4 ms·

My first question is whether the "Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau" is a reliable source of information under the current circumstances. I ha

My first question is whether the "Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau" is a reliable source of information under the current circumstances. I haven't been reading all the news about the Hong Kong protests, but what I have been reading suggests that China is applying an enormous amount of pressure to halt the protests, or reduce the international visibility of what is happening in Hong Kong. It doesn't seem to me to take much of a leap of faith to think that China is applying pressure on the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau to get this app removed.

baddox 7y ago
Cook's memo says that the reports, from the bureau as well as from the app's users, are "credible." That at least implies that Apple evaluated the credibility of the claims. I do understand that some people (like Gruber) might want Apple to provide material evidence, but is that really Apple's responsibility or usual behavior? It would seem extremely odd (and not at all comforting) to me if Apple, for example, released video evidence of a violent attack along with some record of this app being used by the attacker. That seems like something a government should do in a legal case, of course, but it would be seem strange to me for Apple to do that. And even if they did, I suspect it wouldn't convince people who are convinced that China is doctoring or inventing evidence to vilify the Hong Kong protesters.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  What is the generally accepted criteria for "credible information"? How could Apple have communicated better about how they reviewed or corroborated the claims given by the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau?
- idlewords 7y ago
  This is the part of Cook's email that is harder to swallow. I doubt that reports from actual users (rather than Chinese cutouts) even exist. The Hong Kong police force is not a credible source of information, given that it is the chief antagonist in the Hong Kong protests, and that a core demand of the millions demonstrating is an independent investigation of its conduct.

baddox 7y ago

Cook's memo says that the reports, from the bureau as well as from the app's users, are "credible." That at least implies that Apple evaluated the credibility of the claims. I do understand that some people (like Gruber) might want Apple to provide material evidence, but is that really Apple's responsibility or usual behavior? It would seem extremely odd (and not at all comforting) to me if Apple, for example, released video evidence of a violent attack along with some record of this app being used by the attacker. That seems like something a government should do in a legal case, of course, but it would be seem strange to me for Apple to do that. And even if they did, I suspect it wouldn't convince people who are convinced that China is doctoring or inventing evidence to vilify the Hong Kong protesters.

birdyrooster 7y ago
What is the generally accepted criteria for "credible information"? How could Apple have communicated better about how they reviewed or corroborated the claims given by the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau?
idlewords 7y ago
This is the part of Cook's email that is harder to swallow. I doubt that reports from actual users (rather than Chinese cutouts) even exist. The Hong Kong police force is not a credible source of information, given that it is the chief antagonist in the Hong Kong protests, and that a core demand of the millions demonstrating is an independent investigation of its conduct.