4 ms·

I suppose there are the questions of law and fiduciary duties. If it's the law, it's the law. In China, it's the law to remove VPN apps. I suppose it's really

I suppose there are the questions of law and fiduciary duties. If it's the law, it's the law. In China, it's the law to remove VPN apps. I suppose it's really not much different than the laws in the US that compel companies to give the government access to my information if they request such access. It's just the law, it's not really Facebook and Google trying to screw me. All that said, I think what most posters are advocating is maybe for Apple to just leave China. And, of course, that's where the other shoe drops... with the question of fiduciary duties. So yeah... I see your point... because of the legal issues involved, privacy and access can be tough problems. Not just in China or the US, but elsewhere in the world as well. *EDITS for grammar

virtuabhi 9y ago
"I suppose it's really not much different than the laws in the US that compel companies to give the government access to my information if they request such access." No, in US the directive comes from court and even then the companies can deny the information if it is encrypted (e.g. like Apple did in San Bernardino). I also do not understand the nonsensical argument everyday that if US does small x then it allows other countries to do big X along with big Y. What kind of logic is this?
- dogma1138 9y ago
  A company cannot legally defy the court in the US. They can only argue against a specific request it and appeal a ruling or an order. As for the San Bernadino case it's not correct. Apple has complied with the court order, they gave the FBI access to the iCloud Account. What they didn't do is to decrypt the phone but they were also not ordered too by the court. If the court would have ordered them to develop a way to decrypt the device and they've lost all appeals they would've complied with that too.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>I suppose it's really not much different than the laws in the US that compel companies to give the government access to my information if they request such access. It is very different. Censorship with the main objective of keeping an unelected regime in power by suppressing free speech is not the same as any problematic side-effects of fighting crime and terrorism. Granted, there are some grey areas such as oppression of sexual minorities, but the distinction between political oppression and crime fighting should not be lost completely. The least Apple could do is allow sideloading of apps.
- smichel17 9y ago
  Basically this. Apple's walled garden puts them in a position of power where their only choices are comply or leave. By contrast, Google could ship an Android phone in China with vpn features removed, ban vpn apps from the play store, and I would still be able to install a 3rd party vpn app.
atmosx 9y ago
For you the fact that something is law might tramp morality. Law vs morality is an ancient struggle[1]. [1] http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/classics/antigone-moral-law-v-s-political-law.html http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/classics/anti...
jMyles 9y ago
> It's just the law, it's not really Facebook and Google trying to screw me. There are bad laws, and then there are bad actors refusing to disobey bad laws, which is a quintessential civic obligation in the western tradition.

virtuabhi 9y ago

"I suppose it's really not much different than the laws in the US that compel companies to give the government access to my information if they request such access." No, in US the directive comes from court and even then the companies can deny the information if it is encrypted (e.g. like Apple did in San Bernardino). I also do not understand the nonsensical argument everyday that if US does small x then it allows other countries to do big X along with big Y. What kind of logic is this?

dogma1138 9y ago
A company cannot legally defy the court in the US. They can only argue against a specific request it and appeal a ruling or an order. As for the San Bernadino case it's not correct. Apple has complied with the court order, they gave the FBI access to the iCloud Account. What they didn't do is to decrypt the phone but they were also not ordered too by the court. If the court would have ordered them to develop a way to decrypt the device and they've lost all appeals they would've complied with that too.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

>I suppose it's really not much different than the laws in the US that compel companies to give the government access to my information if they request such access. It is very different. Censorship with the main objective of keeping an unelected regime in power by suppressing free speech is not the same as any problematic side-effects of fighting crime and terrorism. Granted, there are some grey areas such as oppression of sexual minorities, but the distinction between political oppression and crime fighting should not be lost completely. The least Apple could do is allow sideloading of apps.

smichel17 9y ago
Basically this. Apple's walled garden puts them in a position of power where their only choices are comply or leave. By contrast, Google could ship an Android phone in China with vpn features removed, ban vpn apps from the play store, and I would still be able to install a 3rd party vpn app.

atmosx 9y ago

For you the fact that something is law might tramp morality. Law vs morality is an ancient struggle[1]. [1] http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/classics/antigone-moral-law-v-s-political-law.html http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/classics/anti...

jMyles 9y ago

> It's just the law, it's not really Facebook and Google trying to screw me. There are bad laws, and then there are bad actors refusing to disobey bad laws, which is a quintessential civic obligation in the western tradition.