5 ms·

I don't agree that Apple should bend over backwards. IMO contact tracing opens up a new can of worms and is a doorway to more draconian measures that will erode

I don't agree that Apple should bend over backwards. IMO contact tracing opens up a new can of worms and is a doorway to more draconian measures that will erode privacy for private citizens.

rydre 6y ago
The leaders elected by the citizens or a different way of governance of other sovereign countries have the right to decide what is best for their citizens. American companies should not try to impose their moral values on others. Many eastern cultures do not value privacy as much as you guys do, and it's fine.
- lilyball 6y ago
  Many people who buy Apple products do so because of Apple’s privacy stance. Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that.
  - rydre 6y ago
    >Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that. If the majority of the citizens want that, then they can outvote their leaders. If the minority of the citizens want that, they either convince the majority to agree, or they keep quit. I haven't bought the iPhone for the privacy stance. Apple is a part of PRISM. There is ZERO % chance that their privacy stance is more then a façade. While I try to protect my privacy from other private companies, I do not have that privacy requirement from the government as long as what they're doing is legal and collecting it to the extent permitted by the law. I will instead petition and support senators that would change the law to my liking. But if the majority disagrees, either I stop doing it, or I keep trying to change the law slowly by spreading awareness about why it's wrong.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      So assuming I do not want my privacy violated, I am simply at the tyranny of the majority?
      - rydre 6y ago
        No, you convince the majority. If they don't agree then maybe the really are right until you convince them otherwise. Imagine if you want to employ slave labor. The majority today disagrees. Would would still call it the tyranny of the majority?
        AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > If they don't agree then maybe the really are right until you convince them otherwise. How far back can you take that? Were they right about slavery, the nazis etc.? Or were they somehow magically wrong then, but are right ever since?
      - gear54rus 6y ago
        You are to research encryption and other privacy-enabling tech instead of listening to marketing. Majority will never have your back in this, forget it.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        assuming I don't want to contract COVID because I'm a sick person in the UK, do I need to live free or(and) die by American values because Apple has de-facto replaced a government? tyranny of the majority is scary to you, neglect by the minority is scary to me. What should happen in a reasonable world is that governments maintain sovereignty and that Apple, in particular on software questions (hardware would be tricky to do), to comply with regional governments. What's blatantly absurd is that a gadget company even starts to argue with the government of the United Kingdom.
        AsyncAwait 6y ago
        Am actually not from the U.S. and quite far left on the political spectrum, I am not against government regulation where it makes sense at all, I do find it absurd in principle that Apple can essentially supersede a national government, but in practice I find it unlikely that the UK government would be more conscious of my own privacy than Apple and that's saying something as I disdain Apple's practices quite a bit in general. You seem to assume I am arguing for no tracing at all, but am simply saying I doubt the UK's own technology is better in terms of preserving privacy than Apple's, while achieving the same goal.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > The leaders of other sovereign countries have the right to decide what is best for their citizens... companies should not try to impose their moral values on others Not op but I agree with this (within reason) having said that I don’t really think this is a moral export from Apple, more just a desire for control. I don’t think this desire is totally a bad thing (it can enable very good and consistent ux) but there is definitely a line they are walking.
- bad_user 6y ago
  If you don't like it, then don't buy their products, it's that simple. Sovereign countries are sovereign of course. But that's a truism that's irrelevant in this discussion. Such countries can ban Apple products if they don't like it. Choose your own values and build your own products. --- > "Many eastern cultures do not value privacy as much as you guys do, and it's fine." Actually it's not fine at all, in my opinion. I understand having different values, but we are talking about privacy and being born in the communism of Eastern Europe, I think privacy should be a basic inalienable human right. I value companies that don't compromise on such values, as it shows not all of them are morally bankrupt. And yes, I avoid products from Chinese companies for that reason and I'm always skeptical of US products too. Sorry, but I'll never buy stuff from companies like Huawei, not until I'll see a strong commitment to privacy, especially when the administration of the host country sees human rights as an existential threat and targets activists from other countries.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Not just you, it's the highest law in Europe: ECHR Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (yes, there is a lot of elasticity in that "except")
  - rydre 6y ago
    > And yes, I avoid products from Chinese companies for that reason and I'm always skeptical of US products too. Sorry, but I'll never buy stuff from companies like Huawei, not until I'll see a strong commitment to privacy, especially when the administration of the host country sees human rights as an existential threat and targets activists from other countries. Stop buying stuff from Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft because these companies are a part of a surveillance program called PRISM. IF you really value privacy, you wouldn't just abandon Huawei, but you'd do the same for these companies too. Unless you have a double standard of course.
- propertymagnate 6y ago
  It's rather broad to speak for many eastern cultures and are we talking of the citizens or their governments? And if it is their governments whom do not value privacy you are referring to those that have leaders are "elected by the citizens" or have this "different way of governance" that you allude to? Your statement can be re-interpreted as "whoever has the power not only makes the rules but has complete moral right to do so". That is clearly not correct. I'll just quickly violate Godwins law by pointing out this would mean the Nazis were correct, as they were the leaders elected by their citizens and thereby had the right to decide what was best for their citizens. And this is from the "elected leaders" part of your statement, not even the "different ways of governance" portion. Your statements can also be used to support slavery, etc. If you believe in any kind of society that is not selective by ethnic or ideological group, there are universal human rights that must be adhered to. If you don't, then obviously your opinion becomes less relevant because we may not be in the same ethnic/ideological group and so one or the other us may not have the right to speak and to discourse in whatever society this is. We can debate whether privacy is one of them, but knowing where everyone is and following them every moment of the day and being able to locate them down to a meter and follow all of their interactions enables and very strongly supports a lot of what we would call bad behaviour by a government - selected secret police apparatus, suppression of journalism, other cultures, and dissent, ideological control, restriction of movement, slavery, genocide, etc.

I don't agree that Apple should bend over backwards. IMO contact tracing opens up a new can of worms and is a doorway to more draconian measures that will erode privacy for private citizens.

rydre 6y ago

The leaders elected by the citizens or a different way of governance of other sovereign countries have the right to decide what is best for their citizens. American companies should not try to impose their moral values on others. Many eastern cultures do not value privacy as much as you guys do, and it's fine.

lilyball 6y ago
Many people who buy Apple products do so because of Apple’s privacy stance. Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that.
- rydre 6y ago
  >Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that. If the majority of the citizens want that, then they can outvote their leaders. If the minority of the citizens want that, they either convince the majority to agree, or they keep quit. I haven't bought the iPhone for the privacy stance. Apple is a part of PRISM. There is ZERO % chance that their privacy stance is more then a façade. While I try to protect my privacy from other private companies, I do not have that privacy requirement from the government as long as what they're doing is legal and collecting it to the extent permitted by the law. I will instead petition and support senators that would change the law to my liking. But if the majority disagrees, either I stop doing it, or I keep trying to change the law slowly by spreading awareness about why it's wrong.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    So assuming I do not want my privacy violated, I am simply at the tyranny of the majority?
    - rydre 6y ago
      No, you convince the majority. If they don't agree then maybe the really are right until you convince them otherwise. Imagine if you want to employ slave labor. The majority today disagrees. Would would still call it the tyranny of the majority?
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > If they don't agree then maybe the really are right until you convince them otherwise. How far back can you take that? Were they right about slavery, the nazis etc.? Or were they somehow magically wrong then, but are right ever since?
    - gear54rus 6y ago
      You are to research encryption and other privacy-enabling tech instead of listening to marketing. Majority will never have your back in this, forget it.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      assuming I don't want to contract COVID because I'm a sick person in the UK, do I need to live free or(and) die by American values because Apple has de-facto replaced a government? tyranny of the majority is scary to you, neglect by the minority is scary to me. What should happen in a reasonable world is that governments maintain sovereignty and that Apple, in particular on software questions (hardware would be tricky to do), to comply with regional governments. What's blatantly absurd is that a gadget company even starts to argue with the government of the United Kingdom.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        Am actually not from the U.S. and quite far left on the political spectrum, I am not against government regulation where it makes sense at all, I do find it absurd in principle that Apple can essentially supersede a national government, but in practice I find it unlikely that the UK government would be more conscious of my own privacy than Apple and that's saying something as I disdain Apple's practices quite a bit in general. You seem to assume I am arguing for no tracing at all, but am simply saying I doubt the UK's own technology is better in terms of preserving privacy than Apple's, while achieving the same goal.
jjcon 6y ago
> The leaders of other sovereign countries have the right to decide what is best for their citizens... companies should not try to impose their moral values on others Not op but I agree with this (within reason) having said that I don’t really think this is a moral export from Apple, more just a desire for control. I don’t think this desire is totally a bad thing (it can enable very good and consistent ux) but there is definitely a line they are walking.
bad_user 6y ago
If you don't like it, then don't buy their products, it's that simple. Sovereign countries are sovereign of course. But that's a truism that's irrelevant in this discussion. Such countries can ban Apple products if they don't like it. Choose your own values and build your own products. --- > "Many eastern cultures do not value privacy as much as you guys do, and it's fine." Actually it's not fine at all, in my opinion. I understand having different values, but we are talking about privacy and being born in the communism of Eastern Europe, I think privacy should be a basic inalienable human right. I value companies that don't compromise on such values, as it shows not all of them are morally bankrupt. And yes, I avoid products from Chinese companies for that reason and I'm always skeptical of US products too. Sorry, but I'll never buy stuff from companies like Huawei, not until I'll see a strong commitment to privacy, especially when the administration of the host country sees human rights as an existential threat and targets activists from other countries.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Not just you, it's the highest law in Europe: ECHR Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (yes, there is a lot of elasticity in that "except")
- rydre 6y ago
  > And yes, I avoid products from Chinese companies for that reason and I'm always skeptical of US products too. Sorry, but I'll never buy stuff from companies like Huawei, not until I'll see a strong commitment to privacy, especially when the administration of the host country sees human rights as an existential threat and targets activists from other countries. Stop buying stuff from Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft because these companies are a part of a surveillance program called PRISM. IF you really value privacy, you wouldn't just abandon Huawei, but you'd do the same for these companies too. Unless you have a double standard of course.
propertymagnate 6y ago
It's rather broad to speak for many eastern cultures and are we talking of the citizens or their governments? And if it is their governments whom do not value privacy you are referring to those that have leaders are "elected by the citizens" or have this "different way of governance" that you allude to? Your statement can be re-interpreted as "whoever has the power not only makes the rules but has complete moral right to do so". That is clearly not correct. I'll just quickly violate Godwins law by pointing out this would mean the Nazis were correct, as they were the leaders elected by their citizens and thereby had the right to decide what was best for their citizens. And this is from the "elected leaders" part of your statement, not even the "different ways of governance" portion. Your statements can also be used to support slavery, etc. If you believe in any kind of society that is not selective by ethnic or ideological group, there are universal human rights that must be adhered to. If you don't, then obviously your opinion becomes less relevant because we may not be in the same ethnic/ideological group and so one or the other us may not have the right to speak and to discourse in whatever society this is. We can debate whether privacy is one of them, but knowing where everyone is and following them every moment of the day and being able to locate them down to a meter and follow all of their interactions enables and very strongly supports a lot of what we would call bad behaviour by a government - selected secret police apparatus, suppression of journalism, other cultures, and dissent, ideological control, restriction of movement, slavery, genocide, etc.