4 ms·

Your logic is bonkers. Not every principle or virtue is a hill that every inch is worth dying over. The US and EU (and pretty much every other country) also hav

by Steko 8y ago

Your logic is bonkers. Not every principle or virtue is a hill that every inch is worth dying over. The US and EU (and pretty much every other country) also have many laws and regulations that are not privacy friendly. You claim this means they should close up shop (or only sell to seasteaders) if they are a true privacyman? It's a recycled version of the 'Al Gore has a big house' joke, guess he's doesn't really care about the environment. Heyo!

ksk 8y ago
If people simply admitted that Apple (like many others) will compromise on their privacy principles in exchange for commercial gain - we would never have been having a conversation on this topic. People want to hold Apple to a higher standard.. maybe thats also part of the problem.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Is it really that simple? Put yourself in the execs' shoes for a few minutes. You can obey the laws of China and do business in China... or you can take a stand on principle and leave the market, giving up not only the revenue, but the small amount of positive influence you might have on their society as a whole. How is that necessarily any better for humanity than simply obeying the local laws, going along to get along, while making it clear to your Chinese customers that their counterparts in more enlightened countries enjoy more privacy, more features, and an overall better experience? I spoke with some people at a certain well-known company working on satellite Internet service a while back, and I asked them the same question. "What are you going to do when the Chinese try to shut you down for providing uncensored Internet service?" It was hard to argue with their response. They feel it is possible to make money and be a positive influence in various closed totalitarian societies including China. I think that's basically Apple's take on it as well. Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.
  - ksk 8y ago
    Well, I'm saying that we should probably ignore Apple when they say[1] stuff like "At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right." My cynical reading would be "At Apple, we're going to compromise on what we believe to be a fundamental human right, to make a few bucks, and if in the process we happen to have a positive impact on some dictatorial regimes, that would be cool too". >Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. To be sure, it is never a good option. People have tried to sue the Chinese government, unsuccessfully so far. Nobody is denying that the chinese government has a horrible human rights record too. >It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed. Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal.. -- [1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal.. No, I switched contexts to the satellite Internet service developer I mentioned. They are on track to deploy a significant LEO constellation over the next few years. If they succeed, they will effectively be the Internet for a large chunk of the world. So if they don't make arrangements to accommodate various countries' censorship regulations, then citizens of places like China, Iran or North Korea who are caught with their receivers will be in a great deal of trouble, and the company's executives will not be able to travel to those regions without fearing arrest.
  - hoi 8y ago
    There is another option. Just abandon any principle of data privacy and continue to sell their products (although GDPR in EU is an issue).

by Steko 8y ago

ksk 8y ago

If people simply admitted that Apple (like many others) will compromise on their privacy principles in exchange for commercial gain - we would never have been having a conversation on this topic. People want to hold Apple to a higher standard.. maybe thats also part of the problem.

CamperBob2 8y ago
Is it really that simple? Put yourself in the execs' shoes for a few minutes. You can obey the laws of China and do business in China... or you can take a stand on principle and leave the market, giving up not only the revenue, but the small amount of positive influence you might have on their society as a whole. How is that necessarily any better for humanity than simply obeying the local laws, going along to get along, while making it clear to your Chinese customers that their counterparts in more enlightened countries enjoy more privacy, more features, and an overall better experience? I spoke with some people at a certain well-known company working on satellite Internet service a while back, and I asked them the same question. "What are you going to do when the Chinese try to shut you down for providing uncensored Internet service?" It was hard to argue with their response. They feel it is possible to make money and be a positive influence in various closed totalitarian societies including China. I think that's basically Apple's take on it as well. Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.
- ksk 8y ago
  Well, I'm saying that we should probably ignore Apple when they say[1] stuff like "At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right." My cynical reading would be "At Apple, we're going to compromise on what we believe to be a fundamental human right, to make a few bucks, and if in the process we happen to have a positive impact on some dictatorial regimes, that would be cool too". >Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. To be sure, it is never a good option. People have tried to sue the Chinese government, unsuccessfully so far. Nobody is denying that the chinese government has a horrible human rights record too. >It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed. Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal.. -- [1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal.. No, I switched contexts to the satellite Internet service developer I mentioned. They are on track to deploy a significant LEO constellation over the next few years. If they succeed, they will effectively be the Internet for a large chunk of the world. So if they don't make arrangements to accommodate various countries' censorship regulations, then citizens of places like China, Iran or North Korea who are caught with their receivers will be in a great deal of trouble, and the company's executives will not be able to travel to those regions without fearing arrest.
- hoi 8y ago
  There is another option. Just abandon any principle of data privacy and continue to sell their products (although GDPR in EU is an issue).