I'm not going to great lengths to $yourstrawman, certainly not in a kiddo phrasing like "is secretly trying to violate your privacy." I say what I say, in the words I use, and apparently none of you can argue with one bit of it, yet you downvote like mad regardless.
Were any of you even aware of the information? I looked at that list out of curiosity, and was surprised to see Apple. I was less surprised to see others, but Apple did surprise me. Not as surprising as the pathetic reaction here so far, but still surprising. And I don't take Apple seriously since the 1 button mouses, you know? I still believed their "privacy in our walled garden" stance, it's not like that required flattering them.
> the tech company with the best track record for privacy
I simply never bought into the premise that I have to pick among the presented turds. At that level of size and desire to be a middleman just to be a middleman, they're all trash sadly, and if you think criticizing one means bolstering the others, that's your outlook, another premise I don't share.
May be a member? They are. And I tried looking for an statement by Apple on that issue, couldn't find one. So until I see one, I'll say the lobby group speaks for them.
Is the money that lobby groups works with organized in such a way that Apple's money doesn't go towards this particular thing? If not, what does "not supporting that stance" even mean? That they outsourced their fight for it, so that they can have the nasty outcome and stay morally pure, that as long as there is some bending over backwards possibility of Apple being against it, they're against it?
> There are a lot of members of CTIA,
Apple is a giant, not just one member among hundreds. If they are quiet on this, it has their support. Or are you saying they might not even be aware? Just didn't find it important enough to scream bloody murder about it? No matter how you try to spin it, can you spin it into something really good?
> and CTIA presumably lobbies for a lot of things, not just ISP privacy rules.
Unless you're meaning to say the also have a part of the budged for lobbying for the opposite of this effort I can only ask "yes, and?".
You mean the Walkman, right? Why yes, I heard of it, but thanks for double checking.
Anyway, If they're pro-privacy, it would also make sense for them to raise hell about the group they're part of for some other reason is arguing that browsing data shouldn't be considered private, of all things.
5 downvotes huh; anyone able to explain how the above is compatible with a strong pro-privacy stance? That's like saying you're a vegetarian, except for saturday noon.
> Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, the motto was replaced in the Alphabet corporate code of conduct by the phrase "Do the right thing"; however, the Google code of conduct is still prefaced by the phrase "Don't be evil"
Come to think of it, those are both equally useless mottos. Most people any of us may consider evil are not evil in their own eyes. Such a motto contains nothing at all, it says even less ethically than "brush your teeth" or "introduce yourself when meeting new people".
Unless it's meant as a slight counterbalance to pure profit seeking? Yet, some people think free market agents seeking profits is the most holy and pure thing ever, with the virgin birth coming a far off second, so I'll still go with "completely useless and void of meaning" because that seems safer :P