4 ms·
> FTA: "Hong Kong citizens have highlighted a quirk of local laws that provide a strong counter-argument: under the law, the Hong Kong police are obliged to wav
by emptybits 7y ago
> FTA: "Hong Kong citizens have highlighted a quirk of local laws that provide a strong counter-argument: under the law, the Hong Kong police are obliged to wave a blue flag at the spot in which they which to declare that an illegal gathering is taking place."
So HK police are required to wave a blue flag so that the general public is aware the police have declared a particular gathering at a particular location illegal. Thus, HK law literally wants the location of the gathering made known, publicly drawing attention to it and the location. I assume this is to inform those gathering about their status and to let others nearby know also, as a warning, perhaps. And also nearby officers. Okay.
So consider an app that shared only this publicly visible information on a map. i.e. "police have raised the blue flag on this gathering, right here", without commentary or calls to action.
Less functional and informative than the existing app, but it may still serve a useful purpose for HK residents and demonstrators and perhaps even police (according to HK law) and then Apple may plausibly allow the app because it doesn't get into choosing sides or facilitating illegal calls to action.
- jMyles 7y agoChoosing sides and facilitating illegal calls to action is exactly what a reasonable company does in this situation. The matter of how best to serve humanity is not the slightest bit unclear here.
- fwsgonzo 7y agoThat's the highest horse I've seen so far on this site.
- eru 7y agoIt's pretty high. But far from the highest.
- calibas 7y agoHe expects a company to support basic human rights. That's not a "high horse", it's what everyone should expect already. We shouldn't be ridiculing people who demand companies support human rights. It's the apologists who should be marginalized.
- jMyles 7y agoI don't understand why it's such a high expectation that, in a situation where one party is unambiguously oppressing the other, to refrain from censoring the victimized party. Why is that so strange?
- UIZealot 7y agoOK I got to ask. Who is oppressing whom? What have they done exactly?
- undersuit 7y agoHave you read the article? How about the tweet from the developer: https://twitter.com/hkmaplive/status/1179108329240424448 https://twitter.com/hkmaplive/status/1179108329240424448
- fwsgonzo 7y agoI misunderstood your post. Sorry. I am actually for helping Hong Kongers.
- simonh 7y agoDo you think it is reasonable for a company to instruct and require their employees to break the law?
- jMyles 7y agoIt depends on the law. And on the state claiming its legitimacy.
- widowlark 7y agoThis. We have placated China and their authoritarianism for too long.
- SkyBelow 7y agoThey seem fine doing so when it makes them money. Granted, they find a 'technically not illegal' way to do so, such as setting metrics that can only be met by the majority of workers by breaking the law and then firing those who don't meet it, but without explicitly saying to break the law.
- iikoolpp 7y agoYes, absolutely. Something being legal doesn't make it good.