Funny, because if it were MS doing something like this in Windows Phone 7 or what have you, there’d be pretty much universal condemnation.

On the question of “may” versus “will” — Apple isn’t promising to follow you around, but they’re saying that they might, and by using their devices, you consent to them doing this.

On the question of “to provide and improve location based services,” this doesn’t say, “To provide abnd improve services to YOU” — it says “to improve the services” themselves. Which means that Apple is reserving the right to gather as much info as they want in order, for example, to be able to answer questions like “How many people traverse this post-code every day?” or “How many people are in this cafe every day?”

On the question of “for example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in,” this does not follow any kind of promise of limitation to that example.

Apple’s contract lawyers know what these terms mean. They have pricey law-degrees and pedigrees from top-notch firms. When Apple wants to write a ToS that says,

“We will only gather information when you opt in, and then only as much as we need to provide the services you’re opting in to, and then we will anonymize that data as much as we can,”

they are perfectly capable of doing so.

On the other hand, when they write a clause that says,

“All iPad/iPod users’ real-time, precise location data may be collected at any time, and can be shared with anyone, any time we believe such sharing will improve or provide a service — not necessarily to you — though we’ll anonymize it as much as possible,”

then it’s reasonable to assume they didn’t accidentally omit the privacy guarantees (nor is it reasonable to assume that they accidentally revised a previous set of terms that DID allow for an explicit opt-out of this data-gathering with a new set that removes that explicit opt-out).

Regarding legacy versions of iTunes and iOS devices accessing current iTunes content, well it depends. Of course an unpatched gen1 iOS device can’t run ANY apps from the app store as that feature wasn’t introduced until iOS 2. But, no, an iOS 2 device won’t be able to run every app on the app store – not because of any sort of artificial restriction, but because developers have targeted features provided by newer versions of the OS. To reiterate, I could, if I really wanted to, write and publish an app that could be run by any iOS version (greater than 1).

As far as media is concerned, I’m positive that any DRM’d music files will play in any version of iTunes that supports the music store. I haven’t tried video content, but I imaging that any version of iTunes that supported the video store would be able to play any DRM’d video.

Big bad Apple is gonna follow you around (O noes!) but hey, look (just look at it!) this nifty way of telling Google where and when I’m going to date Ellen, not only exposing *my* location but that of Ellern, too.

Well, at least I get nifty ads about wedding rings by this, while Appe probably wan’t to harvest my liver for Steve Jobs, eh?

Ethical: When I give you my location in order to provide a service for me, you know that location, to the extent that you must to provide the service. I can delete that record at any time. I can export all the information I’ve given you at any time. Any time you change the terms, they act only prospectively; I’m not locked into using your service in order to go on enjoying my property, such as an expensive mobile device (especially one where acquiring it requires a multi-year contract with a mobile company).

Unethical: You dictate that in order to go on enjoying the property I’ve paid for, and in order to go on using the long-term contract I’ve had to buy into in order to use the device in the first place, that I must consent to you gathering my location information when it suits your purpose. I can’t opt out of this collection. I can’t see what you’ve collected. I can’t delete what you’ve collected. I can’t export what you’ve collected for my own purposes.

I don’t see any contradiction with celebrating the former and damning the latter.

I think we’re going to have differing interpretations of this.

Having read some 31 different Cloud Computing ToS (comparative analysis paper coming from QMUL soon, honest!) I have grave doubts about the extent to which most ToS are legally nitpicked in the manner you suggest. If nothing else, lawyers are expensive and the more time you ask them to spend coming up with bulletproof ToS that are both customer-friendly and protect the corporate interest (not entirely consistent concepts) the more money you end up paying.

Another point to remember is that I use my iPhone under the ToS for iTunes applicable to consumers in the UK. These specify that my relationship with Apple (including the Privacy Policy) is governed by English law. (I expect some of my iPhone-using friends in Scotland will fume quietly at that.) This means that the Data Protection Act applies, so Apple is constrained to an extent – although the DPA is by no means perfect – in what it can do with information it gathers from me.

In short, I think if a lawyer for Apple stood up in court and tried to justify the sort of data-sharing you have concerns about by reference to the ToS, he or she might get pretty short shrift.

;-)

They don’t offer opt out for reading my email. Or watching my web behavior. They already do IP based collection and direction of ads. They collect and save all their data. They have the infamous 2038 cookie. Eric Schmidt even says privacy doesn’t matter in his famous “maybe you shouldn’t be doing it” quote.

I get that Android is all openey goodness filled with magical unicorn meat and sparkles…but their behavior is not any more nefarious than Apple…in fact it is much more nefarious considering they are in fact in the INFORMATION business. But if there really is a privacy issue here it is more systemic of our culture and laws than whether or not Apple changes its ToS.

All this talk about walled gardens and the awesomeness of not being evil is all bullshit to me. Google has walls…they’ve just done a great job of making them look transparent…and as for bad bad Apple and their terrible ToS and walled ecosystem…let’s remember that both Apple and Google are in the business of making money…they aren’t wonderful golden showers (ahem) of altruism. If you want real privacy laws and protections…then you need to complain to lawmakers as companies like Apple and Google only do what the law allows them to do. I can’t fault them for that…although I can choose not to use Google’s products as I’m more afraid of them than Apple.

Evilness is not relative in this case. A ToS can stand or fall on it’s own merits or weaknesses.

This one is evil. Even moreso evil because it’s an after-the-fact evil. After you’ve spent hundreds of dollars and entered into a multi-year contract you are now thrust into it without any recourse other than paying MORE money to break the contract or just not using the device anymore…and all that money goes to waste.

I could care less what Google does. They may be more, less, or just as evil…I don’t care. This ToS from Apple is evil and bad.

If you upgrade using the phone itunes rather than the desktop itunes it seems like you’d have no problems at all.

Did you know this when you said quote “you really can’t opt out of stuff this without your life being made a hell”?

It’s touching to have such faith in a corporation that has done so relatively little to earn it, don’t you think?

Mind sharing your copy of the previous version? I can’t find it this morning.

This is in no way different from what Google have been openly doing from the beginning with Android. Of course there are ethical and unethical ways to gather information, but the operative definition around here appears to be:

Unethical: Whatever Apple does.
Ethical: Whatever Google does.

Nobody’s objective, even if some people get closer to it than others. Cory’s post can be judged on its own merits, and I think it does have merit.

The updated Apple terms are pretty questionable, and seem to me like an unnecessary overreach.

Having read some 31 different Cloud Computing ToS (comparative analysis paper coming from QMUL soon, honest!) I have grave doubts about the extent to which most ToS are legally nitpicked in the manner you suggest.

Cory continues to read off good points and valid reasoning… you keep reading off your resumé. I’ll go with Cory for the win on this debate.

coop

http://web.media.mit.edu/~sandy/tr10pdfdownload.pdf

– relate to this Apple story, if at all?

Wonder what they’ll change up next!

(Or at least turning it off until there’s an emergency, and in such scenario you’d most likely want your location available anyway. Heh.)