Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Rod Speed" Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.ipad,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:12:40 +1100 Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com> <061120131050133286%foo@bar.com> <1lc0d14.1u0aw63k7fnetN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net APDrNJ0WbU8JGskrCnP+8AyZuyZEZepLek58vOryuLvupBbxo= Cancel-Lock: sha1:uJRI6LqVfnEggkUdYsx3BEEJFRw= In-Reply-To: <1lc0d14.1u0aw63k7fnetN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 Xref: csiph.com comp.mobile.ipad:28779 comp.sys.mac.system:52032 David Empson wrote > Doc O'Leary wrote >> Michelle Steiner wrote >>> Doc O'Leary wrote >>>> Michelle Steiner wrote >>>>> Quite interesting. Apple is on the side of privacy. >>>> Apple is on the side of Apple. If they were truly on the side >>>> of privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people. >>>> Because, you know, the first step in protecting your customer's >>>> private information is to not collect it in the first place. >>> What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on >>> people? >> Other than precisely worded legalese, what makes you think they're >> *not*? Upon upgrading to 10.9, Mac users were greeted with the >> inability to keep structured personal information (e.g., contacts, >> calendars) in sync across their Apple devices without the use of iCloud. > The easiest method is iCloud, but you can use a different service, such > as Google, an Exchange server, or some other service which implements > CalDAV and CardDAV. > That can include a server you are running yourself on a computer on your > own local network, which is not accessible to the Internet if you have > your router set up correctly. > Any location other than iCloud means that Apple doesn't have access to > the server side copy of your data. > Paranoia about Apple insisting on getting its hands on your personal > data is not justified. That's very arguable indeed given that Apple chose not to allow local usb or wifi anymore. >> I'm told Windows users are not similarly inconvenienced. > True: iTunes local sync is still possible on Windows. I haven't > looked into the technical details, but I expect this is because > Windows is providing a standard facility which deals with syncing data > with Outlook (or supported alternatives) from arbitrary sources. > The reason that iTunes can't do local sync any more with OS X 10.9 > is that Apple removed the Sync Services framework in 10.9. Sync > Services was responsible for merging data between applications like > Contacts/Address Book or Calendar/iCal and other local sources like > iTunes, Entourage/Outlook, BusyCal 1.6 or earlier, Missing Sync or > earlier Palm-compatible plugins for the iSync application. > Sync Services worked by holding a reference copy of the last synced > state, and compared its data with the source that was doing a sync, > pushing any resulting changes back to the source and out to the > application which displays the data, such as Contacts or Calendar. If > conflicts arose such as changes being made on two sources between > syncs, it would pop up a message asking for the user to resolve the sync. > Contacts and Calendar have their own local copy of the data, and if > iCloud or another online service is used, that copy is synced with the > online service (not using Sync Services). > Apple had already classified Sync Services as being deprecated > in Mountain Lion, and in Mavericks they dropped it. The iSync > application was removed earlier, if I remember right.