Who's assuming something nefarious is happening?

I find it odd how quickly Apple defenders jump to "let's not assume they're evil" in these cases, when no speculation on motivation is presented.

I personally don't care about motivation. I'm not even sure that a large company like Apple can meaningfully have motivations the way that we as individual humans think of them. All that matters is what they do.

It's obvious from the title that we're supposed to see this as a privacy violation, otherwise it wouldn't be news (or the headline would be about the functionality).

Yes, and I think it is a privacy violation.

However, that doesn't mean it's nefarious. I don't doubt that Apple, if it can have motivations at all, implemented this stuff with the best of intentions. But as I said, I don't care about that, I just care about what they do.

Why do you assume that I assume that you are assuming something?

Where did you get that?

Why do you label me as an Apple defender?

Tell me how would Apple provide this feature without sending data back?

You said, "But let us not assume something nefarious is happening."

Why even bring that up unless you think somebody might assume nefariousness?

Why do I label you as an Apple defender? Because... you're defending... Apple.... Is this a trick question?

How would Apple provide this feature without sending data? I don't see how that's a relevant question. You imply that it's OK for them to do this as long as it's necessary for the feature. I disagree. The feature doesn't have to be implemented. It doesn't have to be turned on by default if it is implemented. And if implemented and turned on by default, they could do a much better job of telling you about the implications and telling you how to turn it off.

"Let us not do X"

can also be uttered before someone does X.

Are you saying that online community of Apple haters (I am not calling you a hater) is not prone to assumptions?

I'm saying nothing about Apple haters. No commentary made there, neither express nor implied.