And John, thank you so much for that generous

introduction and for hosting us today.

It's a privilege to join you and to learn from this

knowledgeable panel on this fitting occasion

of Data Privacy Day.

A little more than two years ago, joined by my

good friend, the much-missed Giovanni

Bittarelli and data protection regulators from

around the world, I spoke in Brussels about the

emergence of a data industrial complex.

At that gathering, we asked ourselves what kind

of world do we want to live in?

Two years later, we should now take a hard

look at how we've answered that question.

The fact is that an interconnected ecosystem

of companies and data brokers, purveyors of fake

news and peddlers of division, of trackers and

hucksters just looking to make a quick buck is more

present in our lives than it has ever been.

It has never been so clear how it degrades our

fundamental right to privacy first and our

social fabric by consequence.

As I've said before, if we accept as normal and

unavoidable that everything in our lives

can be aggregated and sold, then we lose so

much more than data.

We lose the freedom to be human.

And yet this is a hopeful new season, a time of

thoughtfulness and reform, and the most concrete

progress of all is thanks to many of you.

Proving cynics and doomsayers wrong, the GDPR

has provided an important foundation for privacy

rights around the world and its implementation and

enforcement must continue.

But we can't stop there.

We must do more.

We're already seeing hopeful steps forward

worldwide, including a successful ballot

initiative strengthening consumer protections right

here in California.

Together, we must send a universal humanistic

response to those who claim a right to users'

private information about what should not and will

not be tolerated.

As I said in Brussels two years ago, it is certainly

time not only for a comprehensive privacy law

here in the United States but also for worldwide

laws and new international agreements that enshrine

the principles of data minimization, user knowledge,

user access, and data security across the globe.

At Apple, spurred on by the leadership of many of

you in the privacy community, these have been

two years of unceasing action.

We have worked to not only deepen our own core

privacy principles but to create ripples of positive

change across the industry as a whole.

We've spoken out time and again for strong

encryption without backdoors, recognizing

that security is the foundation of privacy.

We've set new industry standards for data

minimization, user control, and on-device

processing for everything from location data to your

contacts and photos.

At the same time that we've led the way in

features that keep you healthy and well, we've

made sure that technologies like a blood

oxygen sensor and an ECG come with peace of mind

that your health data stays yours.

And last, but not least, we are deploying powerful

new requirements to advance user privacy

throughout the App Store ecosystem.

The first is a simple but revolutionary idea that we

call the Privacy Nutrition Label.

Every app, including our own, must share their data

collection and privacy practices, information

that the App Store presents in a way every

user can understand and act on.

The second is called App Tracking Transparency.

At its foundation, ATT is about returning control to

users about giving them a say over how

their data is handled.

Users have asked for this feature for a long time.

We have worked closely with developers to give

them the time and resources to implement it.

We are passionate about it because we think it has

great potential to make things better for

everybody because ATT responds to a very real issue.

Earlier today, we released a new paper called A Day

in the Life of Your Data.

It tells the story of how apps that we use every day

contain an average of six trackers.

This code often exists to surveil and identify users

across apps, watching and recording their behavior.

In this case, what the user sees is not

always what they get.

Right now, users may not know whether the apps they

use to pass the time, to check in with their

friends, or to find a place to eat may, in fact,

be passing on information about the photos they've

taken, the people in their contact list, or location

data that reflects where they eat, sleep, or pray.

As the paper shows, it seems no piece of

information is too private or personal to be

surveilled, monetized, and aggregated into a

360-degree view of your life.

The end result of all of this is that you are no

longer the customer.

You are the product.

When ATT is in full effect, users will have

a say over this kind of tracking.

Some may well think that sharing this degree of

information is worth it for more targeted ads.

Many others, I suspect, will not.

Just as most appreciated it when we built a similar

functionality into Safari limiting web

trackers several years ago.

We see developing these kinds of privacy-centric

features and innovations as a core

responsibility of our work.

We always have.

We always will.

The fact is that the debate over ATT is a

microcosm of a debate we've been having for a

long time, one where our point of view is very clear.

Technology does not need vast troves of personal

data stitched together across dozens of websites

and apps in order to succeed.

Advertising existed and thrived for decades without it.

We are here today because the path of least

resistance is rarely the path of wisdom.

If a business is built on misleading users on data

exploitation, on choices that are no choices at

all, then it does not deserve our praise.

It deserves reform.

We should not look away from the bigger picture.

At a moment of rampant disinformation and

conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no

longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology

that says all engagement is good engagement.

The longer, the better.

And all with a goal of collecting as much

data as possible.

Too many are still asking the question how much can

we get away with when they need to be asking what

are the consequences.

What are the consequences of prioritizing conspiracy

theories and violent incitement simply because

of the high rates of engagement?

What are the consequences of not just tolerating but

rewarding content that undermines public trust

and lifesaving vaccinations?

What are the consequences of seeing thousands of

users join extremist groups and then perpetuating

an algorithm that recommends even more?

It is long past time to stop pretending that this

approach doesn't come with a cost, a polarization, of

lost trust, and, yes, of violence.

A social dilemma cannot be allowed to become

a social catastrophe.

I think the past year, and certainly recent events,

have brought home the risk of this for all of us as a

society and as individuals as much as anything else.

Long hours spent cooped up at home, the challenge of

keeping kids learning when schools are closed, the

worry and uncertainty about what the future

would hold, all of these things threw into sharp

relief how technology can help and how it can

be used to harm.

Will the future belong to the innovations that make

our lives better, more fulfilled, and more human,

or will it belong to those tools that pries our

attention to the exclusion of everything else,

compounding our fears and aggregating extremism to

serve ever-more invasively targeted ads over

all other ambitions?

At Apple, we made our choice a long time ago.

We believe that ethical technology is technology

that works for you.

It's technology that helps you sleep, not keeps you

up, that tells you when you've had enough, that

gives you space to create or draw or write or learn,

not refresh just one more time.

It's technology that can fade into the background

when you're on a hike or going for a swim but is

there to warn you when your heart rate spikes or

help you when you've had a nasty fall.

And that all of this always puts privacy and

security first because no one needs to trade away

the rights of their users to deliver a great product.

Call us nïve.

But we still believe that technology made by people,

for people, and with people's wellbeing in

mind is too valuable a tool to abandon.

We still believe that the best measure of technology

is the lives it improves.

We are not perfect.

We will make mistakes.

That's what makes us human.

But our commitment to you, now and always, is that we

will keep faith with the values that have inspired

our products from the very beginning because what we

share with the world is nothing without the trust

our users have in it.

To all of you who have joined us today, please

keep pushing us all forward, keep setting high

standards that put privacy first, and take new and

necessary steps to reform what is broken.

We've made progress together and we must make

more because the time is always right to be bold

and brave in service of a world where, as Giovanni

Bittarelli put it, technology serves people

and not the other way around.

Thank you very much.