2M not on Google's servers == 0 on Google's servers < whatever amount was breached in iCloud. The math is simple, Google was not breached.
Explain to me, why did Apple have to toughen iCloud security after this breach and Google's blog referred to how their security measures ensured that they were not breached. Was it a targeted attack? Sure. Were these accounts insecure? Sure. Was the data downloaded from Apple's server's because they did not properly implement 2-way authentication? Yes.
That was a marketing campaign. Obviously people that aren't in the know think apple was hacked. Come to find out, the celebrities were hacked on their end, not apple's. Show me the proof that apple was hacked? Also, look at Apple's marketing campaign on the link I provided. It shows you steps on being more secure. About having a strong password, what to set, etc. All of that is user side, not apple side.
Of course, from 7 years ago. Not from this year. If you look at transparency reports for security flaws in competitor's product - you will see that Google engineers are among the most prolific providing it, because they work so much on security issues. This in itself should tell you something.
Actually, no, the attack was on Apple's end using brute force - and the problem was that Apple did not force 2-step verification. You can not do brute-force attack on that many client devices - this means you have access to them for long periods of time. You can do it however, on servers, so it is clear that the brute force attack was on the server side. Apple basically admitted that it was a problem on their side: Look, I understand that you are very excited that they are adding security measures, I am too, it makes my life easier and makes it a lot harder for people to crack our services that are accessed via Apple devices, but let's be real here, Apple has a long way to go to get to where Google (or Microsoft) is - as far as protecting user's data is. Accept it, Apple is not the first in everything, they more often than not, are better at marketing it.
Btw, Google clearly reads all my emails. So they can put up ads in Gmail for stuff mentioned in the messages. God knows what other indexing they do, including the sites you visit that have ga tracking codes, purchases, any emails or texts sent via android devices, etc. If they can read your email, they can hand it over unencrypted.
They are masters at PR, that's for sure. In this case, they declared it was not a breach and a week later sent a PR message that they toughened their security. PR indeed.
Thats being proactive. It's better to add more security. Being in a field of software security, you would agree no?
Of course they do. There are two ways of monetizing operations, directly (as Apple mostly does) or indirectly as Google does. Most companies have some kinds of a balance between the two (including Apple, I get surprisingly accurate iTunes email messages for my liking from them, so they clearly track some of my stuff, via the App Store and iTunes I suspect). Google mostly goes to indirect funding via ads and the like - and I for one think that Apple's connected devices and services would never exist if Google did not pave the way for these via services like search, gmail etc... If we look at the way people spend their time, even on fruit devices, it is mostly via connected services that were created on the Google model - Facebook, twitter, Netflix etc... - People will not pay for these services directly, so the services need to find an alternate funding method - and it is pretty clear that people mostly do not care about it - they are willing and happy to get services for "free" by providing the ads and tracking. Heck, this forum is ad supported and free.
How is it proactive if it happened after the breach? I already told you that I am very glad they added it, but let's get out of the PR spin for a second and call a spade a spade.
http://news.investors.com/091814-71...e-model.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo Video: Apple Keeps Police Out Of IOS8 IPhone, IPad Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) announced Wednesday night that it will no longer help law enforcement unlock iPhone, iPad and other devices running its new mobile operating system, iOS8. In fact, the tech titan says it can't. "On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode," Apple said on its Web site . "Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8." The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that police usually must get a search warrant to access suspects' cellphones. Apple's new encryption makes it impossible to comply.
So you think they designed iOS8 the day after the security breach? Damn they must be hella fast programmers?!?!?! The fact is, apple already had this new feature in the works, even before the event happened.
Still being very specific about how they can't extract data from devices--if iCloud was also impossible to extract from, they would absolutely mention that, since that would sound even better.
And google may have never existed unless apple made way to the "personal computer". Why does that even matter?
Because that was in reference to specific inquiries. The article was designed for confiscated devices.
Yes, but as El Prez has shown, Apple can and has given over data from the cloud. The percentage of people that have had their data handed over to law enforcement is tiny, but not zero. So until they specifically say that the cloud is encrypted even from themselves (not just encrypted to the outside world), we should assume they can still access the data if necessary.
It only matters because Danny was ranting about Google reading his stuff. They do, and they do not deny it, and there is no way to put the horses back in the barn, this is what is going to happen more and more. If you like these products - you are going to be subjected to "scanning" for monetary reasons.
