3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - grzm 9y ago
    I don't see a distinction between a CEO putting the company before their own personal morals and any other employee. If they're doing so, they probably should quit. In the case of the CEO, it's arguably even more important that they either quit or change the direction (rules) of the company, as they're uniquely able to do so. As you point out, if they can't do that, they should change jobs. I can see there is a bit of misunderstanding with respect to "the first doesn't matter", and I apologize for not being clearer. The "first" I'm referring to is my first, regarding whether a person's morals and values can/should align with a company's goals. That's a direct response to your "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO." Same with the second, the idea that a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals to the company's bottom line. You seem to confirm that in your response here ("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"). We do have some common ground as you acknowledge that there are circumstances where one should change jobs. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with these other statements, however. Tim Cook isn't refusing the task of representing Apple. I argue he's saying the things because he believes them and they're part of Apple's values, rather than in spite of his beliefs and Apple's only doing so because it gives them a competitive advantage. Hard to prove a counterfactual, but I'd think it'd be likely that Apple would do so even if the competition were doing so as well. When you make comments like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this" and "What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising", I read that as saying Apple is doing this (and Tim Cook saying this) purely for competitive reasons rather than because they believe it's the right thing to do. To me, that's cynical. It's not my intent to misread you or build a straw man, so please do correct me and expand on what you mean. Edit to add: I think I can summarize this long-winded comment as: “Apple holds these values and that guides the design of their products, and that also gives them a competitive advantage”; as opposed to “Apple says they have these values because it gives them a competitive advantage and that drives their design.” I read you as saying the latter, rather than the former.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
There is a reason why Apple is less exposed to such regulation now: they decided, a while back, not to make targeted ads and private data a core component of their business. Part of what them allowed to make that call was obviously their strength in hardware. But I think there are some actions by Apple that go beyond the level required for a superficial PR campaign. They popularized[0] differential privacy, allowing machine learning to learn from properly anonymised data. The concept is pretty complicated, making me doubt that a PR agency would consider it a good vehicle for improving the brand's image. Their refusal to budge to the FBI and about half of the political establishment in the case of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone was also rather gutsy: opposing law enforcement in their investigation of an actual islamic terrorist is at least a high-stakes gamble, if not outright stupid for marketing purposes. Even if you think the left will glorify you, you really really don't want to wade into culture wars territory and risk losing half your potential customers, at least not at Apple's scale. There are quite a few other areas where Apple has been rather proactive in doing the right thing. They have always supported LGBTQ rights, possibly starting from their original rainbow coloured bitten apple being a reference to the injustice committed against Alan Turing[0]. They have invested in areas such as labor conditions, diversity, and environmental protection, often before the specific issues came under scrutiny from outside groups. Their recently announced initiative for fairly sourced coltan, for example, was the first I had ever heard of the element. [0]: Edit: changed from "invented" to "popularised". Thx to grzm for correcting me below (he's right, I was wrong, and I have no idea why they are being downvoted) [1]: Not 100% sure if truth of myth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- grzm 9y ago
  I don't believe Apple invented differential privacy, though they have applied it and helped popularize the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
- nolok 9y ago
  Just to make myself clearer if need be, I was not aiming at Apple specifically, they're merely the one in this particular article. As far as companies goes, Apple is not one I consider "bad" in regards to privacy.

by nolok 9y ago

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.
- grzm 9y ago
  I don't see a distinction between a CEO putting the company before their own personal morals and any other employee. If they're doing so, they probably should quit. In the case of the CEO, it's arguably even more important that they either quit or change the direction (rules) of the company, as they're uniquely able to do so. As you point out, if they can't do that, they should change jobs. I can see there is a bit of misunderstanding with respect to "the first doesn't matter", and I apologize for not being clearer. The "first" I'm referring to is my first, regarding whether a person's morals and values can/should align with a company's goals. That's a direct response to your "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO." Same with the second, the idea that a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals to the company's bottom line. You seem to confirm that in your response here ("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"). We do have some common ground as you acknowledge that there are circumstances where one should change jobs. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with these other statements, however. Tim Cook isn't refusing the task of representing Apple. I argue he's saying the things because he believes them and they're part of Apple's values, rather than in spite of his beliefs and Apple's only doing so because it gives them a competitive advantage. Hard to prove a counterfactual, but I'd think it'd be likely that Apple would do so even if the competition were doing so as well. When you make comments like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this" and "What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising", I read that as saying Apple is doing this (and Tim Cook saying this) purely for competitive reasons rather than because they believe it's the right thing to do. To me, that's cynical. It's not my intent to misread you or build a straw man, so please do correct me and expand on what you mean. Edit to add: I think I can summarize this long-winded comment as: “Apple holds these values and that guides the design of their products, and that also gives them a competitive advantage”; as opposed to “Apple says they have these values because it gives them a competitive advantage and that drives their design.” I read you as saying the latter, rather than the former.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

There is a reason why Apple is less exposed to such regulation now: they decided, a while back, not to make targeted ads and private data a core component of their business. Part of what them allowed to make that call was obviously their strength in hardware. But I think there are some actions by Apple that go beyond the level required for a superficial PR campaign. They popularized[0] differential privacy, allowing machine learning to learn from properly anonymised data. The concept is pretty complicated, making me doubt that a PR agency would consider it a good vehicle for improving the brand's image. Their refusal to budge to the FBI and about half of the political establishment in the case of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone was also rather gutsy: opposing law enforcement in their investigation of an actual islamic terrorist is at least a high-stakes gamble, if not outright stupid for marketing purposes. Even if you think the left will glorify you, you really really don't want to wade into culture wars territory and risk losing half your potential customers, at least not at Apple's scale. There are quite a few other areas where Apple has been rather proactive in doing the right thing. They have always supported LGBTQ rights, possibly starting from their original rainbow coloured bitten apple being a reference to the injustice committed against Alan Turing[0]. They have invested in areas such as labor conditions, diversity, and environmental protection, often before the specific issues came under scrutiny from outside groups. Their recently announced initiative for fairly sourced coltan, for example, was the first I had ever heard of the element. [0]: Edit: changed from "invented" to "popularised". Thx to grzm for correcting me below (he's right, I was wrong, and I have no idea why they are being downvoted) [1]: Not 100% sure if truth of myth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

grzm 9y ago
I don't believe Apple invented differential privacy, though they have applied it and helped popularize the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
nolok 9y ago
Just to make myself clearer if need be, I was not aiming at Apple specifically, they're merely the one in this particular article. As far as companies goes, Apple is not one I consider "bad" in regards to privacy.