It is interesting how stark the reaction to this Vs. Apple's "Find My" network is.
Apple's version adds every iPhone to part of their network. It uses battery AND expensive mobile data even when the owner has no eligible devices, and that isn't considered controversial. But Amazon wants to use data on non-battery/non-pay per transfer lines and this is considered controversial (and an "abuse of their market position").
I'm not really defending Amazon here, but rather pointing out the huge difference in response to exactly the same kind of "hijack your device for our benefit" network. Why is one seemingly ok and the other not?
Its just part of the general online narrative that Amazon is "evil", while Apple, who still works with Foxconn in China and did things like have poor authentication on iCloud that cause celebrity photo leaks, goes largely unnoticed.
My guess is that tech people just really like the flashy Macbooks so the bias is present.
Apple's PR efforts are important here but I think the more nuanced take I see on this is that it's currently a competitive advantage for Apple to care about privacy concerns.
No clue if that's true. People should generally assume that if a big corporation is doing anything at all (in America) - it is to make money. They will only "protect you" to the level that it makes them money and they'll be happy to change their business model to something a little more like Google/Facebook for something as simple as a change in leadership.
If an Amazon device which supports Sidewalk is hacked, and that device has formed an ad-hoc network with my own Amazon device on my home Wi-Fi, then the attacker is now on my network even though they started on my neighbor’s.
There is literally no comparable possibility with Find My. A random AirTag isn’t using my phone’s network connection to talk to Apple. Instead, my phone is telling Apple that it’s seen this random AirTag.
This isn’t me being an Apple fanboy or an anti-Amazon hater. The two scenarios have nothing in common. If a stranger’s AirTag was hopping onto my Apple network, I’d be furious about that. It’s not how that works though.
Amazon does not treat user data privacy as a core value. That means there is no floor to police those who use this network for data privacy.
Beyond that, Apple mobile devices have the most efficient battery / processor compute on the market. Nothing to be said for mobile data use, though I would be interested to see analysis of how much new bandwidth usage results from participation.
Also, I would expect Apple to be much more aggressive in curtailing unnecessary data usage than Amazon would be. That's just a gut check though.
Amazon certainly does treat user privacy seriously. When is the last time you have heard of any data leaks from Amazon?
Meanwhile, Apple App store still is littered with apps that violate user privacy. Also, did we already forget about the celebrity photo iCloud leak due to poor authentication?
Every customer purchase made through Amazon that is FBA results in the customer's name and address being made available to a 3rd party.
Often Amazon customers do not realize that their purchases result in this information sharing, and since control of the Buy Box shifts constantly there is no obvious way to be informed about this or choose which businesses to exclude.
It is possible to own the Buy Box for a very personal adult item by selling a product at a loss. This allows the creation of highly targeted list building right now.
This list can be used to identify individuals and to purchase of consumer data covering demographic, psychographic, social media and credit rating.
In this way, Amazon offers virtually anyone the keystone to linking the confirmed purchases of its unwitting customers with the broadest array of private data available.
Regardless of the ToS around this data, I suspect a tangible demonstration of the improper use of this data will occur. When that happens, it will be compared to the way Cambridge Analytica exploited accessible but ToS-protected PII from Facebook.
...This is not even close to a "privacy" violation.
When you buy something from a store, they get that information without Amazon in the middle by default (billing address, shipping address, CC info). As a seller, you want this information so you can see who is buying your product and optimize around that, in the same way that as a buyer, you want the most information possible about the product and competing alternatives.
Also, Amazon can and does kick sellers off for abusing data.
Meanwhile, when you buy an iPhone or Macbook, from the moment it gets an internet connection it starts phoning home sending tracking info on you, with no way to disable it. And its absolutely silly to be ok with Apple collecting data but not any other 3d party - from your perspective, Apple is 3d party, and if you trust them with your data despite a history of violations, then you probably don't really care about privacy as much as you think.
You are right that Amazon has far more data, including purchasing history and intent (inclusive of grocery for some customers)
Most of the concern shown in this thread is this retroactive ToS change for something that to Amazon Echo.
It is reasonable to have greater concern about a ToS governing this data because it can be combined with other data Amazon collects in its other businesses and is inherently more sensitive.
I do not recall Jeff Bezos going to conferences or sitting for interviews where he puts focus on customer privacy. Whereas practically every major interview Tim Cook gives he speaks to the importance of privacy.
Cook was doing this long before the current dispute with Facebook entered public awareness.
Company culture starts at the top.
I am interested in any debate around how any other consumer products company including Amazon might have led Apple in any of the following areas:
- Identifying privacy concerns
- Creating simple interfaces for making choices about sensitive data
- Offering a platform that consistently enforces the use of newly introduced privacy controls by 3rd party applications
First the battery and "expensive" mobile data used is negligible for an iPhone. The data used for sidewalk is not necessarily but could be. Second, Find my is NOT on by default. You have a choice to enable Find My when you set up the phone. Sidewalk is on by default. Third, the data that the iPhone sends is encrypted end to end and they heavily mention that they can't even read it. Amazon does not mention that, even if it happens to be true. Fourth, sidewalk ALWAYS uses your home network. You mentioned mobile data, at the very least, that's completely separate.
Apple's version adds every iPhone to part of their network. It uses battery AND expensive mobile data even when the owner has no eligible devices, and that isn't considered controversial. But Amazon wants to use data on non-battery/non-pay per transfer lines and this is considered controversial (and an "abuse of their market position").
I'm not really defending Amazon here, but rather pointing out the huge difference in response to exactly the same kind of "hijack your device for our benefit" network. Why is one seemingly ok and the other not?