5 ms·

Internet Must Have Security, Humanity, Apple CEO Tells China

42 points by sbuttgereit 9y ago

sverige 9y ago
Nice to see Apple and Google attending a conference that promotes Internet censorship. I'm sure they're busy changing China from their seat at the table.
LeoJiWoo 9y ago
Chinese styled censorship is not good for democracy, and not the way forward to a better world. Tim Cook is so busy chasing money, he has lost his principles. I can't blame him for trying to increase Apple's revenue, but I can dislike what he is promoting intensely. China will change Google and Apple, rather than the other way around.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Not to mention manufacturing for many components in Apple products happens in China.. China has the reigns on Apple & Google, not the other way around. This proclamation by Tim is nothing but a weightless PR stunt at best.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Final assembly occurs in china. Many (probably most) of the components are made outside of china. It is still fairly easy for them to move final assembly to other countries and keep sourcing components from Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and so on. China is much more valuable to Apple for its consumers than its final assembly powress.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      I think you might be vastly overestimating the value to Apple for having assembly (and sourcing of parts, even if made elsewhere) in China[0]. Apple would absolutely not want to lose that capability, it would drive up costs significantly. 0. https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/where-are-apple-products-made-3633832/ https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/where-are-apple-pro...
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Foxconn (not a Chinese company, fyi) has been building out capacity in other countries, especially India. China doesn’t have as much leverage here as they think, cheap assembly is incredibly portable. China on its own account would rather move up the value chain anyways.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Is "democracy" really an unalloyed good now that the Internet has exposed many of the unpatched firmware vulnerabilities in the human mind?
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I don't think it's ever been an unalloyed good, but we still haven't found something better, have we? Maybe we will, but until then, we have to at least push toward what we think is the current "best". And Chinese-style authoritarian... is not it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    That's a question you can't even pose about the Chinese system if you live under it. So yes, Democracy is better.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      I'm not sure that's true, especially because it questions democracy, not the Chinese equivalent.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > the Internet has exposed many of the unpatched firmware vulnerabilities in the human mind These have long been very well known, and in fact those are the problems that democracy is designed to solve: How can humans govern themselves? IIRC, at the dawn of the U.S., it was questioned whether self-governance was possible or whether we needed a king; the question is well answered by now. Democracy takes large groups of flawed humans, the only kind available, and forms them into groups that are more free, more prosperous, more safe, more creative than anything seen in human history. There are about 10,000 years of human history, and the current entire non-democratic world to look at for comparison. All of the most free, prosperous, safe, etc. nations are democracies; the correlation is almost perfect. Even the most free, prosperous regions in China are democratic, Taiwan and Hong Kong. But on a philosophical level, why is a dictator who must be a flawed human - we have no other option - any better than an elected President or Prime Minister who is flawed, or superior to the flawed voters? And how is that dictator selected, without democracy? What better process is there? Why should I submit to their claim of authority - who are they to tell me what to do? Churchill said, reputedly, 'democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others'. (Sorry I don't have time to find or verify the quote.)
- perseusprime11 9y ago
  Seeing the news coming out of China, I am very dissapointed by Tim’s tone. He is completely overlooking Chinese censorship, hacking the IP of american companies, and the child labor practices.
  - cisanti 9y ago
    But they raised the rainbow flag, so apple is good!
- hzgy 9y ago
  Why can't we blame him? I hear similiar arguments about not criticizing patent lawyers for doing their job. Isn't this a form of moral relativism? It is inherently bad.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    OP means, in the least provocative reading, Cook was making a profit, notwithstanding whether profiteering were morally flawed or not.
throw2016 9y ago
It's easy to wave angrily at the gravy train. I think the tragedy of human politics and individuals is people posture to get on the train and the moment they get on the train supporters expect them to hit on the brakes and instead they accelerate. This is what Google has done and they are not the first. Be very suspicious of utopianism, those who talk of good and evil and those who talk airily about changing the world. The world changes by millions of micro actions and real sustained sacrifice by thousands maybe millions of people for instance like what individuals like Stallman and Linus have done in open source, and not sloganeering and sellouts.
draw_down 9y ago
That’s rich.
lifeisstillgood 9y ago
i'm trying to work out in my head how we really get to the nirvana that twenty years ago seemed so obvious. one thing is PKI. Start with taking your key to the passport office and get it signed, from there most things like government services call into place, and most apps and walled gardens just whither. the second part seems like a bill of rights, the convincing prosecutions of criminal activity online, probably some kind of digital native currency, and oh boy it seems a long way off
leonroy 9y ago
There's a concept called first mover disadvantage. Whilst it might be laudable for a CEO to stand up for principle if the costs outweight the rewards they'll find themselves out of a job. Especially so if a competitor proves that selling principles for profit yields dividends for shareholders. That's one big reason behind why a few tech companies tried hard to avoid going public. I doubt Tim Cook enjoyed his dinners with Carl Icahn but it's damn hard to thumb your nose at shareholders and avoid a lucrative opportunity based on principle alone. Steve Jobs might have had enough clout to do such a thing (although I'd be surprised if he would have) but Tim Cook and Sundar Pinchai have no such tenure.
forapurpose 9y ago
What he leaves out is end-user control, which translated to political terms, is freedom and self-determination. Unfortunately this is a political trend in the U.S. now. The current President's administration has changed the generations-long U.S. policy of supporting democracy (self-determination) and freedom for people around the world, as a universal inalienable right, and arguably to some extent, for people in the U.S. who are not political supporters. (I'm trying to talk about the general trend, not the President; the fact that he had enough support to be elected and to enact these policies is evidence for how popular this trend is).

42 points by sbuttgereit 9y ago

Nice to see Apple and Google attending a conference that promotes Internet censorship. I'm sure they're busy changing China from their seat at the table.

LeoJiWoo 9y ago

Chinese styled censorship is not good for democracy, and not the way forward to a better world. Tim Cook is so busy chasing money, he has lost his principles. I can't blame him for trying to increase Apple's revenue, but I can dislike what he is promoting intensely. China will change Google and Apple, rather than the other way around.

craftyguy 9y ago
Not to mention manufacturing for many components in Apple products happens in China.. China has the reigns on Apple & Google, not the other way around. This proclamation by Tim is nothing but a weightless PR stunt at best.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Final assembly occurs in china. Many (probably most) of the components are made outside of china. It is still fairly easy for them to move final assembly to other countries and keep sourcing components from Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and so on. China is much more valuable to Apple for its consumers than its final assembly powress.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    I think you might be vastly overestimating the value to Apple for having assembly (and sourcing of parts, even if made elsewhere) in China[0]. Apple would absolutely not want to lose that capability, it would drive up costs significantly. 0. https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/where-are-apple-products-made-3633832/ https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/where-are-apple-pro...
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Foxconn (not a Chinese company, fyi) has been building out capacity in other countries, especially India. China doesn’t have as much leverage here as they think, cheap assembly is incredibly portable. China on its own account would rather move up the value chain anyways.
ggg9990 9y ago
Is "democracy" really an unalloyed good now that the Internet has exposed many of the unpatched firmware vulnerabilities in the human mind?
- kelnos 9y ago
  I don't think it's ever been an unalloyed good, but we still haven't found something better, have we? Maybe we will, but until then, we have to at least push toward what we think is the current "best". And Chinese-style authoritarian... is not it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  That's a question you can't even pose about the Chinese system if you live under it. So yes, Democracy is better.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    I'm not sure that's true, especially because it questions democracy, not the Chinese equivalent.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > the Internet has exposed many of the unpatched firmware vulnerabilities in the human mind These have long been very well known, and in fact those are the problems that democracy is designed to solve: How can humans govern themselves? IIRC, at the dawn of the U.S., it was questioned whether self-governance was possible or whether we needed a king; the question is well answered by now. Democracy takes large groups of flawed humans, the only kind available, and forms them into groups that are more free, more prosperous, more safe, more creative than anything seen in human history. There are about 10,000 years of human history, and the current entire non-democratic world to look at for comparison. All of the most free, prosperous, safe, etc. nations are democracies; the correlation is almost perfect. Even the most free, prosperous regions in China are democratic, Taiwan and Hong Kong. But on a philosophical level, why is a dictator who must be a flawed human - we have no other option - any better than an elected President or Prime Minister who is flawed, or superior to the flawed voters? And how is that dictator selected, without democracy? What better process is there? Why should I submit to their claim of authority - who are they to tell me what to do? Churchill said, reputedly, 'democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others'. (Sorry I don't have time to find or verify the quote.)
perseusprime11 9y ago
Seeing the news coming out of China, I am very dissapointed by Tim’s tone. He is completely overlooking Chinese censorship, hacking the IP of american companies, and the child labor practices.
- cisanti 9y ago
  But they raised the rainbow flag, so apple is good!
hzgy 9y ago
Why can't we blame him? I hear similiar arguments about not criticizing patent lawyers for doing their job. Isn't this a form of moral relativism? It is inherently bad.
- posterboy 9y ago
  OP means, in the least provocative reading, Cook was making a profit, notwithstanding whether profiteering were morally flawed or not.

throw2016 9y ago

It's easy to wave angrily at the gravy train. I think the tragedy of human politics and individuals is people posture to get on the train and the moment they get on the train supporters expect them to hit on the brakes and instead they accelerate. This is what Google has done and they are not the first. Be very suspicious of utopianism, those who talk of good and evil and those who talk airily about changing the world. The world changes by millions of micro actions and real sustained sacrifice by thousands maybe millions of people for instance like what individuals like Stallman and Linus have done in open source, and not sloganeering and sellouts.

draw_down 9y ago

That’s rich.

lifeisstillgood 9y ago

i'm trying to work out in my head how we really get to the nirvana that twenty years ago seemed so obvious. one thing is PKI. Start with taking your key to the passport office and get it signed, from there most things like government services call into place, and most apps and walled gardens just whither. the second part seems like a bill of rights, the convincing prosecutions of criminal activity online, probably some kind of digital native currency, and oh boy it seems a long way off

leonroy 9y ago

There's a concept called first mover disadvantage. Whilst it might be laudable for a CEO to stand up for principle if the costs outweight the rewards they'll find themselves out of a job. Especially so if a competitor proves that selling principles for profit yields dividends for shareholders. That's one big reason behind why a few tech companies tried hard to avoid going public. I doubt Tim Cook enjoyed his dinners with Carl Icahn but it's damn hard to thumb your nose at shareholders and avoid a lucrative opportunity based on principle alone. Steve Jobs might have had enough clout to do such a thing (although I'd be surprised if he would have) but Tim Cook and Sundar Pinchai have no such tenure.

forapurpose 9y ago

What he leaves out is end-user control, which translated to political terms, is freedom and self-determination. Unfortunately this is a political trend in the U.S. now. The current President's administration has changed the generations-long U.S. policy of supporting democracy (self-determination) and freedom for people around the world, as a universal inalienable right, and arguably to some extent, for people in the U.S. who are not political supporters. (I'm trying to talk about the general trend, not the President; the fact that he had enough support to be elected and to enact these policies is evidence for how popular this trend is).