10 ms·

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. As

by sriku 9y ago

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is part of law, the legal system recently ruled that Facebook can continue to track users online even when they're logged out. So pretending that the privacy issue is one of "morality" is just borrowing the emotional power of the "morality" label for something that is not a universal law on the planet ... not even within aspects of the US. It is not different from a middle-eastern global company offering christmas discounts for its products in western countries, or Amazon not selling banned books in the countries they operate, or selling books on witchcraft and sorcery as though the books were of the same standing as, say, Principia Mathemtica. Permitted? Do. Not permitted? Don't. ... unless the goal of your company is to champion a particular political ideology. So, frankly, this NYTimes article is, from a global perspective, "politically incorrect".

Barrin92 9y ago
exactly. Outsourcing foreign politics or issues of morality to a business is both harmful (because that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be) and it circumvents Chinese law. If issues of privacy in China are very important to you electing officials who's foreign policy reflects that is a better idea.
- icebraining 9y ago
  that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be Ok, argue it. Why should a company, as a member of the society it's based in, be above criticism for taking immoral actions just because they happen somewhere else? And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line?
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    > And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line? You're arguing in circles here. Immoral is in the eye of the beholder, culturally, so by defining something as "immoral" you're just labelling it as "bad" and asking somebody to justify decisions. That's a loaded question and a cheap rhetorical technique. You could make an argument that since most governed people in China don't mind that they have limited freedom of speech, there is nothing immoral about it. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often
    - icebraining 9y ago
      No, I'm asking under Barrin92's own moral code: if there's nothing Apple could do that Barrin92 would find morally abhorrent and worth criticizing Apple for, assuming it was legal in the other country. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often That's a funny position. So if the people actually hated it, but the State's repression mechanisms kept them in line, it would be moral?
      - Barrin92 9y ago
        I'm saying regardless of what my or someone elses moral positions are, businesses are not the right body to carry them out. Apple is a business, not a governmental or civic institution. And to answer your question, of course Apple could do things that I consider morally abhorrent (even if they happen to be legal), but it is the public's and the respective governments job to set out the laws, it's not the job of Apple's CEO.
- gurkendoktor 9y ago
  > Outsourcing foreign politics or issues of morality to a business is both harmful (because that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be) Or in other words, corporations should at all costs be faceless? Is it wrong, then, that Tim Cook uses his CEO creds to rally for LBGT rights? Should companies stop meddling with politics by pushing back against encryption backdoors? Should companies use every harmful additive that's not yet illegal to please shareholders?
chibg10 9y ago
This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.
- schoen 9y ago
  While I agree with attempts to prevent governments from controlling speech, have spent a fair amount of time working on that, and was disturbed by Apple's role here, I don't think the dichotomy you present works as cleanly as you suggest. State power and culture shape and reinforce each other in an extremely complex way.
  - olalonde 9y ago
    That's true. I lived in China for a few years and was surprised to find out that most people seemed relatively (if not very) happy with the CCP. Ignorance plays a role but it's mainly that they value economic growth (and therefore, political stability) over anything else. Free speech would be nice but when you go from near starvation to owning a house and a car, you learn what economic growth does and start to value it.
    - balls187 9y ago
      > I lived in China for a few years and was surprised to find out that most people seemed relatively (if not very) happy with the CCP. What happens if you make your displeasure with the CCP known publically?
      - olalonde 9y ago
        Assuming it was a rhetorical question: I am basing my observation on many private conversations I had over the years (e.g. with my wife). I think most foreigners in China would agree with this as well. In case your question wasn't rhetorical: nothing would happen. That is, unless you were a very public figure or made it your life's mission. Fun fact: China has a very low incarceration rate, about 15% that of the USA. It's not like people are getting thrown in jail right and left for opening their mouth. I know, it's a hard pill to swallow.
MBCook 9y ago
You're right. That's why neither iMessage nor FaceTime use encryption in china. Because they don't care. Oh wait, Apple still uses into end encryption in China for both of those so that the Government Camp spy on people. Getting rid of VPN apps is part of staying in China. So the question you have to ask is which is better for Apple to do: stay trying out without VPNs but keeping their consumer products encrypted whenever possible, or keep VPNs in the store and get all their products kicked out of the country. If Apple gets kicked out, the no one gets to use VPNs on their iPhones. They don't get to use iPhones at all. They lose the encryption of iMessage in FaceTime. (and the board may not let them pull out of China to anyway)
- Jyaif 9y ago
  Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well... But there's nothing wrong with staying in China to increase profits, it's their biggest market after all.
  - Udo_Schmitz 9y ago
    Citation needed.
  - TrickyRick 9y ago
    > Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well.. Both these facts are false according to the article we're discussing.
    - slac 9y ago
      Just got back from 9 days in China. My observation is that some services are blocked on local Sim card yet available on international ones.
rayiner 9y ago
> A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Global companies are instrumental in transmitting western values to the rest of the world. You can't antagonize host countries but at the same time you can't ignore the arc of the moral universe. Domestically, a great example is the economic repercussion for southern states that tried to pass trans bathroom laws. Companies didn't worry about "respecting political/cultural differences." They did what was right.
- ams6110 9y ago
  They did what was right. They did what was popular. That it was right was a coincidence.
- prewett 9y ago
  So by that logic, Chinese companies should push Chinese values on the rest of the world. Are you okay with that? And if not, what makes Western values special? Absent an independent moral authority (i.e. God of some sort), there's no way to say that Western values even should be spread. Absent an independent moral authority, pushing your values on everyone else is exactly what the Chinese government is doing. The trans bathroom laws are a good example. What makes your position "right"? The other position happens to go against some of your core values (presumably), but that doesn't make it "wrong." Maybe your core values are "wrong" or at least incomplete. There's a lot of people that are trying to push their values on people under the guise of "it's right." Ironically, these people will say they want people to have the freedom to live the way they want. Trans bathrooms, homosexual marriage: well, maybe I don't want to live in a world where I have to put up with that. Too bad, I don't get a choice, because "it's right." You'd better have concrete direction from the independent moral authority (i.e. God) if you're going to push your values on other people, because otherwise it's just intolerant. "I feel strongly about this" != "it's right"
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > what makes Western values special? Absent an independent moral authority (i.e. God of some sort), there's no way to say that Western values even should be spread. That's a philosophical challenge but not a real argument. Obviously we can, we do, and we must make moral distinctions despite the handicap of our lack of omniscience. One way we do it is by the use of reason, which separates humans from beasts and our current world from the Dark Ages. There are arguments against the universality of these values, but the one above isn't one of them. If Chinese law required Apple to hand over names and locations of its users for mass executions, obviously the moral relativism argument wouldn't hold. The issue here is that VPNs are a less clear moral issue - obviously it would be better if Chinese people had free speech, but is it worth Apple fighting a battle for it? Another way to ask: Is it ok for Apple to sacrifice their rights in order to make more money? I'll also point out that the values are not "Western", but universal. The people of Taiwan and Hong Kong strongly embrace these values. As do the people of India, Japan, South Korea, most South American countries, South Africa, all the protestors of the Arab Spring from Iran to North Africa, etc. The only people who say otherwise are the dictators and oppressors, who conveniently find that their cultures are not conducive to freedom (Putin is making the same argument these days - it's a universal value of dictators).
qyv 9y ago
Apple is free to this move for business reasons, that is certainly true. But they can no longer also claim the moral high ground as a defender of personal liberty. Human rights do not stop at international borders. They cannot have it both ways.
- hasenj 9y ago
  Apple never challenged actual law. To quote the article: > [Timothy D. Cook] made clear that Apple would obey American law — but only after trying to shape the law. In the case of China here, the law was already passed. Apple is just conforming to the law.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    Apple has been using privacy as a marketing tool. But apparently it will go no further than that. Privacy seems to be useful to Apple only if it can be used as a marketing tool, otherwise it's discarded as fast as some "offensive app" in the app store.
  - johnsmith21006 9y ago
    Great contrast to Google deciding to leave China.
- ksec 9y ago
  You cant have an explicit define Set of Human Rights internationally. Because most Chinese users are perfectly fine with the rule and law. They would rather follow what CCP said and have an Apple product.
evanlivingston 9y ago
I don't think this logic holds. Apple and Amazon both spend millions every year on lobbying. I don't think their attempt at influencing policy has to do with championing a particular political ideology. These companies don't follow required business practices out of a political sensitivity or an underlying respect for sovereignty, they do so because it is financially expedient and they demonstrate an eager willingness to modify those legislated business practices when presented a route to do so.
forapurpose 9y ago
> a particular political ideology "Ideologies" are not equally valid; morality is a real, very serious and important thing. Some ideologies promote oppression or even mass murder. And the value of liberty is not the same as the value of Christmas discounts. Freedom to pursue your own ideology (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is widely considered a universal human right. Let's not pretend we can't see why, even if some want to disagree.
mtgx 9y ago
> So pretending that the privacy issue is one of "morality" You lost me there. Privacy is a human right. Would Apple be silent if China tortured gay people, too, because of "cultural differences" and just because it's trying to add an extra billion dollar to its balance sheet? Now I can understand the argument that as a for-profit corporation Apple is "neutral" to the laws in various countries. But to take it much further say that privacy is not important - well, that's where I disagree completely. Some countries care about respecting human rights, others don't. That doesn't mean human rights are not important because some large economic powers don't respect them. Otherwise the US may have never abolished slavery either, if it was "all the same" and human rights didn't matter or were "relative" from the viewer's perspective.
- alacombe 9y ago
  > Would Apple be silent if China tortured gay people, too, because of "cultural differences" They do, in Saudi Arabia & Qatar.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    I'm actually quite sympathetic to moral absolutism/moral arc arguments. I'm a moral realist. What I find hilarious is people suggesting America or most american companies are in any position to export values to anybody.
    - alacombe 9y ago
      Sure, I have no problem with that. But then it goes both way, the same companies should stop virtue signaling at home every times they disagree with a social policy enactment.
thinkfurther 9y ago
The Eichmann defense for corporations. Lovely. > unless the goal of your company is to champion a particular political ideology The "Eichmann pathology" is even worse than most ideologies, since the content of the ideologies can change, but the conformism does not. By that logic, the problem with making deals with, say, the Nazis, was that it was illegal during war, nothing else, and if a company requires acceptance of that to exist, I require that company to not exist. > for something that is not a universal law on the planet Yes, and? Is there a universal law "on the planet" that you should only act according to some imaginary universal laws? Is there an universal law that a company should not "champion an ideology", or that companies just have to operate globally? Why can't people be restricted to acting in circles they are accountable in, why is that such a crazy idea?

by sriku 9y ago

Barrin92 9y ago

exactly. Outsourcing foreign politics or issues of morality to a business is both harmful (because that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be) and it circumvents Chinese law. If issues of privacy in China are very important to you electing officials who's foreign policy reflects that is a better idea.

icebraining 9y ago
that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be Ok, argue it. Why should a company, as a member of the society it's based in, be above criticism for taking immoral actions just because they happen somewhere else? And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line?
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line? You're arguing in circles here. Immoral is in the eye of the beholder, culturally, so by defining something as "immoral" you're just labelling it as "bad" and asking somebody to justify decisions. That's a loaded question and a cheap rhetorical technique. You could make an argument that since most governed people in China don't mind that they have limited freedom of speech, there is nothing immoral about it. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often
  - icebraining 9y ago
    No, I'm asking under Barrin92's own moral code: if there's nothing Apple could do that Barrin92 would find morally abhorrent and worth criticizing Apple for, assuming it was legal in the other country. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often That's a funny position. So if the people actually hated it, but the State's repression mechanisms kept them in line, it would be moral?
    - Barrin92 9y ago
      I'm saying regardless of what my or someone elses moral positions are, businesses are not the right body to carry them out. Apple is a business, not a governmental or civic institution. And to answer your question, of course Apple could do things that I consider morally abhorrent (even if they happen to be legal), but it is the public's and the respective governments job to set out the laws, it's not the job of Apple's CEO.
gurkendoktor 9y ago
> Outsourcing foreign politics or issues of morality to a business is both harmful (because that's arguably not what a company's task is or ought to be) Or in other words, corporations should at all costs be faceless? Is it wrong, then, that Tim Cook uses his CEO creds to rally for LBGT rights? Should companies stop meddling with politics by pushing back against encryption backdoors? Should companies use every harmful additive that's not yet illegal to please shareholders?

chibg10 9y ago

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

schoen 9y ago
While I agree with attempts to prevent governments from controlling speech, have spent a fair amount of time working on that, and was disturbed by Apple's role here, I don't think the dichotomy you present works as cleanly as you suggest. State power and culture shape and reinforce each other in an extremely complex way.
- olalonde 9y ago
  That's true. I lived in China for a few years and was surprised to find out that most people seemed relatively (if not very) happy with the CCP. Ignorance plays a role but it's mainly that they value economic growth (and therefore, political stability) over anything else. Free speech would be nice but when you go from near starvation to owning a house and a car, you learn what economic growth does and start to value it.
  - balls187 9y ago
    > I lived in China for a few years and was surprised to find out that most people seemed relatively (if not very) happy with the CCP. What happens if you make your displeasure with the CCP known publically?
    - olalonde 9y ago
      Assuming it was a rhetorical question: I am basing my observation on many private conversations I had over the years (e.g. with my wife). I think most foreigners in China would agree with this as well. In case your question wasn't rhetorical: nothing would happen. That is, unless you were a very public figure or made it your life's mission. Fun fact: China has a very low incarceration rate, about 15% that of the USA. It's not like people are getting thrown in jail right and left for opening their mouth. I know, it's a hard pill to swallow.

MBCook 9y ago

You're right. That's why neither iMessage nor FaceTime use encryption in china. Because they don't care. Oh wait, Apple still uses into end encryption in China for both of those so that the Government Camp spy on people. Getting rid of VPN apps is part of staying in China. So the question you have to ask is which is better for Apple to do: stay trying out without VPNs but keeping their consumer products encrypted whenever possible, or keep VPNs in the store and get all their products kicked out of the country. If Apple gets kicked out, the no one gets to use VPNs on their iPhones. They don't get to use iPhones at all. They lose the encryption of iMessage in FaceTime. (and the board may not let them pull out of China to anyway)

Jyaif 9y ago
Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well... But there's nothing wrong with staying in China to increase profits, it's their biggest market after all.
- Udo_Schmitz 9y ago
  Citation needed.
- TrickyRick 9y ago
  > Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well.. Both these facts are false according to the article we're discussing.
  - slac 9y ago
    Just got back from 9 days in China. My observation is that some services are blocked on local Sim card yet available on international ones.

rayiner 9y ago

> A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Global companies are instrumental in transmitting western values to the rest of the world. You can't antagonize host countries but at the same time you can't ignore the arc of the moral universe. Domestically, a great example is the economic repercussion for southern states that tried to pass trans bathroom laws. Companies didn't worry about "respecting political/cultural differences." They did what was right.

ams6110 9y ago
They did what was right. They did what was popular. That it was right was a coincidence.
prewett 9y ago
So by that logic, Chinese companies should push Chinese values on the rest of the world. Are you okay with that? And if not, what makes Western values special? Absent an independent moral authority (i.e. God of some sort), there's no way to say that Western values even should be spread. Absent an independent moral authority, pushing your values on everyone else is exactly what the Chinese government is doing. The trans bathroom laws are a good example. What makes your position "right"? The other position happens to go against some of your core values (presumably), but that doesn't make it "wrong." Maybe your core values are "wrong" or at least incomplete. There's a lot of people that are trying to push their values on people under the guise of "it's right." Ironically, these people will say they want people to have the freedom to live the way they want. Trans bathrooms, homosexual marriage: well, maybe I don't want to live in a world where I have to put up with that. Too bad, I don't get a choice, because "it's right." You'd better have concrete direction from the independent moral authority (i.e. God) if you're going to push your values on other people, because otherwise it's just intolerant. "I feel strongly about this" != "it's right"
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > what makes Western values special? Absent an independent moral authority (i.e. God of some sort), there's no way to say that Western values even should be spread. That's a philosophical challenge but not a real argument. Obviously we can, we do, and we must make moral distinctions despite the handicap of our lack of omniscience. One way we do it is by the use of reason, which separates humans from beasts and our current world from the Dark Ages. There are arguments against the universality of these values, but the one above isn't one of them. If Chinese law required Apple to hand over names and locations of its users for mass executions, obviously the moral relativism argument wouldn't hold. The issue here is that VPNs are a less clear moral issue - obviously it would be better if Chinese people had free speech, but is it worth Apple fighting a battle for it? Another way to ask: Is it ok for Apple to sacrifice their rights in order to make more money? I'll also point out that the values are not "Western", but universal. The people of Taiwan and Hong Kong strongly embrace these values. As do the people of India, Japan, South Korea, most South American countries, South Africa, all the protestors of the Arab Spring from Iran to North Africa, etc. The only people who say otherwise are the dictators and oppressors, who conveniently find that their cultures are not conducive to freedom (Putin is making the same argument these days - it's a universal value of dictators).

qyv 9y ago

Apple is free to this move for business reasons, that is certainly true. But they can no longer also claim the moral high ground as a defender of personal liberty. Human rights do not stop at international borders. They cannot have it both ways.

hasenj 9y ago
Apple never challenged actual law. To quote the article: > [Timothy D. Cook] made clear that Apple would obey American law — but only after trying to shape the law. In the case of China here, the law was already passed. Apple is just conforming to the law.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Apple has been using privacy as a marketing tool. But apparently it will go no further than that. Privacy seems to be useful to Apple only if it can be used as a marketing tool, otherwise it's discarded as fast as some "offensive app" in the app store.
- johnsmith21006 9y ago
  Great contrast to Google deciding to leave China.
ksec 9y ago
You cant have an explicit define Set of Human Rights internationally. Because most Chinese users are perfectly fine with the rule and law. They would rather follow what CCP said and have an Apple product.

evanlivingston 9y ago

I don't think this logic holds. Apple and Amazon both spend millions every year on lobbying. I don't think their attempt at influencing policy has to do with championing a particular political ideology. These companies don't follow required business practices out of a political sensitivity or an underlying respect for sovereignty, they do so because it is financially expedient and they demonstrate an eager willingness to modify those legislated business practices when presented a route to do so.

forapurpose 9y ago

> a particular political ideology "Ideologies" are not equally valid; morality is a real, very serious and important thing. Some ideologies promote oppression or even mass murder. And the value of liberty is not the same as the value of Christmas discounts. Freedom to pursue your own ideology (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is widely considered a universal human right. Let's not pretend we can't see why, even if some want to disagree.

mtgx 9y ago

> So pretending that the privacy issue is one of "morality" You lost me there. Privacy is a human right. Would Apple be silent if China tortured gay people, too, because of "cultural differences" and just because it's trying to add an extra billion dollar to its balance sheet? Now I can understand the argument that as a for-profit corporation Apple is "neutral" to the laws in various countries. But to take it much further say that privacy is not important - well, that's where I disagree completely. Some countries care about respecting human rights, others don't. That doesn't mean human rights are not important because some large economic powers don't respect them. Otherwise the US may have never abolished slavery either, if it was "all the same" and human rights didn't matter or were "relative" from the viewer's perspective.

alacombe 9y ago
> Would Apple be silent if China tortured gay people, too, because of "cultural differences" They do, in Saudi Arabia & Qatar.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I'm actually quite sympathetic to moral absolutism/moral arc arguments. I'm a moral realist. What I find hilarious is people suggesting America or most american companies are in any position to export values to anybody.
  - alacombe 9y ago
    Sure, I have no problem with that. But then it goes both way, the same companies should stop virtue signaling at home every times they disagree with a social policy enactment.

thinkfurther 9y ago

The Eichmann defense for corporations. Lovely. > unless the goal of your company is to champion a particular political ideology The "Eichmann pathology" is even worse than most ideologies, since the content of the ideologies can change, but the conformism does not. By that logic, the problem with making deals with, say, the Nazis, was that it was illegal during war, nothing else, and if a company requires acceptance of that to exist, I require that company to not exist. > for something that is not a universal law on the planet Yes, and? Is there a universal law "on the planet" that you should only act according to some imaginary universal laws? Is there an universal law that a company should not "champion an ideology", or that companies just have to operate globally? Why can't people be restricted to acting in circles they are accountable in, why is that such a crazy idea?