3 ms·

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

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.

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.