6 ms·

Disclaimer: I use Apple products, and trust them slightly more than anything Google/FaceBook/startups because they don't have a business front selling my data t

Disclaimer: I use Apple products, and trust them slightly more than anything Google/FaceBook/startups because they don't have a business front selling my data to advertisement companies or 3rd party miners(as much as I know of). But, I'm baffled by this PR as if they are the privacy messiah. Didn't they just sellout their Chinese users icloud data to the Chinese government? Yeah. "It's the law, and Apple has to obey the law" is an argument, but here is a company that is willing to compromise their user's privacy in order to be able to sell phones in China. So, if US govt finds a way to say "it's the law" to reveal user data, I'm sure they'll bend over. This grand stand in media is just sickening and theatric. /rant.

s3r3nity 8y ago
I struggle with Apple's China situation as well, but the more I turn it over in my head, the more I think it's that Tim is pulled between two parties: 1) His team + Apple Directors that I firmly believe, both in words AND in their action, are strong proponents of privacy of the user 2) The Apple Board + Sharedholders that would revolt if the privacy principles from (1) prevented access to a market of ~1.4 billion people, and potentially gave a competitor like Huawei a further leg up. In this scenario, I don't see it as "grand-standing," but more of a necessary public act that US should move more in the policy direction of the EU, in spite of steep lobbying from most of the Valley / FANG group that would benefit from less-strict privacy regulations.
- reacharavindh 8y ago
  Yes, I agree that there is a nuance to it. But, if they said "We'd like the United States to stand up for the privacy of its citizens and create a law like that if GDPR. Apple is in full support of it because it helps our business too(it is our competitor's weakness)" I'd agree that they are talking the truth. But, writing that we "absolutely" care about your privacy, and that "caring for privacy is in our DNA" and so on just to turn around and give up the same principles to an authoritarian government(one that is building Social credit system nevertheless) is just plain hypocrisy IMO. I know several American and European friends that trust Apple as if they're infallible, and will protect their data in a war. That's what I think is wrong. Apple will give up its users, DNA, principles if there is enough money to be made or leverage to be taken.
  - s3r3nity 8y ago
    I'm not sure I agree that it IS hypocrisy: if you want to operate in a place for business, and you have no choice (i.e. my point about Apple's Board + Shareholders,) you can rail against the policies in public as much as possible and hope that the law favors your principles. That's what Tim Cook is doing here: hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government, and lobbying as much as he can to prevent that. Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," or data pooling (a la social credit system) - what are his choices? 1) Not operate in the US? Not realistic 2) Ignore them and pay hefty fines up the whazoo? Maybe for a short period of time until Shareholders revolt or the Feds push to start pulling some folks in court.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      > hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government > Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," That's what they're trying to bring in in Australia now. I feel that it's a test-case for the other 5 eyes countries to learn from. I'm hoping that the way they're going about it in such a ham-fisted and causeless way ensures their power-grab falls flat on its face.
- paxys 8y ago
  You can make this exact argument for Google or Facebook or anyone else. Simply bringing up "evil shareholders" doesn't absolve any company or individual from criticism.
  - s3r3nity 8y ago
    I think you misunderstood my argument - apologies for not being clearer. There is a difference between a company's _incentives_ to do something that is permitted by law - for which I would agree that said company is worthy of criticism to a reasonable extent - and that which a company is _compelled to do so by law._ My point was that Tim Cook's speech was largely to prevent scenarios that would lead to law-makers wanting to create laws like the latter. And Apple _should_ get credit that they have a bunch of incentives to collect user data at will, like many other tech companies, but explicitly avoid that as company policy.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Apple has a record of doing the right thing. Google and Facebook don't. It really matters when you are being asked to blindly trust a company.
  - abecedarius 8y ago
    In the case of Google, I thought a handful of people had controlling interest. (Just Larry and Sergei?) Maybe similarly for Facebook, I haven't checked.
kodablah 8y ago
When thinking about this juxtaposition/hypocrisy, we should also consider the differences in consequences wrt collecting data for advertisement use vs giving data to an oppressive government.
IBM 8y ago
I've posted this a number of times before but it's apparently not common knowledge (and for good reason Apple doesn't seem to talk about their situation in China often). Apple's position in China is completely consistent with the rest of the world. In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establishment water holders were putting out the idea that Apple makes exceptions for China, and the Department of Justice parroted it [1]. From Apple's filing [2]: >Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5. and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [3]: >Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world. >Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device. >It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services. >I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice [4]. The new law means Apple's Chinese iCloud data needs to be stored in local data centers, but Apple continues to maintain sole control of the keys. Whether you believe them or not, or whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you. But end-to-end encrypted services like iMessage or iPhones itself, remain so and are still unblocked in China. You might be wondering why Apple seemingly gets an exception when services like WhatsApp are blocked. The answer should be obvious: Apple being an old-world company that still makes products in meat space, (indirectly) employs a lot of people in China. That gives them leverage that other companies don't have. So they have to comply with certain Chinese laws such as taking down the NYT app, VPN apps, being unable to operate iTunes Books or Movies in China, etc. But that's a small price if it means their core products remain uncompromised. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1... [3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-Decl-Executed.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De... [4] https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244 https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244

s3r3nity 8y ago

I struggle with Apple's China situation as well, but the more I turn it over in my head, the more I think it's that Tim is pulled between two parties: 1) His team + Apple Directors that I firmly believe, both in words AND in their action, are strong proponents of privacy of the user 2) The Apple Board + Sharedholders that would revolt if the privacy principles from (1) prevented access to a market of ~1.4 billion people, and potentially gave a competitor like Huawei a further leg up. In this scenario, I don't see it as "grand-standing," but more of a necessary public act that US should move more in the policy direction of the EU, in spite of steep lobbying from most of the Valley / FANG group that would benefit from less-strict privacy regulations.

reacharavindh 8y ago
Yes, I agree that there is a nuance to it. But, if they said "We'd like the United States to stand up for the privacy of its citizens and create a law like that if GDPR. Apple is in full support of it because it helps our business too(it is our competitor's weakness)" I'd agree that they are talking the truth. But, writing that we "absolutely" care about your privacy, and that "caring for privacy is in our DNA" and so on just to turn around and give up the same principles to an authoritarian government(one that is building Social credit system nevertheless) is just plain hypocrisy IMO. I know several American and European friends that trust Apple as if they're infallible, and will protect their data in a war. That's what I think is wrong. Apple will give up its users, DNA, principles if there is enough money to be made or leverage to be taken.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  I'm not sure I agree that it IS hypocrisy: if you want to operate in a place for business, and you have no choice (i.e. my point about Apple's Board + Shareholders,) you can rail against the policies in public as much as possible and hope that the law favors your principles. That's what Tim Cook is doing here: hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government, and lobbying as much as he can to prevent that. Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," or data pooling (a la social credit system) - what are his choices? 1) Not operate in the US? Not realistic 2) Ignore them and pay hefty fines up the whazoo? Maybe for a short period of time until Shareholders revolt or the Feds push to start pulling some folks in court.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    > hoping the US doesn't go in the direction of an authoritarian government > Imagine if the US adopted a similar law or set of policies that required "backdoors," That's what they're trying to bring in in Australia now. I feel that it's a test-case for the other 5 eyes countries to learn from. I'm hoping that the way they're going about it in such a ham-fisted and causeless way ensures their power-grab falls flat on its face.
paxys 8y ago
You can make this exact argument for Google or Facebook or anyone else. Simply bringing up "evil shareholders" doesn't absolve any company or individual from criticism.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  I think you misunderstood my argument - apologies for not being clearer. There is a difference between a company's _incentives_ to do something that is permitted by law - for which I would agree that said company is worthy of criticism to a reasonable extent - and that which a company is _compelled to do so by law._ My point was that Tim Cook's speech was largely to prevent scenarios that would lead to law-makers wanting to create laws like the latter. And Apple _should_ get credit that they have a bunch of incentives to collect user data at will, like many other tech companies, but explicitly avoid that as company policy.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Apple has a record of doing the right thing. Google and Facebook don't. It really matters when you are being asked to blindly trust a company.
- abecedarius 8y ago
  In the case of Google, I thought a handful of people had controlling interest. (Just Larry and Sergei?) Maybe similarly for Facebook, I haven't checked.

kodablah 8y ago

When thinking about this juxtaposition/hypocrisy, we should also consider the differences in consequences wrt collecting data for advertisement use vs giving data to an oppressive government.

IBM 8y ago

I've posted this a number of times before but it's apparently not common knowledge (and for good reason Apple doesn't seem to talk about their situation in China often). Apple's position in China is completely consistent with the rest of the world. In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establishment water holders were putting out the idea that Apple makes exceptions for China, and the Department of Justice parroted it [1]. From Apple's filing [2]: >Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5. and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [3]: >Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world. >Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device. >It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services. >I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice [4]. The new law means Apple's Chinese iCloud data needs to be stored in local data centers, but Apple continues to maintain sole control of the keys. Whether you believe them or not, or whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you. But end-to-end encrypted services like iMessage or iPhones itself, remain so and are still unblocked in China. You might be wondering why Apple seemingly gets an exception when services like WhatsApp are blocked. The answer should be obvious: Apple being an old-world company that still makes products in meat space, (indirectly) employs a lot of people in China. That gives them leverage that other companies don't have. So they have to comply with certain Chinese laws such as taking down the NYT app, VPN apps, being unable to operate iTunes Books or Movies in China, etc. But that's a small price if it means their core products remain uncompromised. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1... [3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-Decl-Executed.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De... [4] https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244 https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244