I’m in the market for a new portable media player, since my current one is getting rather old, not to mention full. Naturally, I looked at the current crop of iPods. They’re excellent hardware and work well. But I won’t buy one, not because of the iPod itself, but because of Apple’s no-privacy policy.
You can read the full privacy policy for yourself, just to see the breadth and depth of personal information Apple collects when you use iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, or just browse around Apple’s web site.
Sometimes, Apple will even collect information about your music listening habits and send it to other companies without telling you first or giving you a chance to opt out.
This is bad enough, but it’s not, in my estimation, enough to boycott their products entirely. After all, Apple did quickly fix that privacy problem.
What is bad enough is this bit of insanity buried in Apple’s privacy policy on their Web site, and not disclosed during installation of iTunes:
“At times we may be required by law or litigation to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary.”
If you listen to the wrong kinds of music or podcasts, you might be a terrorist, and Apple just might turn over all its records on you to the government.
Apparently, few other people read privacy policies, because as far as I can tell, only one other person has caught this ridiculous bit in the privacy policy.
What use the government might have for your music buying and listening habits, I couldn’t say. But it should worry you a lot more than marketers having your music buying and listening habits. After all, marketers can’t lock you up indefinitely without a trial or kill you with impunity.
In the meantime, for podcasts I’ve pre-ordered a 2GB USB “multi-gadget” from the Free Talk Live Store. And I’m still looking for something to carry around my ever-expanding music collection.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Gardner Goldsmith explains why claims by politicians that consumers can become "irrational" and why claims by the same politicians that government can help "fix" markets are both false and misleading. He also explains what the terms Praxeology and Epistemology mean, which is key in understanding how to place free markets in their proper place among human history.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Allen
Apr 15, 2007
I think I did actually slog my way through their legal agreement once before hitting the “Accept” button. I remember seeing the part about Apple responding to a court order. That should surprise no one. What I didn’t notice was:
(emphasis mine).
That’s just a little disturbing. Apple is saying that they might decide all on their own to “call the cops” based on something they saw in someone’s collection. Nice.
I like my (miraculously still functioning 4-year-old) iPod and iTMS too much to stop using them, but by now the FBI surely knows about my subversive collection of BeeGees songs.
Toowm
Apr 15, 2007
I use Ephpod and Juice on my ipod and have never installed itunes.
OS
Apr 15, 2007
yeah, but there is a thing called being “too paranoid”, and it usually is prevalent in persons not knowing Apple’s counter culture attitude towards established institutions.
Fact is, Apple is the most anarchic large corporation in the world… they detest any invasion of personal information to a massive degree and would never share info unless ordered by a court. It’s not their nature, and have never done it. So relax, using iTunes and an iPod has no privacy concerns, don’t be “paranoid” which only cheats you out of a great tool for communication.
ps: start up your own Podcast, on “national security”, host it on iTunes and let the world know your views. Apple would be glad to provide you a free link on iTunes. Podcast Maker is the way to go, super easy to reach a huge audience for $30 or so.
blak7
Apr 15, 2007
Don’t blame Apple but Bush and his stupid War on Terror.
anthony pugh
Apr 15, 2007
and Ipod Shuffle is being advertised on the page saying why you will not buy an ipod. That is funny.
I love ipods, they are awesome. I was going to try to load Linux to run my ipod and whatever program there exists to replace itunes.
Michael Hampton
Apr 15, 2007
Right, Apple have never invaded their customers’ privacy — except when they have. And even if they never had, I can’t trust anybody who thinks “national security” is a legitimate reason to turn over someone’s music buying habits to the government.
Now if you can come up with some legitimate “national security” reason why the government might need to know what sort of music I listen to, then by all means make the attempt.
anthony pugh
Apr 15, 2007
Secret messages embedded into the music of some bands are actually subliminal triggers to activate super secret moles hiding in the US Government.
Peter
Apr 15, 2007
LOL, please, this article is too funny. Get a grip on your paranoia. I’m sure Apple is out to get YOU! LOL
Your dry cleaner prpbably knows more about you than Apple ever will.
Oh oh, you better check that out!
Michael Hampton
Apr 15, 2007
I’m so sorry you choose to see well-founded concern about overreaching government abuse of power as “paranoia.”
If there were truly nothing to worry about, Apple’s lawyers wouldn’t have needed to insert that clause into the privacy policy, thus negating pretty much the whole thing.
ReallyEvilCanine
Apr 15, 2007
What Allen noted and Peter ignored is every justification for avoiding the device: “We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary.”
Sod that. Who the hell is making this determination? Why the hell is Apple compiling this information to begin with? If it’s data mining to follow buying trends there’s no need to store enough information to make actions — not just purchases but tracking every single page you look at and snippet you listen to — individually identifiable.
In the best possible case from the typical “Apple is TEH GOODEST COMPANY EVAR” fanboy viewpoint, the addition of such phraseology still must mean that Apple believes the possibility exists that they’ll hand over information and that they, and not necessarily some law enforcement organisation, will make the determination that some poor schlub who clicks on the wrong page or listens to the wrong music track deserves the FBI up his ass.
Oliver Crangle
Apr 15, 2007
You use MacOS X and other Apple products don’t you Michael?
Are you going to drop that stuff too…?
Paul
Apr 15, 2007
If you’re that paranoid about Apple disclosing personal information as a result of a court order, then you should drop your bank account, sell your house, quit your job, never go on the internet or do anything that requires you to come into contact with any company, person or entity which might gain access to your info, because they can ALL be compelled to disclose that info under subpoena. If you’re just paranoid about iTunes sending Apple your listening habits, then get a grip. When iTunes calls home, it just gives its version number and checks for updates. Every single website you visit gleans more information about your system every time you visit than iTunes does.
You want security? Write all your own software, or, even better, bury your head in a hole and stay there.
Art
Apr 15, 2007
Yeah, strikes me as a bit paranoid. You’re letting a trivial bit of nothingness get in the way of your musical enjoyment – thus, the establishment wins! haha
Just buy an iPod and enjoy it. Forget all the paranoia and conspiracy nuts and live your life. As Scott McNealy of Sun once said, “Privacy? Forget it. You have none.”
Paul’s post is spot on. If this derails your music enjoyment of iPods/iTunes, your life in all other areas will greatly suffer as well. That is, if you are to remain ‘pure’ to your idealism.
Michael Hampton
Apr 15, 2007
Hm, there are a whole lot of newbies around here today, most of whom seem to think I’m being “paranoid.”
I could indeed just buy an iPod and enjoy it. I normally use Linux and have little use for any of this iTunes crap. I’m perfectly capable of protecting my privacy, as well, from companies which like to collect everything they can and then find new and interesting ways to abuse the information.
I’m not buying an iPod on principle. You know, principle. Surely you all learned what principles are at some point?
Allen
Apr 15, 2007
Michael said:
The only legitimate “national security” issue I can imagine (and I’m having to really work at this) is a scenario involving a podcaster distributing nuclear launch codes or the locations of deployed troops — something along those lines. But in either of those situations, if they noticed this and felt compelled to report it, I would think they would want to report the sender not the receiver(s). Maybe that particular clause refers to content providers (podcasters), not consumers (Dixie Chicks fans). I dunno.
Still… it’s a very odd (and personally disturbing) thing for them to put into the disclosure. This stuff is vetted and revisited several times by teams of lawyers before it’s put into the wild. There has to be some reason why they think it needs to be there. Perhaps they had their CYA legal team turned up too loud that day.
All of that said, it’s more an argument against iTMS than it is against the iPod. Several people have suggested iTunes replacements for music organization. The iPod product itself is The Bomb.
…oops… don’t get up. I’ll just report myself. :-)
Ryan
Apr 15, 2007
A couple alternatives to Itunes are www.emusic.com, www.anywherecd.com.
DBL
Apr 15, 2007
Two comments on this article. First of all, what does the iTunes Music Store legal notice have to do with whether or not to buy an iPod? Do you really want to buy iTunes’s (still currently) DRM-laden music? Anyway, I doubt you’re going to be using the other online stores that are not only also laden with DRM but are crappy to use. So that leaves you with MP3s ripped from CDs, which you can play just fine on the iPod — so what’s the reason for not buying an iPod again?
The second thing is a bad bit of news I have to break to you. This language: “At times we may be required by law or litigation to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary.†is just covering themselves legally in case they are asked by the government to reveal your identity, because under the current laws, they could get in legal trouble themselves if they don’t comply. So basically any online music store in the United States is going to be under the same obligation, whether they specifically tell you so or not. Thinking that you will be safe with another online store is just an illusion.
So once again: the answer to this worry is to buy physical CDs. And again: no reason you can’t have an iPod. You don’t need to enter any personal information into iTunes just to use it to fill your iPod with tracks you already have. You only need to do that if you are buying tracks from Apple.
DBL
Apr 15, 2007
Oh yeah the reason for all of the newbies is that you have been linked on macsurfer.com — so far they’ve been pretty polite but you’re being read by the red-meat Mac-lovin’ crowd now.
Jeff
Apr 15, 2007
Thats the best laugh I’ve had all morning. “I’m not going to buy an iPod because Apple explicitly told me they aren’t going to stand up to government bullying”. The implication being that “I’ll go buy from those other companies who haven’t explicitly told me, because I’m sure they won’t just roll over when pushed, they’ll stand up for my convictions.”
You live in a litigious society. User Agreements are written by lawyers to cover *all* possible liabilities that the company might face, and Apple is a company who has let you know the truth.
I bet you check every time you use a credit card to buy gas to make sure the seller you use doesn’t report its purchase information if subpoena’d.
Not so paranoid
Apr 15, 2007
This is hilarious.
For a start it seems wrong that Apple has put this in the fine print and these days when privacy is a big concern. It has got away with it.
Consumers are generally ignorant so they will not read the privacy policy. That is the reason Apple can insist on such terms. Consumers click and buy, details come later, when and if it affects them.
But let’s face it who give a rat’s arse about the Apple or the govenrment. And further, what would my music habits reveal that get me sent to jail? Maybe the fact that I am breaking the law. So if you intend to break the law and don’t want to go to jail don’t buy an ipod. Congrats for getting to the same conclusion author.
I can here you, what about those people who don’t intend to break the law but do, should they buy an ipod? I would say defintiely not.
My advice is, to all the innocent bystanders in the world, don’t buy an ipod – even if you want to.
In fact don’t have a life that you enjoy, because you might become paranoid like the author.
DON’T BE SO PARANOID.
Apple is just a corporation trying to make money, the lawyers at Apple are probably just people. In their day to day they read the law created by the government and try to mitigate every risk, because risk equals cost. They reduce cost to sell the ipod to you for less, hence they are more competitive. They dominate the market more ensuring they will make more money for the shreholders.
ismael blanco
Apr 16, 2007
look at any other music playback app for windows or mac. read carefuly and you might find that the same line is embedded into those agreements too..
Brian
Apr 16, 2007
Apple is SO countercultural that it’s got Al Gore on its board.
Good lord, Apple fanboys can be so friggin’ dense sometimes. Apple wouldn’t hesitate to report your ass to cover their own.
nadia
Apr 16, 2007
if i listened to bob seger i would be afraid too. (not that i would ever buy an ipod anyway)
Jason
Apr 16, 2007
I think this is a little overboard, and I see it from the opposite point of view.
If Apple receives a court order/personal request, they (hopefully) review the legitimacy and validity of it, and if Apple ‘comes to the conclusion’ that they must relinquish the data, then they will.
They are not actively monitoring your listening habits for evil intentions, they state that if they are served a request for information, they will do it only if they agree.
It’s a way of saying they won’t give up information willy nilly to whoever asks for it. Apple does not have a DHS in-house monitoring aggregate and targeted stats.
ReallyEvilCanine
Apr 17, 2007
Your Bachelor’s degree in make-shit-up-ology isn’t recognised outside of Apple fanboi sites. You clearly have no understanding of legal writing.
Right. Now their ass is covered if law enforcement or a court order requires them to hand it over. And that should be the end of it.
But it’s not. They add another line:
If things at Apple were as you’d like to believe they are, this line would be totally unnecessary. It defines and additional circumstance in which Apple would hand over your information to whomever they felt ought to have it. This sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with any (questionably) legal requests from a government agency. This sentence — in essence — warns that Apple may actively or passively monitor you and should you do something which seems suspicious to Apple, they’ll call up DHS, FBI, and anyone else they feel like and tell ‘em all about you.
If you still disagree, go get your JD, then come back and explain to me the error of my statements.
geri
Apr 17, 2007
I have to agree that a statement like that would put me off a product…but fast.
And don’t give me a line about ‘if you don’t do anything wrong you don’t have to worry’. If you read the news you can find ALOT of people who didn’t break the law that got arrested/in trouble anyway and then had to spend alot of money/time/loss of work hours straightening everything out.
Innocent bystanders DO get caught in the crossfire and those not so innocent DO get away alot of the times.
Scott
Apr 20, 2007
I’m with Michael on this. And it doens’t matter why they are collecting the information, it’s the fact that they are doing it and can turn it over to the government that should bother everyone. It is very much a matter of principle, which is why I refuse to use it.
Another great replacement to iTunes for managing your music and syncing your iPod or other mp3 player is Not only is it well designed, but it’s completely customizable. Once I used it I haven’t used anything else since.
Scott
Apr 20, 2007
Not sure why the name disappeared, but the program is MediaMonkey
iPodette
Apr 24, 2007
I think it’s mostly to foil people who steal music, not to weed out potential terrorists. What kind of music would be accurately indicative of someone being a terrorist anyway?
iPodette
Apr 24, 2007
PS – That’s right, Al Gore being on Apple’s board is enough to creep me out, but I still have a fleet of Macs and several iPods because they are the best.
By the way, you should SEE all the data THIS site collects from users!
iPodette
Apr 24, 2007
You should see the data that this site collects.
Michael Hampton
Apr 24, 2007
I don’t keep all that information. This site’s too sensitive for that.
I just show it to you, so that you know what information YOU are giving to every web site YOU visit and can test your privacy protection software.
See also the privacy policy.
unknown
Apr 25, 2007
Apple probably has this for piracy reasons.. which I could almost guarentee is THE reason. The same reason you cannot transfer music from an ipod to your itunes. Also why itunes exists, so that digital music is being paid for not stolen. Then again who wants anyone checking on my music listening habits, so they could “know” more about me and figure out what more they can sell me. So let them try to learn all about me, because in the end they won’t know a thing. My possesions do not define me, so im not worried..
Fred
Apr 28, 2007
Hi. I would suggets you go with the Creative Zen Vision M:. Thay are great Mp3 players. I have the 30gb model which has FM radio & recorder, plays quite a few video formats,(xvid,divx,mpeg4,etc). It has a voice recorder and does picures too. There’s also a 60gb version out now. You won’t be disappointed.
Bob
May 06, 2007
You have something to hide?
A-ok
May 24, 2007
So you think we should not buy an ipod because….
You suffer with paranoia of someday becoming a terrorist or possibly already are one and you are trying to say your squirrelly wrath will all be destroyed by the Apple Corporation? Hmmmmm. Interesting …Sorry I’m still not convinced.
?????
Aug 18, 2007
I am confused I mean they are the ones selling the songs, shows and broadcast…
J'raxis
Sep 06, 2007
The second sentence is bullshit. But like someone else said, the first sentence is just Apple stating the law to cover their ass, and doing such actually helps protect people who might have otherwise done something illegal and not realized they were being watched.
I’d actually love to see more businesses do things like this. “WARNING: It is ILLEGAL to use this service to … Per 18 USC 123456, we are LEGALLY REQUIRED to report such activity to the federal government and cooperate with any investigations.”
Then you wouldn’t read stories about people getting arrested because they posted a call to violence on a forum, or their computer repairman stumbled into their illegal porn collection, or whatever.
William R. James
Oct 18, 2007
Apple has lok=ng been known for spamming. I have their entire range of IPs entirely blocked and had them blocked for years because they wouldn’t cease spamming my addresses. And, no, I’ve never bought anything from Apple and never gave them any address for any purpose, so they don’t just spam their own customers lke eBay and Spamazon, they harvest addresses or purchase them from other spammers.
Trevor
Dec 13, 2007
I don’t even think the part of the agreement that reads:
“We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary.”
is about actual disclosure to the government if asked. This is basically saying they can monitor you, sell your purchasing habits to anyone they want, and you can be Advertisement ridden for the rest of your life. “Public importance” could very well be Apple’s best interest and consist of making other public companies aware of your purchases or listening habits. That may not be what it’s intended for. HOWEVER if Apple chooses to sell your info to whomever, according to a court’s decision, they are able to do so… Just my $.02…
Sean
Dec 24, 2007
“Now if you can come up with some legitimate “national security” reason why the government might need to know what sort of music I listen to, then by all means make the attempt.”
Given that there is certain music which is known to appeal exclusively to white supremacist groups — various forms of metal specifically about white supremacy, I mean — is it unreasonable to think that there is Arab music which is specifically no-bones-about-it pro-terrorist?
Since we all know that the government keeps lists on people with certain beliefs, and given that the reason for keeping these lists is that the general violent nature of the people with those beliefs, I don’t personally have a problem with the idea that Apple would do that. Evidence like that could be the thing that helps get somebody sent away longer after beating a black guy to death, the thing that proves that the crime was racially motivated.
Sean
Dec 24, 2007
“If you still disagree, go get your JD, then come back and explain to me the error of my statements.”
I’ve spotted at least two.
“This sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with any (questionably) legal requests from a government agency.”
This “questionably” — that’s untrue. Any information that iTunes compiles on you through you buying products is public enough that a government agency can certainly make legal requests for it. This is the same as you going to a store and buying something; the government can get any information you gave the clerk, and any information off your credit card from your company. So, right there, you’re wrong; there’s nothing questionable about their rights there.
“This sentence — in essence — warns that Apple may actively or passively monitor you and should you do something which seems suspicious to Apple, they’ll call up DHS, FBI, and anyone else they feel like and tell ‘em all about you.”
Right here, when you say “they will call up”, it does not say that at all. It simply says that they might. Now, it should be prima facie obvious that no human being is monitoring the downloads at Apple, because that would be impossible and unneccessarily complicated. So, reasonably, any monitoring being done is via computer, searching for patterns. And we already know that Apple is doing that, looking for patterns, monitoring patterns. The better their software gets at identifying patterns, the more profitable their system will be. So their goal, in theory, should be 100% accuracy, right? Now, they can’t acheive 100%, but they can already, even without 100%, get pretty freakily accurate about a person if they have enough data…
Basically, what that clause *actually* says is that, if Apple computers flag you based on the patterns of music that you listen to, it’s possible that your information will be passed along. It’s not like a confession booth; if you download a thousand songs by Prussian Blue, then I believe Apple should forward your name to get put on an appropriate white supremacist list, just as quickly as if you bought a thousand subscriptions to some sort of white supremacist literature.
kel
Jan 01, 2008
for crying out loud. dont u get it? all that apple is saying is they can give out ur music buying habits and sell them to other companies. they just put in the government part to make it soung legit.!