4 ms·

This is pretty weird. The knock on Apple here is that while they generally support federal privacy regulation they aren't lobbying for or influencing specific l

by jmull 7y ago

This is pretty weird. The knock on Apple here is that while they generally support federal privacy regulation they aren't lobbying for or influencing specific legislation (unlike some other tech companies). That seems better than the alternative, doesn't it?

snowwrestler 7y ago
In lawmaking, general support is meaningless. All that matters is what ends up in the law. If you're not defending or actively supporting a particular bill, you're yielding ground to the people who are attacking it. This is a standard tactic for companies who don't want a bill to pass, but also don't want to get attacked for opposing it. It's often paired with opposition that is run through their trade association, which lets the trade association take the political heat (which is part of what they get paid to do). The article notes that Apple is a member of associations who oppose specific privacy bills. Privacy seems to be a priority for Apple in its product design, marketing, and personally for Tim Cook. So far, it does not seem to be a lobbying priority. And Apple does lobby on some issues; they spent $6 million doing so in 2018.
- jmull 7y ago
  > This is a standard tactic for companies who don't want a bill to pass, but also don't want to get attacked for opposing it. I don't think that's true. The standard tactic is to support a bill that has no teeth and/or imposes a significant "floor" cost such that complying with the regulation is a large proportion revenue for small companies but a very small proportion to large, established companies, thus preventing potential small/new competitors from establishing a foothold.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    This is a tactic for when you are trying to suppress smaller competitors but I don’t think that is Apple’s concern right now.
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  >If you're not defending or actively supporting a particular bill Alternatively, maybe they just don't like the bills that have been presented so far. I've read several of these privacy bills and they're very clearly written by people who have zero clue about the technology in question or the massive amounts of data being discussed. I'd be generally supporting the direction of these bills but would not personally back them myself either. In that case, what's the solution?
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    Suggest the language that you would like.
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      They have. Apple supported the policy development and language of the GPDR in the EU and has publicly come out as saying that it's the standard by which the US should operate also. The GPDR not only shows that it understands what's at stake but it gives consumers the control over the data and a means of verification of compliance. If you live in the EU, you can compel any corporation to send you a copy of all data they have on you and delete it from their system and then provide proof of deletion.

by jmull 7y ago

snowwrestler 7y ago

In lawmaking, general support is meaningless. All that matters is what ends up in the law. If you're not defending or actively supporting a particular bill, you're yielding ground to the people who are attacking it. This is a standard tactic for companies who don't want a bill to pass, but also don't want to get attacked for opposing it. It's often paired with opposition that is run through their trade association, which lets the trade association take the political heat (which is part of what they get paid to do). The article notes that Apple is a member of associations who oppose specific privacy bills. Privacy seems to be a priority for Apple in its product design, marketing, and personally for Tim Cook. So far, it does not seem to be a lobbying priority. And Apple does lobby on some issues; they spent $6 million doing so in 2018.

jmull 7y ago
> This is a standard tactic for companies who don't want a bill to pass, but also don't want to get attacked for opposing it. I don't think that's true. The standard tactic is to support a bill that has no teeth and/or imposes a significant "floor" cost such that complying with the regulation is a large proportion revenue for small companies but a very small proportion to large, established companies, thus preventing potential small/new competitors from establishing a foothold.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  This is a tactic for when you are trying to suppress smaller competitors but I don’t think that is Apple’s concern right now.
dpkonofa 7y ago
>If you're not defending or actively supporting a particular bill Alternatively, maybe they just don't like the bills that have been presented so far. I've read several of these privacy bills and they're very clearly written by people who have zero clue about the technology in question or the massive amounts of data being discussed. I'd be generally supporting the direction of these bills but would not personally back them myself either. In that case, what's the solution?
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Suggest the language that you would like.
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    They have. Apple supported the policy development and language of the GPDR in the EU and has publicly come out as saying that it's the standard by which the US should operate also. The GPDR not only shows that it understands what's at stake but it gives consumers the control over the data and a means of verification of compliance. If you live in the EU, you can compel any corporation to send you a copy of all data they have on you and delete it from their system and then provide proof of deletion.