5 ms·

Normally people on HN are much more skeptical about airy promises and assertions from corporate executives. I don't see what behavior on Tim Cook's part has ind

Normally people on HN are much more skeptical about airy promises and assertions from corporate executives. I don't see what behavior on Tim Cook's part has indicated he's more to be trusted than anyone else.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
"more to be trusted than anyone else" Cook's responsibility is first and foremost to the stockholders, and secondarily to the customers. Decrypting the iPhone would seriously compromise the security of Apple's products, gravely damage the company's credibility, hurt sales, and drive the stock price down. No CEO is going to take such a drastic step unless they are a craven, cowardly type who meekly obeys ask-for-the-sky demands from overbearing federal law enforcement types, and Cook surely did not rise to his current position by being a pushover. That's not to say there won't be some kind of secret deal made behind closed doors, but secrets tend to get out. Apple would not be so foolish, I think. Yahoo? Microsoft? They just handed over the keys to their email to anyone who demanded it -- the Chinese government, the NSA -- but Apple has no history of this type of behavior. Surely Snowden would have revealed it if they had.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Not more to be trusted than anyone else, perhaps. But the claim was, "the only reason he's doing it is because it would cause a significant drop in sales for Apple devices" (emphasis added). I can trust him no more than I trust anyone else, and still not be totally cynical as to his motives. They're mixed, they're not completely altruistic, but they're (probably) not completely mercenary, either.
kbenson 11y ago
I think the only problem here is the strongness with which it is worded. It would be fair to say one of the reasons he is doing it is because of stock price, but to assert the only reason he is doing it is to cast him as completely uncaring about security and privacy. Without evidence to back this up (in this case, evidence that he doesn't care about security and privacy), it's an attack on his character. It's entirely possible his reasons include both, and that the moral sentiment behind the message is entirely truthful. We should be careful about plainly stating what someone else's motivations are when it contradicts their own story. Edit: s/it's/his reasons include/ for clarification.
- erikbigelow 11y ago
  He's an older gay man, I would be shocked if this didn't influence greatly his opinion in this realm. He's lived through some times that weren't too friendly to "his kind" that were open.
  - digitalneal 11y ago
    Growing up a target sure changes the way you look at everything.
  - shdon 11y ago
    He's pretty much said so: We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose. A world in which that information can make a difference between life and death. If those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy, we risk something far more valuable than money. We risk our way of life. See pages such as http://qz.com/344661/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-privacy-is-a-matter-of-life-and-death/ http://qz.com/344661/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-privacy-is-a-ma...
millstone 11y ago
Tim Cook was asked at a shareholder meeting to only do things that were profitable. He passionately rejected the idea, and named accessibility for the blind, environmental issues/climate change, and worker safety as areas where Apple invests because it's right, without considering the "bloody ROI". [1] Compare to GE, which rolled over [2]. So I believe Mr Cook when he says his opposition to the FBI's request is rooted in a desire to do the right thing, and not the bottom line. [1] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politics-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-reje... [2] http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-GE_Climate_Change_022114.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-GE_Climate_Change_022114.ht...
- mturmon 11y ago
  Just to sharpen your comment, here's the summary of that interaction with a shareholder: [Cook] didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." That's a very blunt statement that the immediate stock valuation is not Cook's only consideration. Some people seem to have a hard time taking Cook at his word, but he's been quite consistent. This massive skepticism feels more like nostalgie de la boue than anything based in facts.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

"more to be trusted than anyone else" Cook's responsibility is first and foremost to the stockholders, and secondarily to the customers. Decrypting the iPhone would seriously compromise the security of Apple's products, gravely damage the company's credibility, hurt sales, and drive the stock price down. No CEO is going to take such a drastic step unless they are a craven, cowardly type who meekly obeys ask-for-the-sky demands from overbearing federal law enforcement types, and Cook surely did not rise to his current position by being a pushover. That's not to say there won't be some kind of secret deal made behind closed doors, but secrets tend to get out. Apple would not be so foolish, I think. Yahoo? Microsoft? They just handed over the keys to their email to anyone who demanded it -- the Chinese government, the NSA -- but Apple has no history of this type of behavior. Surely Snowden would have revealed it if they had.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

Not more to be trusted than anyone else, perhaps. But the claim was, "the only reason he's doing it is because it would cause a significant drop in sales for Apple devices" (emphasis added). I can trust him no more than I trust anyone else, and still not be totally cynical as to his motives. They're mixed, they're not completely altruistic, but they're (probably) not completely mercenary, either.

kbenson 11y ago

I think the only problem here is the strongness with which it is worded. It would be fair to say one of the reasons he is doing it is because of stock price, but to assert the only reason he is doing it is to cast him as completely uncaring about security and privacy. Without evidence to back this up (in this case, evidence that he doesn't care about security and privacy), it's an attack on his character. It's entirely possible his reasons include both, and that the moral sentiment behind the message is entirely truthful. We should be careful about plainly stating what someone else's motivations are when it contradicts their own story. Edit: s/it's/his reasons include/ for clarification.

erikbigelow 11y ago
He's an older gay man, I would be shocked if this didn't influence greatly his opinion in this realm. He's lived through some times that weren't too friendly to "his kind" that were open.
- digitalneal 11y ago
  Growing up a target sure changes the way you look at everything.
- shdon 11y ago
  He's pretty much said so: We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose. A world in which that information can make a difference between life and death. If those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy, we risk something far more valuable than money. We risk our way of life. See pages such as http://qz.com/344661/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-privacy-is-a-matter-of-life-and-death/ http://qz.com/344661/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-privacy-is-a-ma...

millstone 11y ago

Tim Cook was asked at a shareholder meeting to only do things that were profitable. He passionately rejected the idea, and named accessibility for the blind, environmental issues/climate change, and worker safety as areas where Apple invests because it's right, without considering the "bloody ROI". [1] Compare to GE, which rolled over [2]. So I believe Mr Cook when he says his opposition to the FBI's request is rooted in a desire to do the right thing, and not the bottom line. [1] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politics-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-reje... [2] http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-GE_Climate_Change_022114.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-GE_Climate_Change_022114.ht...

mturmon 11y ago
Just to sharpen your comment, here's the summary of that interaction with a shareholder: [Cook] didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." That's a very blunt statement that the immediate stock valuation is not Cook's only consideration. Some people seem to have a hard time taking Cook at his word, but he's been quite consistent. This massive skepticism feels more like nostalgie de la boue than anything based in facts.