Małgorzata Świerk thank you very much for this article. This is an amazing material because this statement was most stupid issue that I have heard for long time. This is amazing how people can be stupid (by the way - this guy must be Donald Trump’s voter of course). I recognize from this material that Christopher Soghoian claims if you don’t have you own Apple items this is very, very bad because you are unprotected to surveillance by your Government. I recognize this statement into two ways – first path it was an Apple’s commercial. Under the important statement about privacy and civil issues I find bright advice – you must have your own Apple device to be protected. Second path this guy tries to find your own way to achieve popularity among typical American republican voters. I don’t agree with him about the Government can surveillance you because you are poor or black and poor and you have not got enough money for better protection of your privacy. You are poor because you are lazy and stupid and this is not Government’s issue only yours.
The reasoning of this guy is flawed and biased. Also he depicts Apple for upper class, and Android for middle and low, which is wrong.
The thing is it's impossible to make work cipher on a 100 $ mobile powered with low end proc. That's why encryption is opt-in on Android. On the other way Apple has chosen to only produce high end mobiles, middle and low classes cannot afford. Also Apple, for understandable technical and marketing reasons, has chosen to close it's world to other makes.
So, what's better ? try to include every body (rich, average and poor) with optional standards (Android), or restrict features to a small subset of wealthy people (Apple) ?
Diversity is good, and lot of people don't really need encryption. Also some times, there is even people who need a mobile to just make calls to their relatives for day-to-day chitchat. And can't afford 600$ (times the number of family members) just for that...
If governments want to load their databases with 'noise' like 'don't forget to turn off the cabbage soup', it's up to them. More seriously there is situation or places in the world where people can be tortured by mafias for not giving them information. So, I understand that cipher can be a privacy issue. It can be also a life/torture issue on the other hand.
The most important is that people can code whatever they want in a sentence like the one above: it's called an idiom. And even with ML or Deep Learning it will always be a cops and robber race. For that human brain still got a step ahead machines, and for long for smart people.
World and situations are complex, and the best option is educated choice.
The topic of tracking people through electronic devices is very popular and important nowadays. This talk gives some new approach to this problem. A few years ago internet, mobile phones was considered as inventions that bring people freedom of speech, access to independent information and ability to communicate with anyone. Today more often we can see that it is used in aim to control and manipulate people. It is not true that only poor people has this problem. Even influential politicians are potentially threatened by unwanted access to their emails and other data. I think that more advanced encryption algorithms just make it harder to get our data but do not protect in a way that cannot be overcome. The worst danger for privacy are people who do not care about data safety.
Unfortunately, it seems that these guy have no clue what he is talking about.
Having device encryption turned on by default does not in fact increase security. The FBI was able to successfully break into San Bernardino's shooters iPhone thanks to undocumented vulnerability in the iOS. That's a basic fact. Since there is an undocumented exploit that governments can use to spy on people who use Apple phones, there is no real difference in the level of protection between rich and poor. Or at least, smartphone OS is not a differentiator. By the way, AFAIK there is a possibility to turn on device encryption in recent flavor of Android devices, so the speaker is wrong on that too. OK, it is not enabled by default, but that is not a big deal for somebody who really want to hide his identity.
I could go on why he is wrong on surveillance technology (call encryption, really?), but I just don't think it make sense. I am afraid, this poor guy have no clue about technology...
And by the way: how come increased surveillance by the government could undermine civil rights movement? I guess there was no civil right movement back at times where there was no Internet nor cell phones, right? And probably it was much harder to eavesdrop analog, unencrypted, permanent phone line?
This talk is wrong on so many levels, that there is really no point to discuss it.
I can't agree with most of things described in the presentation related to technology. I feel like the author has no clue what he is talking about. From the market, through philosophy behind both systems through users that is using them. But if we want to talk about civil rights issue. He mentioned that FBI wanted to receive information from the smartphone but it was impossible cause of encryption but he forgot to mention that FBI received this data from 3rd party company that hacked this smartphone. So in my opinion talking about how safe are RICH people that can afford iPhone and how POOR people that have to buy Android or not protected is so far from truth that it is hard to discuss with it. We are leaving in time where there is no privacy and we need to understand. Most of the technology is helping us BUT we need to pay for it with our private data and it will not change in any near future or even never (maybe after WW3 when we will again using swords to fight) and also we are very happy to resign from our privacy (facebook, snapchat, Instagram etc.)
I must say this presentation was 5 minut of Apple marketing and 1 minute of some "content". But when we talking about content things are not some great as we may think that they are. I am not quite sure about this big survillance stuff because every time government want to have some data he has to have court permission to do that stuff. I think that situation can be different when apple or telecomunication company needs some data, I don't think that they will go to court for permission. I am very dissapointed because this presenter did not mention about Apple Watch and how other companies use our data for advertising, even Apple is colleting information about user from their watch. And we must remember that even if your android device costs as much as as apples - still your are poor person :-).
I must admit that I have to fully agree with my “pre-writers”. It is nice Apple marketing presentation, nothing more. I am POOR person because I do not paid enough money for Apple device. I am not protected due to the fact that I am using Android device . Privacy is becoming less common those days. We are all interconnected with cell phones, wireless Internet and electronic devices. Privacy is possible within our own homes when the computers are off and phones are powered down. We are private in our own thoughts and our own conversations with family at home. The home is the last bastion of privacy in a world with constant video cameras and monitoring everywhere else.
Well I don’t think that it bothers that much the normal people who have nothing to hide, but it is more between government and people who are dangerous for society or that have something to hide. Obviously those are rich enough to pay for secured conversations. Android have applications and you can encrypt messages so I don’t think it is crucial when you have to choose between Apple or Android. I don’t know how it looks when it comes to law, but I think that Apple can’t hide messages from police or other securities. Of course everyone likes privacy, but there is a difference between terrorists, average person or a lawyer who is a part of money laundering. From the point of view of average person it is obvious that I want keep my privacy, but if it was about terrorists I can sacrifice possibility of police looking into mine correspondence. I think that police should have possibility to investigate messages of everyone, because they will be able to control more of dangerous situations and they will take care of frauds.
I have to agree with the previous speakers that this is a biased and bad Apple advertisement. When it comes to privacy in the modern world, I don't think that it extists any more. It does exist only for people with no access to Internet, higher technology and any electronic devices whatsoever. Each and every person that uses smartphone, tablet and computer is deprived of privacy. Whether we are poor or rich, we do not really know what information is obtained by whom and where it is stored, when we are using our electronic devices. Internet and technological progress was supposed to give us freedom of speech, possibility of sharing knowledge with other people, but in fact it deprived us of it, as there is no such thing as freedom, if our messages, e-mails, posts are investigated and used by I-don't- know-who for I -don't-know-what-purpose.
As my colleagues who already expressed their opinions stated before, I find this presentation to be in some point marketing for apple over a very simple issue which is actually just a choice. The problem is not that Android, doesn't support this feature but rather that people are not fully aware and have no motivation on using it. As Adam correctly stated, some Android devices (especially the older ones), don't really have resources to run encryption 24/7 and this is mostly why it is an option and by default its switched off, since the quality of experience of the users would decrease because of applications running at a slower pace or batter being drained much faster. In my opinion people should get better education on this privacy issue, the tools are out there, but it depends how they use them. Nobody is forcing people to expose their information without any protection.
I need to disagree with statement that encrypted security access is available only for rich people who can afford to buy Iphone. You can find free secure apps for android users which features are end-to-end encryption to keep all of your private correspondences secure. That includes the ability to set up encrypted groups for private conversations with your entire work team. The app uses open-source, publicly auditable encryption libraries to keep your private business messages private. Users who want even stronger security can use connection from their own private server. Apps doesn’t even require your phone number or any other personal data to get started. Allows you permanently delete a message from both the sending and receiving device, as well as the app server a secure messaging app that lets you set an "expiration date" for every message you send. Meanwhile, the app features end-to-end encryption for all messages, and it lets you remove metadata from individual messages, such as the time it was sent, as well as geo-location data. The difference is between two clashing business models. Apple have build encryption feature in operating system and other companies allows you to encrypt your data independently to platform You use.
It's hard to argue with my colleagues arguments about Apple marketing in this video. Even though, Apple has high privacy standards and they are refusing to help FBI compromise their customers privacy, they are still using software which is vulnerable to attacks. Personally, I don't care about the price of the phones and so on. In my honest opinion by using Android, iOS, Windows or whatever you are losing security. Of course you can install additional software, encrypt your messages by hand and so on. Even Android 6 has built-in mechanisms for that. Still, the easiest way to hack phones is to hack people :)
I have to say I have mixed feelings about this TED talk. It looks a bit like an Apple commercial. It is not true that iOS is the only and one "safe" OS. There are ways to make Android safer, e.g. applications for encryption. We can also look at it from the other side. The privacy subject became very popular last time, and everybody is resentful with the government surveillance, but at the same time wants to live in safe country. And adding one more thought, sometimes we reveal more information about ourselves in Internet and social media than somebody can hear from our phone calls or read from sms.
I had mixed feelings while watching this video because Apple was pictured as 'this evil company' which is responsible for the whole inequality. As a result it turned out to be a some kind of Apple's advert. I agree with Ewelina that there are many free secure apps dedicated for Android and other systems, however, it does not matter which operating system you are using you are still vulnerable to attacks. Education is the most important issue regarding the privacy problem. On the other hand, finally, the terrorist's iphone was decrypted, right?
How predecessors whose little advertising a well-known company. We must remember that the largest number of information available to users once read an article like people invite "thieves" to their homes using social media. The biggest threat is the lack of awareness. If anyone is aware of the risks when looking for methods how to avoid it...
I wonder how many smartphone users really care about privacy and security. Is this really necessary? I mean that with all the status updates and selfies uploaded to social networks you really don't need spying software to gather a lot of information about a person. Besides if you wanna by more secured, buy an old nokia 3310 - it's completely unhackable and costs less that cheap android phones.
I have to disagree with Christopher Soghoian. Android in 6 version has possibility to protect our data in smartphone. It is called File System Encryption. This functionality secures all data on Smartphone (flash memory) but is disabled by default - of course user can enable it. It is a kind of encryption using mix of few well-known encryption methods. Is it safe? In some cases it is: it secures our data in case of theft or undesirable hacking attack. In my opinion it should be enough for usual smartphone’s users…
Very good Apple advertisement. I didn't like his division of smartphone users for better (or rich - those who use iPhone) and worse (or poor - those who use Android). I wanted to stop watching when he said about a threat to the democracy, but fortunately I didn't stop. At the end he was right that people themselves should care about their privacy, because web-stalkers are a plague. That's the only thing I agree with - you should never count on some third-party producer and think that a phone/notebook manufacturer will protect you from a surveillance - you should protect yourself if you think someone would want to spy you.
Wow that was 7 minutes wasted in my life. We can evaluate further Android or Apple or we can focus on bigger picture which Snowden is shouting about which is overview of intelligence community, putting regulations in place that we cannot just spy on everyone. On the other hand built in security measures of Apple or Android doesn't really matter as owners of the phones are checking in every where, putting their pictures of cc cards and id's online because they are not aware of the risks associated with it. Education and awareness of users is the key to resolve this problem in my humble opinion. If more people will be aware they will stand for their rights and enforce proper legislation and overview of people who can actually spy on us.
Małgorzata Świerk thank you very much for this article. This is an amazing material because this statement was most stupid issue that I have heard for long time. This is amazing how people can be stupid (by the way - this guy must be Donald Trump’s voter of course). I recognize from this material that Christopher Soghoian claims if you don’t have you own Apple items this is very, very bad because you are unprotected to surveillance by your Government.
ReplyDeleteI recognize this statement into two ways – first path it was an Apple’s commercial. Under the important statement about privacy and civil issues I find bright advice – you must have your own Apple device to be protected.
Second path this guy tries to find your own way to achieve popularity among typical American republican voters. I don’t agree with him about the Government can surveillance you because you are poor or black and poor and you have not got enough money for better protection of your privacy. You are poor because you are lazy and stupid and this is not Government’s issue only yours.
The reasoning of this guy is flawed and biased. Also he depicts Apple for upper class, and Android for middle and low, which is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is it's impossible to make work cipher on a 100 $ mobile powered with low end proc. That's why encryption is opt-in on Android. On the other way Apple has chosen to only produce high end mobiles, middle and low classes cannot afford. Also Apple, for understandable technical and marketing reasons, has chosen to close it's world to other makes.
So, what's better ? try to include every body (rich, average and poor) with optional standards (Android), or restrict features to a small subset of wealthy people (Apple) ?
Diversity is good, and lot of people don't really need encryption. Also some times, there is even people who need a mobile to just make calls to their relatives for day-to-day chitchat. And can't afford 600$ (times the number of family members) just for that...
If governments want to load their databases with 'noise' like 'don't forget to turn off the cabbage soup', it's up to them. More seriously there is situation or places in the world where people can be tortured by mafias for not giving them information. So, I understand that cipher can be a privacy issue. It can be also a life/torture issue on the other hand.
The most important is that people can code whatever they want in a sentence like the one above: it's called an idiom. And even with ML or Deep Learning it will always be a cops and robber race. For that human brain still got a step ahead machines, and for long for smart people.
World and situations are complex, and the best option is educated choice.
The topic of tracking people through electronic devices is very popular and important nowadays. This talk gives some new approach to this problem. A few years ago internet, mobile phones was considered as inventions that bring people freedom of speech, access to independent information and ability to communicate with anyone. Today more often we can see that it is used in aim to control and manipulate people.
ReplyDeleteIt is not true that only poor people has this problem. Even influential politicians are potentially threatened by unwanted access to their emails and other data.
I think that more advanced encryption algorithms just make it harder to get our data but do not protect in a way that cannot be overcome. The worst danger for privacy are people who do not care about data safety.
I have to join the critics chorus.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it seems that these guy have no clue what he is talking about.
Having device encryption turned on by default does not in fact increase security. The FBI was able to successfully break into San Bernardino's shooters iPhone thanks to undocumented vulnerability in the iOS. That's a basic fact.
Since there is an undocumented exploit that governments can use to spy on people who use Apple phones, there is no real difference in the level of protection between rich and poor. Or at least, smartphone OS is not a differentiator.
By the way, AFAIK there is a possibility to turn on device encryption in recent flavor of Android devices, so the speaker is wrong on that too. OK, it is not enabled by default, but that is not a big deal for somebody who really want to hide his identity.
I could go on why he is wrong on surveillance technology (call encryption, really?), but I just don't think it make sense. I am afraid, this poor guy have no clue about technology...
And by the way: how come increased surveillance by the government could undermine civil rights movement? I guess there was no civil right movement back at times where there was no Internet nor cell phones, right? And probably it was much harder to eavesdrop analog, unencrypted, permanent phone line?
This talk is wrong on so many levels, that there is really no point to discuss it.
I can't agree with most of things described in the presentation related to technology. I feel like the author has no clue what he is talking about. From the market, through philosophy behind both systems through users that is using them.
ReplyDeleteBut if we want to talk about civil rights issue. He mentioned that FBI wanted to receive information from the smartphone but it was impossible cause of encryption but he forgot to mention that FBI received this data from 3rd party company that hacked this smartphone. So in my opinion talking about how safe are RICH people that can afford iPhone and how POOR people that have to buy Android or not protected is so far from truth that it is hard to discuss with it. We are leaving in time where there is no privacy and we need to understand. Most of the technology is helping us BUT we need to pay for it with our private data and it will not change in any near future or even never (maybe after WW3 when we will again using swords to fight) and also we are very happy to resign from our privacy (facebook, snapchat, Instagram etc.)
I must say this presentation was 5 minut of Apple marketing and 1 minute of some "content". But when we talking about content things are not some great as we may think that they are. I am not quite sure about this big survillance stuff because every time government want to have some data he has to have court permission to do that stuff. I think that situation can be different when apple or telecomunication company needs some data, I don't think that they will go to court for permission. I am very dissapointed because this presenter did not mention about Apple Watch and how other companies use our data for advertising, even Apple is colleting information about user from their watch.
ReplyDeleteAnd we must remember that even if your android device costs as much as as apples - still your are poor person :-).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I have to fully agree with my “pre-writers”. It is nice Apple marketing presentation, nothing more. I am POOR person because I do not paid enough money for Apple device. I am not protected due to the fact that I am using Android device . Privacy is becoming less common those days. We are all interconnected with cell phones, wireless Internet and electronic devices. Privacy is possible within our own homes when the computers are off and phones are powered down. We are private in our own thoughts and our own conversations with family at home. The home is the last bastion of privacy in a world with constant video cameras and monitoring everywhere else.
ReplyDeleteWell I don’t think that it bothers that much the normal people who have nothing to hide, but it is more between government and people who are dangerous for society or that have something to hide. Obviously those are rich enough to pay for secured conversations. Android have applications and you can encrypt messages so I don’t think it is crucial when you have to choose between Apple or Android. I don’t know how it looks when it comes to law, but I think that Apple can’t hide messages from police or other securities. Of course everyone likes privacy, but there is a difference between terrorists, average person or a lawyer who is a part of money laundering. From the point of view of average person it is obvious that I want keep my privacy, but if it was about terrorists I can sacrifice possibility of police looking into mine correspondence. I think that police should have possibility to investigate messages of everyone, because they will be able to control more of dangerous situations and they will take care of frauds.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the previous speakers that this is a biased and bad Apple advertisement. When it comes to privacy in the modern world, I don't think that it extists any more. It does exist only for people with no access to Internet, higher technology and any electronic devices whatsoever. Each and every person that uses smartphone, tablet and computer is deprived of privacy. Whether we are poor or rich, we do not really know what information is obtained by whom and where it is stored, when we are using our electronic devices. Internet and technological progress was supposed to give us freedom of speech, possibility of sharing knowledge with other people, but in fact it deprived us of it, as there is no such thing as freedom, if our messages, e-mails, posts are investigated and used by I-don't- know-who for I -don't-know-what-purpose.
ReplyDeleteAs my colleagues who already expressed their opinions stated before, I find this presentation to be in some point marketing for apple over a very simple issue which is actually just a choice. The problem is not that Android, doesn't support this feature but rather that people are not fully aware and have no motivation on using it. As Adam correctly stated, some Android devices (especially the older ones), don't really have resources to run encryption 24/7 and this is mostly why it is an option and by default its switched off, since the quality of experience of the users would decrease because of applications running at a slower pace or batter being drained much faster. In my opinion people should get better education on this privacy issue, the tools are out there, but it depends how they use them. Nobody is forcing people to expose their information without any protection.
ReplyDeleteI need to disagree with statement that encrypted security access is available only for rich people who can afford to buy Iphone. You can find free secure apps for android users which features are end-to-end encryption to keep all of your private correspondences secure. That includes the ability to set up encrypted groups for private conversations with your entire work team. The app uses open-source, publicly auditable encryption libraries to keep your private business messages private. Users who want even stronger security can use connection from their own private server. Apps doesn’t even require your phone number or any other personal data to get started. Allows you permanently delete a message from both the sending and receiving device, as well as the app server a secure messaging app that lets you set an "expiration date" for every message you send. Meanwhile, the app features end-to-end encryption for all messages, and it lets you remove metadata from individual messages, such as the time it was sent, as well as geo-location data.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is between two clashing business models. Apple have build encryption feature in operating system and other companies allows you to encrypt your data independently to platform You use.
It's hard to argue with my colleagues arguments about Apple marketing in this video. Even though, Apple has high privacy standards and they are refusing to help FBI compromise their customers privacy, they are still using software which is vulnerable to attacks. Personally, I don't care about the price of the phones and so on. In my honest opinion by using Android, iOS, Windows or whatever you are losing security. Of course you can install additional software, encrypt your messages by hand and so on. Even Android 6 has built-in mechanisms for that. Still, the easiest way to hack phones is to hack people :)
ReplyDeleteI have to say I have mixed feelings about this TED talk. It looks a bit like an Apple commercial. It is not true that iOS is the only and one "safe" OS. There are ways to make Android safer, e.g. applications for encryption.
ReplyDeleteWe can also look at it from the other side. The privacy subject became very popular last time, and everybody is resentful with the government surveillance, but at the same time wants to live in safe country.
And adding one more thought, sometimes we reveal more information about ourselves in Internet and social media than somebody can hear from our phone calls or read from sms.
I had mixed feelings while watching this video because Apple was pictured as 'this evil company' which is responsible for the whole inequality. As a result it turned out to be a some kind of Apple's advert. I agree with Ewelina that there are many free secure apps dedicated for Android and other systems, however, it does not matter which operating system you are using you are still vulnerable to attacks. Education is the most important issue regarding the privacy problem.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, finally, the terrorist's iphone was decrypted, right?
How predecessors whose little advertising a well-known company. We must remember that the largest number of information available to users once read an article like people invite "thieves" to their homes using social media. The biggest threat is the lack of awareness. If anyone is aware of the risks when looking for methods how to avoid it...
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many smartphone users really care about privacy and security. Is this really necessary? I mean that with all the status updates and selfies uploaded to social networks you really don't need spying software to gather a lot of information about a person. Besides if you wanna by more secured, buy an old nokia 3310 - it's completely unhackable and costs less that cheap android phones.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Christopher Soghoian. Android in 6 version has possibility to protect our data in smartphone. It is called File System Encryption. This functionality secures all data on Smartphone (flash memory) but is disabled by default - of course user can enable it. It is a kind of encryption using mix of few well-known encryption methods. Is it safe? In some cases it is: it secures our data in case of theft or undesirable hacking attack. In my opinion it should be enough for usual smartphone’s users…
ReplyDeleteVery good Apple advertisement. I didn't like his division of smartphone users for better (or rich - those who use iPhone) and worse (or poor - those who use Android). I wanted to stop watching when he said about a threat to the democracy, but fortunately I didn't stop. At the end he was right that people themselves should care about their privacy, because web-stalkers are a plague. That's the only thing I agree with - you should never count on some third-party producer and think that a phone/notebook manufacturer will protect you from a surveillance - you should protect yourself if you think someone would want to spy you.
ReplyDeleteWow that was 7 minutes wasted in my life. We can evaluate further Android or Apple or we can focus on bigger picture which Snowden is shouting about which is overview of intelligence community, putting regulations in place that we cannot just spy on everyone. On the other hand built in security measures of Apple or Android doesn't really matter as owners of the phones are checking in every where, putting their pictures of cc cards and id's online because they are not aware of the risks associated with it. Education and awareness of users is the key to resolve this problem in my humble opinion. If more people will be aware they will stand for their rights and enforce proper legislation and overview of people who can actually spy on us.
ReplyDelete