Apple CEO Cook backs strong privacy laws in Europe, U.S.

“Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook is expected to stress the iPhone maker’s commitment to privacy and backing for strong laws on both sides of the Atlantic to protect the use of data, according to remarks prepared for delivery at a Brussels event,” Reuters reports.

“Cook, the keynote speaker at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners on Wednesday, will be one of several executives from U.S. tech companies to present their views at the two-day event,” Reuters reports. “Apple views privacy as a ‘fundamental human right,’ Cook will say.”

“‘We will never achieve technology’s true potential without the full faith and confidence of the people who use it,’ he will say,” Reuters reports. “Cook also endorsed a comprehensive federal privacy law in the United States, the strongest statement by Apple to date.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Meanwhile, back at Google’s and Facebook’s headquarters…

FBI investigating Facebook security breach where attackers accessed 30 million users’ personal information – October 12, 2018
Google exposed user data, did not disclose to public fearing repercussions – October 10, 2018
After trying and failing to hide the issue, Alphabet pulls plug on Google+ after bug exposes data from up to 500,000 users – October 8, 2018
Facebook discovers security breach affecting 50 million users – September 28, 2018
Facebook is giving advertisers access to users’ shadow contact information – September 27, 2018
42% of U.S. users have ‘taken a break’ from Facebook; 28% have deleted the Facebook app in the past year – September 5, 2018
Researchers find Google harvests more data from Android – and Apple iOS – users than most people think – August 21, 2018
Google hit with lawsuit accusing them of tracking phone users regardless of privacy settings – August 20, 2018
Google tracks users movements even when explicitly told not to – Associated Press – August 13, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg loses $16 billion in record Facebook fall – July 26, 2018
Facebook stock plunges as users vanish – July 25, 2018
Apple highlights user privacy as Facebook exec steps down – June 14, 2018
The 18 things you may not realize Facebook knows about you: Firm reveals the extent of its spying in a 454-page document to U.S. Congress – June 12, 2018
Facebook confirms sharing users’ personal data with Chinese companies – June 6, 2018
Apple’s macOS Mojave removes integration with third-party internet accounts like Facebook – June 6, 2018
Apple borks Facebook’s pervasive personal data-harvesting operation – June 5, 2018
Apple requested ‘zero’ personal data in deals with Facebook – CEO Tim Cook – June 5, 2018
Facebook CEO blasts Apple’s latest privacy protections as ‘cute virtue signaling’ – June 5, 2018


      1. I distinguish between “right” and “privilege” though most don’t. To me a right is inalienable, it cannot be taken away, not be anyone. Looking at it that way about the only right we have is the right to die. That’s inevitable.
        Everything else, right to privacy, right to sovereign space, right not to be torture, right to free speech is a privilege, because it can be removed by others, heck just look at how Apple’s home nation tramples on so called human rights. They aren’t the only ones either.

        For all their power and might though, they are impotent when it comes to removing a person’s right to die. Oh they can delay but sooner or later…

  1. I don’t disagree with Apple’s position, but let’s not pretend it’s not due to self interest. If they were that altruistic, how can they believe in the 4th Amendment and not the 1st?

    I’m not saying to force them to sell anything, just to get out of the way.

    1. Actually, I think it’s coincidental that it is a ‘marketable’ aspect of business. I choose to think Apple’s stance is defendable no matter the size of the company.
      What conflict do you see between the 1st and 4th amendments?

      1. I don’t see a conflict between the 4th and 1st as rights, I see Apple supporting the 4th, as do I, while crapping on the 1st.

        Privacy is good for Apple’s business, censorship is also good for Apple’s business. That what we’ve gotten, support of the 4th, trampling of the 1st.

        1. I don’t see it. As a company they have the same legal rights as an individual person. ‘You’ can’t be compelled to act in a certain way, to hold particular views or proclaim on behalf of an opposing ideology according to the constitution. In principle it’s precise.
          Of course governments like to fudge and dissemble to bend the laws to their advantage. Not Apple’s fault.

            1. They sure do have that right. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it or buy a Samsung. Unless Apple FORCED you purchase their product against your will and then FORCED you to use it and have your content “censored”, you have ZERO standing to bring a first amendment case against them. ZERO.

            2. Let me make my point real simple for you JimBob… Here’s the math…

              Apple supports the 4th (in deed and spirit) + Apple does NOT support the 1st (in deed and spirit) = Apple’s full of Sh*t (INDEED!)

      2. The First Amendment says that Congress shall not infringe freedom of speech. Via the Fourteenth, that also applies to all other governmental entities. Unless the former Apple Computer, Inc. has changed its name again to “Congress,” I fail to see how the First Amendment applies to it, much less how it can crap on it. You are suggesting a different and much broader notion that not only requires private entities to tolerate speech with which they do not agree, but demands that they actively assist in spreading it.

        Similarly, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to Apple. It does not have the ability to conduct even reasonable searches and seizures. Cook is talking about a more general human right to privacy, which can be infringed by private companies as well as by the government.

        The broader notions of both speech and privacy may be valuable, but let’s not get them confused with the very different requirements in the Constitution itself.

        1. “Cook is talking about a more general human right to privacy, which can be infringed by private companies as well as by the government.”

          And that is because that serves him purpose.

          I’m talking about…

          “Applecynic is talking about a more general human right to speech, which can be infringed by private companies as well as by the government.”

          Remember… Apple is censoring me on MY property, not theirs. I’m not saying what they can and cannot sell.

          1. I am surprised to learn that the iTunes Store and its linked material are YOUR property, not Apple’s.

            Otherwise, I understand your point. I agree that civilized beings, as a matter of principle as well as politeness, should tolerate speech with which they disagree. However, that principle is entirely separate from the First Amendment. You can’t twist the Constitution to give yourself the right to make me lend you my megaphone to preach a message that I find obnoxious.

            You have the natural right to your viewpoint, but I have an equal right not to endorse it or appear to do so. You particularly can’t twist the Constitution to allow Congress to pass a law requiring private persons (natural or corporate) to endorse obnoxious viewpoints. That is exactly what the First Amendment forbids.

            1. Shame on you councilor! 😉

              You know very well that I don’t claim the iTunes Store as my property. The hardware is as is the individual copy of any firmware contained within. The objection comes from the imposed exclusivity of precisely said iTunes Store. They can absolutely choose what to sell. The consumer and developer have no recourse over where they buy or sell…. That sir is censorship as well as forced continued business and loss of sovereignty over one’s property (the device).

          2. Horse hockey. You chose to buy it and accept the limitations of the device. You could have chosen not to buy it or buy another brand.

            You are suggesting that Apple should have to sell you a product that does whatever YOU want it to do. You can demand it, sure, but they are under no obligation to provide it.

  2. I believe Tim is wasting his time trying to protect user privacy. Google and Facebook practically control the web/internet and they’re far too big and powerful to stop their invasion of privacy. If most consumers don’t care about their own personal data then what’s the point of trying to give them privacy.

    Google has far more influence than Apple when it comes to using the internet. Even iPhone users are using Google Suite apps and they’ll never give them up unless there were apps to take their place and that won’t ever happen. It’s like how consumers can’t stop using Google Search. It’s just in such wide use that nothing can change it. Even Apple doesn’t want Google Search to go away and Apple would rather make money from it as THE default search engine for Safari.

    Apple keeps coming up short as even Wall Street puts more value in data-siphoning companies than they do Apple. Wall Street has no interest in privacy. Wall Street is only interested in companies making money using any method they can do it even if it includes invasion of privacy. Tim Cook is only going to make more enemies for Apple.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.