6 ms·

The "gov app tracking women" angle is a PR stunt by international advocacy groups and it points at the wrong problem. The app provides various official service

The "gov app tracking women" angle is a PR stunt by international advocacy groups and it points at the wrong problem. The app provides various official services, among them a digitized version of the "yellow sheet" a legal guardian has to fill out for a woman to be able to leave the country. (https://www.rt.com/news/women-tracking-saudi-arabia-359/ https://www.rt.com/news/women-tracking-saudi-arabia-359/ from 2012 describes this particular system, the app apparently integrates it with more digital services). The alternative isn't freedom of movement, it's having to get a signature on paper and potentially personal appearance of the legal guardian, which is harder to get (this includes: forge) than a button click on a website. As a remedy for that reduced trust in the system, it sends an SMS - to the very same device. There are activists in Saudi Arabia (see for example https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/1095360734798721025 https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/1095360734798721025) who see value in that type of app because the degree of automation it brings makes it easier to leave the country without supervision (e.g. by stealing the legal guardian's phone).

thefounder 8y ago
Congrats to Google because it makes this easier. Let's hope someone makes an app to manage/track child slaves easier! I heard some of them can become pretty slippery!
- apostacy 8y ago
  I don't know why you are getting down-voted. It would be 100% consistent. People on HN would even rationalize it the same way.
morpheuskafka 8y ago
I do think that this is worth noting, however, I still think Google should not be hosting it as it's still facilitating an immoral action (running an oppressive government that doesn't respect freedom of movement). I guess it's kind of a deontologist/consequentialist thing.
- vilifiedtwin 8y ago
  If you are going that path then why not tell Google stop hosting other immoral project like news apps that publish pro war on drugs stories and misinformation about the drugs, preventing people from making informed decisions and causing deaths indirectly? That's more serious than women's tracking app.
  - apostacy 8y ago
    No, I think that offensive opinions are an order of magnitude LESS serious than a women's tracking app. Are you serious? Publishing misinformation about drugs is more serious than the handmaiden app?
    - vilifiedtwin 8y ago
      Misinformation about drugs causes death. Yes that is serious.
- apostacy 8y ago
  Saudi Arabia only freed their African slaves in 1962. What if a new king re-enslaved them? I guess Google would be fine with hosting slave auction apps then, by this logic. I am so disgusted with the den of cowards and hypocrites at Google. Supercilious Google developers would condescend to us with platitudes of "Black lives matter" while literally hosting an enslavement app. It really would happen that way. Google would censor someone who makes fun of feminism with extreme prejudice, but will not lift a finger for this actual handmaiden app. They removed the Gab app at the drop of a hat because they claim to be against white supremacy, but they tacitly endorse the far more dangerous Chinese ethnostate to round up minorities into actual camps. The Chinese government forces Uyghurs in some regions to install apks on their android phones, and Google will NOT interfere, even though it would be easy to blacklist them. Maybe it would be ineffective, but it would be doing something. I don't want to hear that cooperating with oppression is somehow for the greater good. This is not who we are. There are actual people who are suffering as a direct result of Google's refusal to take a stand about who uses their platform. They are clearly willing to remove apps that displease them for arbitrary reasons, so they have no excuse not to act.
throw2016 8y ago
Slavery too is a 'process'. And creating an app will no doubt make it more 'efficient' for slave owners and slaves and maybe even provide the one off opportunity for one to escape. So let's forget about the slavery and focus on the 'modernization' of this 'activity' and maybe even celebrate the off chance some slaves scramble to freedom. For 'technical folks' this makes sense.
jka 8y ago
Even if loopholes like this can be used to enable emancipation in the short-term, the longer the functionality exists, the more likely it is that its security will be tightened down, to the point at which those thefts - which likely have serious consequences themselves, if discovered - will no longer be possible. It becomes a question of whether you support the principles behind the functionality provided, rather than whether you support the ability for a few people to escape thanks to bugs/exploits in the software.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  > It becomes a question of whether you support the principles behind the functionality provided I prefer to listen to voices of people directly affected rather than organizations operating on the other side of the world. As soon as women living in Saudi Arabia are saying that having this app is harmful, I'm all for having it gone. Right now what I hear is that the system is harmful (I think we're in violent agreement about that) and that the app helps in some cases while not making anything worse in all other situations. When it comes to "supporting the principles": I'd rather have them keep apps in the stores that aren't harmful (as said: I believe that this app doesn't make anything worse, in some cases it may even make things better) and stay out of morality based decisions, because at some point their morality will not agree with mine. Apparently Google and Apple aren't too hot on unionization (at least there don't seem to be unions in either company). Should they remove apps by unions from their stores because they don't support the principle? (but for the record: I'm not a fan of app stores as only, or even just primary application distribution channel. IMHO there should be no such curator who has to make this type of call) > thanks to bugs/exploits in the software It's not bugs in the software that enable leaving the country without physical presence and signature of a legal guardian. It's that these (hard to forge) factors were replaced by (easy to forge) phone ownership. By removing the app they'd go a long way to fix that "bug".

thefounder 8y ago

Congrats to Google because it makes this easier. Let's hope someone makes an app to manage/track child slaves easier! I heard some of them can become pretty slippery!

apostacy 8y ago
I don't know why you are getting down-voted. It would be 100% consistent. People on HN would even rationalize it the same way.

morpheuskafka 8y ago

I do think that this is worth noting, however, I still think Google should not be hosting it as it's still facilitating an immoral action (running an oppressive government that doesn't respect freedom of movement). I guess it's kind of a deontologist/consequentialist thing.

vilifiedtwin 8y ago
If you are going that path then why not tell Google stop hosting other immoral project like news apps that publish pro war on drugs stories and misinformation about the drugs, preventing people from making informed decisions and causing deaths indirectly? That's more serious than women's tracking app.
- apostacy 8y ago
  No, I think that offensive opinions are an order of magnitude LESS serious than a women's tracking app. Are you serious? Publishing misinformation about drugs is more serious than the handmaiden app?
  - vilifiedtwin 8y ago
    Misinformation about drugs causes death. Yes that is serious.
apostacy 8y ago
Saudi Arabia only freed their African slaves in 1962. What if a new king re-enslaved them? I guess Google would be fine with hosting slave auction apps then, by this logic. I am so disgusted with the den of cowards and hypocrites at Google. Supercilious Google developers would condescend to us with platitudes of "Black lives matter" while literally hosting an enslavement app. It really would happen that way. Google would censor someone who makes fun of feminism with extreme prejudice, but will not lift a finger for this actual handmaiden app. They removed the Gab app at the drop of a hat because they claim to be against white supremacy, but they tacitly endorse the far more dangerous Chinese ethnostate to round up minorities into actual camps. The Chinese government forces Uyghurs in some regions to install apks on their android phones, and Google will NOT interfere, even though it would be easy to blacklist them. Maybe it would be ineffective, but it would be doing something. I don't want to hear that cooperating with oppression is somehow for the greater good. This is not who we are. There are actual people who are suffering as a direct result of Google's refusal to take a stand about who uses their platform. They are clearly willing to remove apps that displease them for arbitrary reasons, so they have no excuse not to act.

throw2016 8y ago

Slavery too is a 'process'. And creating an app will no doubt make it more 'efficient' for slave owners and slaves and maybe even provide the one off opportunity for one to escape. So let's forget about the slavery and focus on the 'modernization' of this 'activity' and maybe even celebrate the off chance some slaves scramble to freedom. For 'technical folks' this makes sense.

jka 8y ago

Even if loopholes like this can be used to enable emancipation in the short-term, the longer the functionality exists, the more likely it is that its security will be tightened down, to the point at which those thefts - which likely have serious consequences themselves, if discovered - will no longer be possible. It becomes a question of whether you support the principles behind the functionality provided, rather than whether you support the ability for a few people to escape thanks to bugs/exploits in the software.

pgeorgi 8y ago
> It becomes a question of whether you support the principles behind the functionality provided I prefer to listen to voices of people directly affected rather than organizations operating on the other side of the world. As soon as women living in Saudi Arabia are saying that having this app is harmful, I'm all for having it gone. Right now what I hear is that the system is harmful (I think we're in violent agreement about that) and that the app helps in some cases while not making anything worse in all other situations. When it comes to "supporting the principles": I'd rather have them keep apps in the stores that aren't harmful (as said: I believe that this app doesn't make anything worse, in some cases it may even make things better) and stay out of morality based decisions, because at some point their morality will not agree with mine. Apparently Google and Apple aren't too hot on unionization (at least there don't seem to be unions in either company). Should they remove apps by unions from their stores because they don't support the principle? (but for the record: I'm not a fan of app stores as only, or even just primary application distribution channel. IMHO there should be no such curator who has to make this type of call) > thanks to bugs/exploits in the software It's not bugs in the software that enable leaving the country without physical presence and signature of a legal guardian. It's that these (hard to forge) factors were replaced by (easy to forge) phone ownership. By removing the app they'd go a long way to fix that "bug".