4 ms·

Tim Cook wants ‘well-crafted’ privacy regulations after latest Facebook scandal

67 points by domevent 9y ago

braderhart 9y ago
Tim Crook wants to protect Apple from scrutiny, but they are still closed source and they will let anyone become Admin on their new OS X.
secfirstmd 9y ago
So the GDPR then...
DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
> Cook making these statements in China might raise some eyebrows, as Apple recently handed over control of Chinese iCloud accounts to China-based data servers to comply with local law. The company’s iPhones continue to offer strong encryption in China, but the concern is that iCloud backups could be more susceptible to government snooping. Is there a viable alternative? I don't mean this rhetorically — I'm actually curious. If Apple didn't comply, they wouldn't be allowed to sell their products in China. And even if Apple pulled out of China, there are enough competitors that the gap would be filled by another company that is willing to comply with the government's request. The citizens simply aren't able to (legally) obtain products that guarantee them privacy from the government. Plus, as far as I know, Chinese citizens are aware of these sorts of requirements that the government puts on their data. So if the citizens know that Apple has complied with these requests — and if any other company would also have to comply anyway — then are they really any worse off? Apple isn't going to be able to convince the Chinese government to suddenly acknowledge that true privacy is worthwhile. Disclaimer: I am not super knowledgeable about the issue at hand. These are just my thoughts based on what little I do know. I'd be happy to learn additional info/alternative viewpoints!
- sidibe 9y ago
  That's not really a good reason to cooperate. One thing that's also concerning about the situation is now Apple really depends on China for growth so who knows what kind of additional things they can wring out of Apple if they wanted to. If they decide they want data about Chinese expats for example is Apple willing to lose access to the market that's 30% of it's sales to protect them?
  - jeffbax 9y ago
    Unfortunately its the law of the land there, so yes -- it is enough to comply. There's an argument of not participating to make a statement like Google tried, but in the end China is more than happy to replace any western company with a home-grown alternative (which is going to have far deeper roots to the Chinese government). So long as Apple is not beholden to those laws elsewhere, I think it's probably a net good that they are present in that country than not. Second, much of Apple's strength comes from its supply and manufacturing advantage which -- depends on China not just as a customer marketplace but that it's the only place with the skills to turn on a dime and produce the products at scale. Third, look at VTI - Vanguard Total Stock market index. Apple is 2.83% of the entire damn thing. Microsoft next at 2.5% followed by Google, Amazon, and FB. Probably a big deal, particularly for Apple given they're the one actually building physical objects in China, to suddenly be the political football between two nations. It's probably hard enough, and maybe at some point better automation will bring manufacturing back to the US but it's also very likely China will be better in that regard for some time. Things are more complicated than "just don't cooperate", as much as I philosophically would cheer on such behavior I don't think in the net it would end up good. Additionally, even for Chinese consumers iPhones are likely the most secure by a lot (though intercepted cloud services are a big unknown now) -- so I'd rather they have access to the devices. Maybe some of them pay attention to where Apple stands on things, and over the long run Chinese citizens might push local laws in a more liberal direction (though not an easy thing to do, obviously) but it's not going to happen if western companies don't participate at all. Or, consider users all over the world. How good is it for everyone's privacy if iPhones now start at $1500 because they can't be built in China anymore. Probably would mean a lot less people on secure iPhones vs. less supported/out of date Android phones.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nolok 9y ago
Well no surprises there. First, of course all the big co. are saying yes now even Zuckerberg now pretends he "isn't opposed to the idea", the growing outcry is getting too big to push away and if they say no they won't be invited to the table where the deal is made, so if you can't stop it at least make sure it's kept under control. Second, Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much. I'm not talking about the cost to adhere to the regulation, but the ability to sell a product that has just been truncated. So I fully expect the CEO of Apple to push for it, because he really wouldn't be doing his job otherwise. Third, of course, Tim Cook is probably as a human being for it too, although I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO. I really don't think we need to talk about all the big corp and CEO who will one after another say "oh yeah I'm totally for it", "this is a good idea, we can find a solution together", ... Let's keep focused and make sure the end result is fitting. They all saw what happened here in the EU and I doubt they want to see that spread to such an extent to the US.
- grzm 9y ago
  Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line? Statements like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much" and "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO" imply that the first doesn't matter and that the second is expected. Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also? I struggle with the cynical view these statements imply. Yeah, there are bad actors, and they should be held accountable. But I don't think that means that everyone is in all the things they do. Just as I hope that I can and try to do good in both my personal and professional lives, I hope that others do to.
  - nolok 9y ago
    I think you misread my statement or intentions. > Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Absolutely. I'm not sure when I implied otherwise ? > Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line? For 99% of employee no. For CEO, or other employee who speak in the name and are identified as such, no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line (when answering press question for PR, but admittedly pretty much anytime they speak for a CEO). There is a difference between surrendering your morals, and aknowledging that when acting as a representant of the company you are to act in accordance to the company's rules. To expand on my position, and hopefully make you understand me better, I'm also against doctors who refuses to carry abortion for moral belief where it is legal, and I was against the proposition in french law which would have allowed mayors to refuses to marry homosexual couples for personnal belief reasons. They are free to have the belief they want, but when acting on behalf on someone else (a company, or in my other ex. a state) you are expected to act according to the will of the entity you represent and keep your opinion to your own time. If you can't do that (eg because the view you have to defend goes too far against your personnal belief), then you should change job. > the first [that Apple's is for such regulation] doesn't matter That's not what I think I said, nor what I meant. What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising. > the second is expected I don't understand your statement here ? > Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also? That, if I say "I will represent [entity]'s views in front of X", I then do so, or refuse the task if I can't (eg if it goes against my belief) ? Absolutely. I have no intention to say that I talk in the name of some entity, only to say the contrary of what that entity believes.
gressquel 9y ago
Comes from a guy bending over for communist regimes to protect the revenue. I have 0 respect for people who sell their core principles for money.
- mercer 9y ago
  Good point. I'm an Apple fan in some ways, but all the 'good' stuff kind of rings hollow in light of what you pointed out. Can anyone give me a reason to understand why Apple would do this that isn't just about the 'bottom-line'?
  - wmf 9y ago
    Apple is providing some end-to-end encrypted tools to people in China. If they pulled out completely, people would no longer have those.
  - x0x0 9y ago
    At least indirectly about their bottom line: Apple can't control fb. They need fb to exist on their phone or their phone is broken for a lot of users. They can look at things like fb tracking every phone call you make and sms you send [1] and be really unhappy about what is happening and yet lack much practical ability to do anything about it. Also, how long before every lying cop with a 2-bit circuit judge who signs every thing in front of him figure out they can get this data out of FB rather than Apple? It's also possible to be offended by the fact that I'd bet 99.99999% of users had absolutely zero idea this was going on. The US needs something like the GDPR where uses of personal data collected need to be simply and clearly disclosed instead of buried in 40 pages of bullshit that I can't possibly be seriously expected to read and understand. [1] https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138 https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
- msoad 9y ago
  He is CEO of a for profit company. What else you expec? He's saying those things to hit their rival, Google of course. Don't assume those guys care about anything except maximizing their profit
- 9y ago
s2g 9y ago
Okay. Regulation number one is going to be about how the government accesses all the data facebook and google suck up. Regulation two is backdoors for all other data. That's all. Privacy is illegal now.

67 points by domevent 9y ago

Tim Crook wants to protect Apple from scrutiny, but they are still closed source and they will let anyone become Admin on their new OS X.

secfirstmd 9y ago

So the GDPR then...

DonaldPShimoda 9y ago

> Cook making these statements in China might raise some eyebrows, as Apple recently handed over control of Chinese iCloud accounts to China-based data servers to comply with local law. The company’s iPhones continue to offer strong encryption in China, but the concern is that iCloud backups could be more susceptible to government snooping. Is there a viable alternative? I don't mean this rhetorically — I'm actually curious. If Apple didn't comply, they wouldn't be allowed to sell their products in China. And even if Apple pulled out of China, there are enough competitors that the gap would be filled by another company that is willing to comply with the government's request. The citizens simply aren't able to (legally) obtain products that guarantee them privacy from the government. Plus, as far as I know, Chinese citizens are aware of these sorts of requirements that the government puts on their data. So if the citizens know that Apple has complied with these requests — and if any other company would also have to comply anyway — then are they really any worse off? Apple isn't going to be able to convince the Chinese government to suddenly acknowledge that true privacy is worthwhile. Disclaimer: I am not super knowledgeable about the issue at hand. These are just my thoughts based on what little I do know. I'd be happy to learn additional info/alternative viewpoints!

sidibe 9y ago
That's not really a good reason to cooperate. One thing that's also concerning about the situation is now Apple really depends on China for growth so who knows what kind of additional things they can wring out of Apple if they wanted to. If they decide they want data about Chinese expats for example is Apple willing to lose access to the market that's 30% of it's sales to protect them?
- jeffbax 9y ago
  Unfortunately its the law of the land there, so yes -- it is enough to comply. There's an argument of not participating to make a statement like Google tried, but in the end China is more than happy to replace any western company with a home-grown alternative (which is going to have far deeper roots to the Chinese government). So long as Apple is not beholden to those laws elsewhere, I think it's probably a net good that they are present in that country than not. Second, much of Apple's strength comes from its supply and manufacturing advantage which -- depends on China not just as a customer marketplace but that it's the only place with the skills to turn on a dime and produce the products at scale. Third, look at VTI - Vanguard Total Stock market index. Apple is 2.83% of the entire damn thing. Microsoft next at 2.5% followed by Google, Amazon, and FB. Probably a big deal, particularly for Apple given they're the one actually building physical objects in China, to suddenly be the political football between two nations. It's probably hard enough, and maybe at some point better automation will bring manufacturing back to the US but it's also very likely China will be better in that regard for some time. Things are more complicated than "just don't cooperate", as much as I philosophically would cheer on such behavior I don't think in the net it would end up good. Additionally, even for Chinese consumers iPhones are likely the most secure by a lot (though intercepted cloud services are a big unknown now) -- so I'd rather they have access to the devices. Maybe some of them pay attention to where Apple stands on things, and over the long run Chinese citizens might push local laws in a more liberal direction (though not an easy thing to do, obviously) but it's not going to happen if western companies don't participate at all. Or, consider users all over the world. How good is it for everyone's privacy if iPhones now start at $1500 because they can't be built in China anymore. Probably would mean a lot less people on secure iPhones vs. less supported/out of date Android phones.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

nolok 9y ago

Well no surprises there. First, of course all the big co. are saying yes now even Zuckerberg now pretends he "isn't opposed to the idea", the growing outcry is getting too big to push away and if they say no they won't be invited to the table where the deal is made, so if you can't stop it at least make sure it's kept under control. Second, Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much. I'm not talking about the cost to adhere to the regulation, but the ability to sell a product that has just been truncated. So I fully expect the CEO of Apple to push for it, because he really wouldn't be doing his job otherwise. Third, of course, Tim Cook is probably as a human being for it too, although I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO. I really don't think we need to talk about all the big corp and CEO who will one after another say "oh yeah I'm totally for it", "this is a good idea, we can find a solution together", ... Let's keep focused and make sure the end result is fitting. They all saw what happened here in the EU and I doubt they want to see that spread to such an extent to the US.

grzm 9y ago
Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line? Statements like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much" and "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO" imply that the first doesn't matter and that the second is expected. Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also? I struggle with the cynical view these statements imply. Yeah, there are bad actors, and they should be held accountable. But I don't think that means that everyone is in all the things they do. Just as I hope that I can and try to do good in both my personal and professional lives, I hope that others do to.
- nolok 9y ago
  I think you misread my statement or intentions. > Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Absolutely. I'm not sure when I implied otherwise ? > Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line? For 99% of employee no. For CEO, or other employee who speak in the name and are identified as such, no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line (when answering press question for PR, but admittedly pretty much anytime they speak for a CEO). There is a difference between surrendering your morals, and aknowledging that when acting as a representant of the company you are to act in accordance to the company's rules. To expand on my position, and hopefully make you understand me better, I'm also against doctors who refuses to carry abortion for moral belief where it is legal, and I was against the proposition in french law which would have allowed mayors to refuses to marry homosexual couples for personnal belief reasons. They are free to have the belief they want, but when acting on behalf on someone else (a company, or in my other ex. a state) you are expected to act according to the will of the entity you represent and keep your opinion to your own time. If you can't do that (eg because the view you have to defend goes too far against your personnal belief), then you should change job. > the first [that Apple's is for such regulation] doesn't matter That's not what I think I said, nor what I meant. What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising. > the second is expected I don't understand your statement here ? > Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also? That, if I say "I will represent [entity]'s views in front of X", I then do so, or refuse the task if I can't (eg if it goes against my belief) ? Absolutely. I have no intention to say that I talk in the name of some entity, only to say the contrary of what that entity believes.

gressquel 9y ago

Comes from a guy bending over for communist regimes to protect the revenue. I have 0 respect for people who sell their core principles for money.

mercer 9y ago
Good point. I'm an Apple fan in some ways, but all the 'good' stuff kind of rings hollow in light of what you pointed out. Can anyone give me a reason to understand why Apple would do this that isn't just about the 'bottom-line'?
- wmf 9y ago
  Apple is providing some end-to-end encrypted tools to people in China. If they pulled out completely, people would no longer have those.
- x0x0 9y ago
  At least indirectly about their bottom line: Apple can't control fb. They need fb to exist on their phone or their phone is broken for a lot of users. They can look at things like fb tracking every phone call you make and sms you send [1] and be really unhappy about what is happening and yet lack much practical ability to do anything about it. Also, how long before every lying cop with a 2-bit circuit judge who signs every thing in front of him figure out they can get this data out of FB rather than Apple? It's also possible to be offended by the fact that I'd bet 99.99999% of users had absolutely zero idea this was going on. The US needs something like the GDPR where uses of personal data collected need to be simply and clearly disclosed instead of buried in 40 pages of bullshit that I can't possibly be seriously expected to read and understand. [1] https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138 https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
msoad 9y ago
He is CEO of a for profit company. What else you expec? He's saying those things to hit their rival, Google of course. Don't assume those guys care about anything except maximizing their profit
9y ago

s2g 9y ago

Okay. Regulation number one is going to be about how the government accesses all the data facebook and google suck up. Regulation two is backdoors for all other data. That's all. Privacy is illegal now.