5 ms·

"Sign In with Apple" - the likely effects of this policy change is frankly great as far as I'm concerned, but its another example of the industry trying to poli

by giobox 7y ago

"Sign In with Apple" - the likely effects of this policy change is frankly great as far as I'm concerned, but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. I think the net effect of Apple's decision is likely positive, but they've effectively been forced to almost abuse their dominant market position to do it. In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry, rather than relying on the good intentions of Apple and the success of the App Store to push the change.

scarface74 7y ago
It never ceases to amaze me the trust that the tech industry has in both the competence and the benevolence of the government.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  I don't think that the government is generally competent or benevolent, but I am 100% sure that the tech industry is not benevolent, and that bothers me in direct proportion to their competence.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    Furthermore, with government, there is at least some notion of accountability. Imperfect as it may be, generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences. Furthermore, there are mechanisms such as FOIA that any citizen or organization can utilize to find out if and when those fuck ups happen, as well. Big Tech though is basically a closed black box that has immense power and is almost totally unregulated. This leaves an incredible amount of room for abuse. Therefore, I am totally okay with a semi-competent, sometimes-benevolent entity that is accountable to the public (government) to much more tightly regulate this industry.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      People don't vote based on monopolies and privacy. Politicians can get away with all matter of things if they appeal to the electorate's baser instincts and prejudices. EDIT: "Prejudices" don't necessarily mean race, religion, etc. It also could be "evil capitalist" vs "evil socialist" or "baby killing war monger" vs "peace loving hippy". And giving more power to the government couldn't possibly lead to abuse.....
    - bko 7y ago
      > generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences. Re-election rates for congressmen over the years hovers at around 90%. Senators are around 85%. Perhaps they're all doing a great job, but I'm skeptical https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php
  - bko 7y ago
    It's a lot easier for me to switch phones or services than it is for me to switch jurisdictions.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  The government is at least supposed to serve the populace, even if it has a spotty record of actually doing so. Corporations, on the other hand, don't even have to pretend to have society's best interests in mind.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Government doesn't serve the populace - they serve geography. A person living in California has far less national voting power than someone living in Rhode Island or Middle America since each state has two Senators regardless of their size and the Electoral College favors smaller states. Congressional districts even for representatives mean you have more voting power if you're in rural areas than if you live in major cities. Middle America and the Bible Belt don't vote based on tech issues.....
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      Oh you mean the US government then And you're absolutely right, and if California has an issue with that they can push for changes or even for their separation from the US (taxation without enough representation and all that).
- minikites 7y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me the trust that tech workers have in both the competence and the benevolence of capitalism.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Well seeing that tech workers are benefiting from capitalism why wouldn't they trust it? What's the alternative? If you have a household income over $60K (the national average), are you willing to give everything over $60K up to make things more "fair"? Yes I'm all for the social safety net.
  - ianstallings 7y ago
    Do you think that government ownership would lead to more competence and benevolence? If so, just visit the inside of any government agency.
    - techsupporter 7y ago
      > If so, just visit the inside of any government agency. How is this still a retort? OF COURSE MANY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SUCK. That is the direct result of fifty-plus years of "government is terrible, elect us and we'll prove it." Even some of our more popular agencies are so underfunded they can barely do their original mission, much less the aspirational stuff we want of them. NASA says it'll take--pulling numbers out of thin air--$10 billion to reliably go to the moon. Our electeds' response is "you can have $3 billion" and then we complain that NASA hasn't sent anybody to the moon yet. Never mind this patchwork of responsibility where virtually everything is no one's actual fault or job. The much-complained-about Department of Motor Vehicles is, in various states, operated as an independent entity, part of the department of transportation, part of an agency that handles licenses for everything that needs a license, or simply just kind of happens. There's no one whose job it is to say "this thing needs to work well" and since everyone doesn't like it, it doesn't command any kind of respect for being paid properly. And then speaking of paid properly, why on Flying Spaghetti Monster's Earth would someone go to work for a state or local government and get paid, especially in tech, on average about two thirds of what he or she could be making in the so-called "private sector," or go to work for the Federal government and not only have the same wage penalty but ALSO be subjected to random "well, we couldn't get our heads out of our ass so you're not getting paid for anywhere from one to one hundred days, sorry" instances. "Just visit the inside of any government agency" my shiny metal ass; we MADE this problem and now we kick dirt at it as though decades of voters bitching about government haven't gotten us exactly the front-line government services we deserve as a consequence of those votes.
Despegar 7y ago
>but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. "Industry" policing itself would be Google and Facebook changing their business model of their own accord to the detriment of their current business. Apple is not the "industry" in this case, Apple is their regulator.
aeternus 7y ago
Legislation is typically a very suboptimal solution. Even something like GDPR, which is well-intentioned significantly increases barrier-to-entry for small competitors.
ordinaryradical 7y ago
> In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation One of the mainstays of capitalism is that competition should generate better, fairer options given sufficient competition and time. Part of the allure of letting the market solve these problems is that they can do so without the need for legislation (which could be compromised, incomplete, or unjustly preferential). Now whether or not we prefer the capitalist or socialist method of solving this issue is a big question, but I don’t think you can argue that the system isn’t “functioning” as intended right now.
- pfranz 7y ago
  > but I don’t think you can argue that the system isn’t “functioning” as intended right now. The only reason this can work is Apple having a dominant position and being benevolent--that's not competition generating better, fairer options.
  - bko 7y ago
    Why do you think Apple is simply behaving benevolently? It's in their interest. Not only do they buy good will with customers, they also keep people in their ecosystem. They can wax on about how they're providing these services on principal, but it helps their bottom line, which is what you want in a system. Google/Facebook model provides different trade-offs and services for those that don't want to pay the Apple tax.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It’s commonly known as a “strategy credit”. But if I have a choice between trading my money for services and trading my privacy/dealing with annoying ads, I would much rather pay for services.
    - pfranz 7y ago
      I had "benevolent" in scare-quotes when typing up the reply. Since the whole point was that this is not an example of a healthy, competitive market I didn't want to be too over the top about it.
m463 7y ago
> I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry Recently I watched the movie "The Captain", where a private in the military finds an officer's uniform and uses it to fraudulently assert authority. (It's a true story) He meets all kinds of people, and all kinds of thing happen that shouldn't happen. It's obvious that some of the people he meets doubt his authenticity but "go with it" because his actions are aligned with their self-interests. I took away from this one thing: it's easier for people to just "go with it" than stand up and say no. And moreso when you profit from it. That's what I think is behind the whole privacy thing. That said, I hope a privacy market opportunity attracts the attention of some unconflicted players.
jaredklewis 7y ago
> I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry I imagine you’ve noticed, but in the real world, Congress is not capable of writing sensible tech legislation. So we may get legislation, but if we do, it won’t be sensible. So as much as I would also appreciate some sensible tech regulations (the endless adhesion contracts on websites and apps really need to be reigned in), I’m hoping congress stays away from this. These are the guys behind DMCA, CFAA, and other great hits. If anyone could screw this up, it would be them.
inevitable2 7y ago
This is not a benevolent act. Apple is a company; they exist to make money. They would not have spent the resources to develop this if it did not benefit them in some way.

by giobox 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

It never ceases to amaze me the trust that the tech industry has in both the competence and the benevolence of the government.

pwinnski 7y ago
I don't think that the government is generally competent or benevolent, but I am 100% sure that the tech industry is not benevolent, and that bothers me in direct proportion to their competence.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  Furthermore, with government, there is at least some notion of accountability. Imperfect as it may be, generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences. Furthermore, there are mechanisms such as FOIA that any citizen or organization can utilize to find out if and when those fuck ups happen, as well. Big Tech though is basically a closed black box that has immense power and is almost totally unregulated. This leaves an incredible amount of room for abuse. Therefore, I am totally okay with a semi-competent, sometimes-benevolent entity that is accountable to the public (government) to much more tightly regulate this industry.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    People don't vote based on monopolies and privacy. Politicians can get away with all matter of things if they appeal to the electorate's baser instincts and prejudices. EDIT: "Prejudices" don't necessarily mean race, religion, etc. It also could be "evil capitalist" vs "evil socialist" or "baby killing war monger" vs "peace loving hippy". And giving more power to the government couldn't possibly lead to abuse.....
  - bko 7y ago
    > generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences. Re-election rates for congressmen over the years hovers at around 90%. Senators are around 85%. Perhaps they're all doing a great job, but I'm skeptical https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php
- bko 7y ago
  It's a lot easier for me to switch phones or services than it is for me to switch jurisdictions.
_bxg1 7y ago
The government is at least supposed to serve the populace, even if it has a spotty record of actually doing so. Corporations, on the other hand, don't even have to pretend to have society's best interests in mind.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface74 7y ago
  Government doesn't serve the populace - they serve geography. A person living in California has far less national voting power than someone living in Rhode Island or Middle America since each state has two Senators regardless of their size and the Electoral College favors smaller states. Congressional districts even for representatives mean you have more voting power if you're in rural areas than if you live in major cities. Middle America and the Bible Belt don't vote based on tech issues.....
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Oh you mean the US government then And you're absolutely right, and if California has an issue with that they can push for changes or even for their separation from the US (taxation without enough representation and all that).
minikites 7y ago
It never ceases to amaze me the trust that tech workers have in both the competence and the benevolence of capitalism.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Well seeing that tech workers are benefiting from capitalism why wouldn't they trust it? What's the alternative? If you have a household income over $60K (the national average), are you willing to give everything over $60K up to make things more "fair"? Yes I'm all for the social safety net.
- ianstallings 7y ago
  Do you think that government ownership would lead to more competence and benevolence? If so, just visit the inside of any government agency.
  - techsupporter 7y ago
    > If so, just visit the inside of any government agency. How is this still a retort? OF COURSE MANY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SUCK. That is the direct result of fifty-plus years of "government is terrible, elect us and we'll prove it." Even some of our more popular agencies are so underfunded they can barely do their original mission, much less the aspirational stuff we want of them. NASA says it'll take--pulling numbers out of thin air--$10 billion to reliably go to the moon. Our electeds' response is "you can have $3 billion" and then we complain that NASA hasn't sent anybody to the moon yet. Never mind this patchwork of responsibility where virtually everything is no one's actual fault or job. The much-complained-about Department of Motor Vehicles is, in various states, operated as an independent entity, part of the department of transportation, part of an agency that handles licenses for everything that needs a license, or simply just kind of happens. There's no one whose job it is to say "this thing needs to work well" and since everyone doesn't like it, it doesn't command any kind of respect for being paid properly. And then speaking of paid properly, why on Flying Spaghetti Monster's Earth would someone go to work for a state or local government and get paid, especially in tech, on average about two thirds of what he or she could be making in the so-called "private sector," or go to work for the Federal government and not only have the same wage penalty but ALSO be subjected to random "well, we couldn't get our heads out of our ass so you're not getting paid for anywhere from one to one hundred days, sorry" instances. "Just visit the inside of any government agency" my shiny metal ass; we MADE this problem and now we kick dirt at it as though decades of voters bitching about government haven't gotten us exactly the front-line government services we deserve as a consequence of those votes.

Despegar 7y ago

>but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. "Industry" policing itself would be Google and Facebook changing their business model of their own accord to the detriment of their current business. Apple is not the "industry" in this case, Apple is their regulator.

aeternus 7y ago

Legislation is typically a very suboptimal solution. Even something like GDPR, which is well-intentioned significantly increases barrier-to-entry for small competitors.

ordinaryradical 7y ago

> In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation One of the mainstays of capitalism is that competition should generate better, fairer options given sufficient competition and time. Part of the allure of letting the market solve these problems is that they can do so without the need for legislation (which could be compromised, incomplete, or unjustly preferential). Now whether or not we prefer the capitalist or socialist method of solving this issue is a big question, but I don’t think you can argue that the system isn’t “functioning” as intended right now.

pfranz 7y ago
> but I don’t think you can argue that the system isn’t “functioning” as intended right now. The only reason this can work is Apple having a dominant position and being benevolent--that's not competition generating better, fairer options.
- bko 7y ago
  Why do you think Apple is simply behaving benevolently? It's in their interest. Not only do they buy good will with customers, they also keep people in their ecosystem. They can wax on about how they're providing these services on principal, but it helps their bottom line, which is what you want in a system. Google/Facebook model provides different trade-offs and services for those that don't want to pay the Apple tax.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It’s commonly known as a “strategy credit”. But if I have a choice between trading my money for services and trading my privacy/dealing with annoying ads, I would much rather pay for services.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    I had "benevolent" in scare-quotes when typing up the reply. Since the whole point was that this is not an example of a healthy, competitive market I didn't want to be too over the top about it.

m463 7y ago

> I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry Recently I watched the movie "The Captain", where a private in the military finds an officer's uniform and uses it to fraudulently assert authority. (It's a true story) He meets all kinds of people, and all kinds of thing happen that shouldn't happen. It's obvious that some of the people he meets doubt his authenticity but "go with it" because his actions are aligned with their self-interests. I took away from this one thing: it's easier for people to just "go with it" than stand up and say no. And moreso when you profit from it. That's what I think is behind the whole privacy thing. That said, I hope a privacy market opportunity attracts the attention of some unconflicted players.

jaredklewis 7y ago

> I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry I imagine you’ve noticed, but in the real world, Congress is not capable of writing sensible tech legislation. So we may get legislation, but if we do, it won’t be sensible. So as much as I would also appreciate some sensible tech regulations (the endless adhesion contracts on websites and apps really need to be reigned in), I’m hoping congress stays away from this. These are the guys behind DMCA, CFAA, and other great hits. If anyone could screw this up, it would be them.

inevitable2 7y ago

This is not a benevolent act. Apple is a company; they exist to make money. They would not have spent the resources to develop this if it did not benefit them in some way.