You say that you trust Google more, but Apple products are more closed for your tastes. Closed products are a bit safer to use. I have an iPod from Apple, but I don't use their Apple Store for songs. So it really is just an MP3 player with songs I load from CDs. Apple does not know who is listening to Cat Stevens, but they do know who I am. They know where I work and what is on my computer, I suppose, but it is a work computer. Nothing personal besides Cat Stevens to see.
Closed products are less safe to use as has been argued in many open source/closed source and security through obscurity/visibility articles and threads on this very site.
The difference between the two though is not in the openness of their products but in their business models. Apple is in the hardware business and needs no more than basic demographic and use information from me in order to design products that will appeal to me or others like me. Google is in the information and advertising business. I know they want to know as much about me as possible in order to be able to market a wide variety of products and services to me. As a side effect of that it is in their best interests to keep everything they know about me to themselves in order to give themselves an edge against other information and advertising companies and to keep my trust so that I will continue to be a willing participant in their business.
The difference between the two though is not in the openness of their products but in their business models. Apple is in the hardware business and needs no more than basic demographic and use information from me in order to design products that will appeal to me or others like me. Google is in the information and advertising business. I know they want to know as much about me as possible in order to be able to market a wide variety of products and services to me. As a side effect of that it is in their best interests to keep everything they know about me to themselves in order to give themselves an edge against other information and advertising companies and to keep my trust so that I will continue to be a willing participant in their business.
Because they are under the microscope and it is an open system, they have to be more diligent with the data they have. With Apple having a closed system, you never know what they are doing with your data - they're a black box in that respect.
puts it where anyone can see it? The telcos have had this data for years, but were mostly available to law enforcement. Since we pay for the phones and service, we should have rights to limit the data being publicized.
Also, did not TechRepublic have articles on apps tuning on your microphone without you knowledge? Why is not listening on private conversations illegal?
Also, did not TechRepublic have articles on apps tuning on your microphone without you knowledge? Why is not listening on private conversations illegal?
There is a huge gap between the law and enforcement. Who enforces laws against the police? Who polices the enforcers? If someone was remotely listening to your phone could you prove who? Could you get a lawyer to take the case?
I don't know. We certainly need a force that is on our side and then you would need another force to watch them. Perhaps a security triangle? (Police Copwatch Internal affairs) is the model as it exists today. Copwatch has little power and Internal affairs is corrupt. These problems are solveable. People just need to really look at the system.
I don't know. We certainly need a force that is on our side and then you would need another force to watch them. Perhaps a security triangle? (Police Copwatch Internal affairs) is the model as it exists today. Copwatch has little power and Internal affairs is corrupt. These problems are solveable. People just need to really look at the system.
I don't trust the cloud, period. Too many breaches across too many different levels of security at too many companies.
For now, the only thing I trust is my local hard drive and the backup I run every week. And wallet I keep my charge cards in.
For now, the only thing I trust is my local hard drive and the backup I run every week. And wallet I keep my charge cards in.
How about and option for "Wouldn't trust ANY company" with my data? I've abstained from voting in this case.
It's not even so much of a not directly trusting the company (even though I don't) but any database of user info no matter how mundane of is a target for malicious intent. Data is the new currency of the world and a pile of it will attract hackers and internal misuse alike. I often don't mind the actually collection of data as long at it's useful to improving my experience but the prolonged KEEPING of data I do.
It's not even so much of a not directly trusting the company (even though I don't) but any database of user info no matter how mundane of is a target for malicious intent. Data is the new currency of the world and a pile of it will attract hackers and internal misuse alike. I often don't mind the actually collection of data as long at it's useful to improving my experience but the prolonged KEEPING of data I do.
No crit of Jason, but this is another false dichotomoy designed - consciously or unconsciously - to stimulate discussion and/or debate.
The question assumes trust, in some measure, in one or the other, and that's where the question fails.
I'm with CptMatt, jsaubert, Palmetto, jdev1, Zwort, Stovies, and d2colm.
The question assumes trust, in some measure, in one or the other, and that's where the question fails.
I'm with CptMatt, jsaubert, Palmetto, jdev1, Zwort, Stovies, and d2colm.
Of course it is, and he (Hi, Jason) does it very well. But that still begs the questions of how best to do it, and whether or not to phrase a question in such a way as to make assumptions or presumptions about the answers.
There are lots of ways to stimulate discussion and debate, and when a question doesn't allow for a widespread and easily anticipated opinion - in this case, the missing option of "neither" - it often invites critcism of the question itself, as it has here.
There are lots of ways to stimulate discussion and debate, and when a question doesn't allow for a widespread and easily anticipated opinion - in this case, the missing option of "neither" - it often invites critcism of the question itself, as it has here.
Sadly, your poll didn't offer the obvious choice.
I don't trust either of them; but I also wouldn't trust any "cloud" operation with any of my data.
I don't trust either of them; but I also wouldn't trust any "cloud" operation with any of my data.
Why didn't you offer a third choice in your survey Apple, Google, NONE - my choice NONE
This is not the first time for either to prove too users that they are not very trustworthy!!!!
I'm not trusting anyone with my data but necessary evils of today I would trust Google more. Apple has a history of doing whatever the heck it feels like - end-user be damned!
(the snake only gave Eve the push that she needed, but it was the Apple that tempted her to eat it!)
Everyone has been watching Google for YEARS and they don't have a product line to keep them moving ahead after a slip/ breach of private information. You gotta trust someone these days...
For the simple reason that their Vision Statement (or Mission, or motto, or whatever you want to call it) is "Don't Be Evil".
I'm not concerned about privacy, and I frankly think that those who are concerned are VASTLY overestimating how interesting their lives are to other people. But I believe in the power of information (particularly information that is gathered when we are behaving normally, i.e. when no one's watching) to tell us about how the world REALLY works, and how we can understand our behaviour. When we truly understand where we are, we can then plot a course to where we want to go.
I'm not concerned about privacy, and I frankly think that those who are concerned are VASTLY overestimating how interesting their lives are to other people. But I believe in the power of information (particularly information that is gathered when we are behaving normally, i.e. when no one's watching) to tell us about how the world REALLY works, and how we can understand our behaviour. When we truly understand where we are, we can then plot a course to where we want to go.
By not including all the valid choices to the question in your poll you are creating an artifical, deceptive result. It is "wishy-washy" to NOT include a full set of the valid responses. Leaving a real response out creates an artificial result and is extremely poor practice. You need all FOUR possible responses to be honest and open. You are being just as deceptive as Apple and Google and trying to create conterversy with both your action of leaving out valid response choices and how you address people as wishy-washy.
Quit insulting our intellegence and "man up" to give us something with real information and real results.
The answer is neither.
Quit insulting our intellegence and "man up" to give us something with real information and real results.
The answer is neither.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
