4 ms·

> The nuclear option is probably to just stop selling their products in Australia. Someone needs to. With EU laws, Australian laws, US laws, and more and more

by cronix 8y ago

> The nuclear option is probably to just stop selling their products in Australia. Someone needs to. With EU laws, Australian laws, US laws, and more and more every day, the internet is rapidly becoming a tool of the least common denominator. In other words, whatever country has the toughest laws will govern the planetary internet system as all others will have to follow by extension. Apple, for example, can't make an iphone for every country to comply with that countries individual laws that differ from every other country, which also change with a regular basis. Of course though, there will always be hackers skating on top relatively free. We're becoming a two-tiered internet. The relatively few who know how to get around the restrictions, and everybody else. All Apple has to do is float the possibility they may not sell their products in Australia anymore, and point out why. The rest would take care of itself.

hazz99 8y ago
As an Australian with Apple products, I really hope Apple pulls out of the market. Some large entity definitely needs to take a stand.
- quicklime 8y ago
  In this specific case, I hope that's the outcome. But in the general case, I hope we don't end up in a world where global megacorps have that much sway over governments (maybe we're in that world already...)
  - hamhock666 8y ago
    I don't think it is necessarily the sway of corporations as much as the sway of the citizens. If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up, especially if they could no longer get Apple products.
    - cronix 8y ago
      > If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up All they'd really have to do is announce that they are considering it. Just write up an analysis and stick it on their website. The world will notice, immediately. How many hours do you think it would take before it was a major news story everywhere?
aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
>In other words, whatever country has the toughest laws will govern the planetary internet system as all others will have to follow by extension Just like how you eat 90% halal whether you’re muslim or not :) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
IdiocyInAction 8y ago
The alternative, that may very well come to pass, is that the internet will cluster into different subnetworks for different ideologies. I could very well see that happen with the EU. The golden times for the internet are over anyway. It went from an optimistic dream of free expression of information to a platform for delivering ads.
- hxsvui 8y ago
  The Internet was English speaking, western and had a keyboard with the Latin alphabet. These days are over, but it's injust to argue with ideology and a negative tone here. The Internet serves people all-over the world and must respect local laws, because it serves the local people. Also, free expression is stronger than ever before. You can now even claim your opinion is a fact.
discordance 8y ago
Apple is required by law in Japan to make iPhones make a sound when taking a photo, and they complied. These new voyuer laws in Australia are obviously much more severe, but there is precedent for a company to customise phones by jurisdiction.
- cronix 8y ago
  A software tweak is a lot easier to change than hardware accelerated encryption.
- dan-robertson 8y ago
  These things are quite obviously very different and I can’t find a way to read this in good faith (except perhaps from an extreme libertarian point of view), let alone in a good light. One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. The other is a law requiring phones to invade people’s privacy in some circumstances. I think it is quite reasonable to follow the former, just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings or meet various antitrust requirements.
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    > One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. A law that restricts my freedom to customize my device. Plus their privacy was being invaded from the moment that I looked at them, taking a photo would not change anything. > just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings As long as it is configurable, sure.
    - et2o 8y ago
      This is the logic of a 12 year old.
- et2o 8y ago
  Camera shutter sounds aren’t a moral issue apple has staked a position on.
Jach 8y ago
> Apple, for example, can't make an iphone for every country to comply with that countries individual laws that differ from every other country, which also change with a regular basis. Well, they can. You can do a lot when you're a trillion dollar company. It's just grossly inefficient and ugly and they'll try to avoid it if they can, sharing as much as possible when they can't, the same way everyone deals with multiple possible configurations they have to support. I too hope they put their foot down, though.
- cronix 8y ago
  Yes I should have said impractical. I'd hate to think of what a special iPhone would cost just for the Australian market, which is relatively small, should Apple (and others) decide to not foist this on everyone else world-wide. Just come out with different hardware that's easier to hack just for Australia - only to be sold in Australia, and charge appropriately. Make them pay more to be less secure. It would be justifiable if the hardware was different for a smaller market. It's no different than if they came up with their own cellular system that was incompatible with international standards. It would cost more to build for it because it's a small market with unique requirements.
  - azinman2 8y ago
    That would be fundamentally against Apple’s values. Disclosure: I work for Apple.
    - confounded 8y ago
      iMessage decryption keys on servers controlled by the Chinese government went ahead just fine. Values are useful, but not as useful as an attractive stock-price.

by cronix 8y ago

hazz99 8y ago

As an Australian with Apple products, I really hope Apple pulls out of the market. Some large entity definitely needs to take a stand.

quicklime 8y ago
In this specific case, I hope that's the outcome. But in the general case, I hope we don't end up in a world where global megacorps have that much sway over governments (maybe we're in that world already...)
- hamhock666 8y ago
  I don't think it is necessarily the sway of corporations as much as the sway of the citizens. If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up, especially if they could no longer get Apple products.
  - cronix 8y ago
    > If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up All they'd really have to do is announce that they are considering it. Just write up an analysis and stick it on their website. The world will notice, immediately. How many hours do you think it would take before it was a major news story everywhere?

aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago

>In other words, whatever country has the toughest laws will govern the planetary internet system as all others will have to follow by extension Just like how you eat 90% halal whether you’re muslim or not :) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

IdiocyInAction 8y ago

The alternative, that may very well come to pass, is that the internet will cluster into different subnetworks for different ideologies. I could very well see that happen with the EU. The golden times for the internet are over anyway. It went from an optimistic dream of free expression of information to a platform for delivering ads.

hxsvui 8y ago
The Internet was English speaking, western and had a keyboard with the Latin alphabet. These days are over, but it's injust to argue with ideology and a negative tone here. The Internet serves people all-over the world and must respect local laws, because it serves the local people. Also, free expression is stronger than ever before. You can now even claim your opinion is a fact.

discordance 8y ago

Apple is required by law in Japan to make iPhones make a sound when taking a photo, and they complied. These new voyuer laws in Australia are obviously much more severe, but there is precedent for a company to customise phones by jurisdiction.

cronix 8y ago
A software tweak is a lot easier to change than hardware accelerated encryption.
dan-robertson 8y ago
These things are quite obviously very different and I can’t find a way to read this in good faith (except perhaps from an extreme libertarian point of view), let alone in a good light. One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. The other is a law requiring phones to invade people’s privacy in some circumstances. I think it is quite reasonable to follow the former, just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings or meet various antitrust requirements.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  > One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. A law that restricts my freedom to customize my device. Plus their privacy was being invaded from the moment that I looked at them, taking a photo would not change anything. > just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings As long as it is configurable, sure.
  - et2o 8y ago
    This is the logic of a 12 year old.
et2o 8y ago
Camera shutter sounds aren’t a moral issue apple has staked a position on.

Jach 8y ago

> Apple, for example, can't make an iphone for every country to comply with that countries individual laws that differ from every other country, which also change with a regular basis. Well, they can. You can do a lot when you're a trillion dollar company. It's just grossly inefficient and ugly and they'll try to avoid it if they can, sharing as much as possible when they can't, the same way everyone deals with multiple possible configurations they have to support. I too hope they put their foot down, though.

cronix 8y ago
Yes I should have said impractical. I'd hate to think of what a special iPhone would cost just for the Australian market, which is relatively small, should Apple (and others) decide to not foist this on everyone else world-wide. Just come out with different hardware that's easier to hack just for Australia - only to be sold in Australia, and charge appropriately. Make them pay more to be less secure. It would be justifiable if the hardware was different for a smaller market. It's no different than if they came up with their own cellular system that was incompatible with international standards. It would cost more to build for it because it's a small market with unique requirements.
- azinman2 8y ago
  That would be fundamentally against Apple’s values. Disclosure: I work for Apple.
  - confounded 8y ago
    iMessage decryption keys on servers controlled by the Chinese government went ahead just fine. Values are useful, but not as useful as an attractive stock-price.