3 ms·

In China Apple allows iCloud infrastructure to be managed by Chinese companies (presumably so they can do bulk collection on user data/message backups). I agre

In China Apple allows iCloud infrastructure to be managed by Chinese companies (presumably so they can do bulk collection on user data/message backups). I agree. This absolutely fits the bill. For Apple, it’s either accept this arrangement or don’t do business in China, but it doesn’t change that it has a hollow ring, when Apple talks about privacy as a human right elsewhere. Apple removes the Taiwanese flag emoji from devices That’s a bad look, but it has nothing to do with privacy, and ultimately has no practical consequences for anybody. Apple removes the apps the CCP asks them to from the app store in China (notably this includes podcast apps with access to unapproved speech). Again, that has nothing to do with privacy. I don’t even see how it reflects poorly on Apple. What would you like Apple to do differently here? Should they martyr themselves in protest Chinese laws? What would that accomplish? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more concessions. Undoubtedly, if by concessions you mean complying with local laws in the countries where the do business. Apple is still the best when it comes to protecting their users in the west I’m sure Apple is also among the best when it comes to protecting their users in China. The problem is that Chinese laws don’t allow for the same level of protection as US laws.

fossuser 6y ago
> "That’s a bad look, but it has nothing to do with privacy, and ultimately has no practical consequences for anybody." I agree that it's not narrowly related to privacy, but it demonstrates that Apple is willing to comply with censorship demands from authoritarian governments. When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the public is willing to support. These kinds of things add up and have real effects. > "What would you like Apple to do differently here? Should they martyr themselves in protest Chinese laws? What would that accomplish?" I don't want to rehash my blog post linked above, but I'd argue Apple is responsible for the actions they take. They position themselves in the west as protectors of user privacy (refusing to decrypt iPhones, setting up systems where they can't be compelled to), yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position. What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries. Maybe China has too much leverage with their manufacturing, but Apple has a strong brand and people want their devices. Maybe if they held up their principles then people in China would still try to smuggle the phones in? Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did. It's often in these countries that the people need protection the most.
- adamlett 6y ago
  When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the public is willing to support. These kinds of things add up and have real effects. If or when China tries to take Taiwan, it will solely be because the US (implicitly or explicitly) withdraws its guarantee that it will use the power of its military to keep Taiwan independent. How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever. yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position. This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China. Selling e.g. surveillance technology is not equivalent to banning apps or removing an Emoji flag. What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries. But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China. Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did. I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    > "How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever." Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. In fact, the reason the CCP cares so much about suppressing speech and censoring their citizens is because they deeply understand this power. > "This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China." Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it. > "But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China." This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior. > "I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes." I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. Usually with similar "operating within the legal framework of the country" type of arguments. I don't find it very compelling. I'd also argue Apple specifically is enabling oppression of citizens by suppressing speech, and by handing over iCloud access to the CCP.

fossuser 6y ago

> "That’s a bad look, but it has nothing to do with privacy, and ultimately has no practical consequences for anybody." I agree that it's not narrowly related to privacy, but it demonstrates that Apple is willing to comply with censorship demands from authoritarian governments. When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the public is willing to support. These kinds of things add up and have real effects. > "What would you like Apple to do differently here? Should they martyr themselves in protest Chinese laws? What would that accomplish?" I don't want to rehash my blog post linked above, but I'd argue Apple is responsible for the actions they take. They position themselves in the west as protectors of user privacy (refusing to decrypt iPhones, setting up systems where they can't be compelled to), yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position. What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries. Maybe China has too much leverage with their manufacturing, but Apple has a strong brand and people want their devices. Maybe if they held up their principles then people in China would still try to smuggle the phones in? Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did. It's often in these countries that the people need protection the most.

adamlett 6y ago
When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the public is willing to support. These kinds of things add up and have real effects. If or when China tries to take Taiwan, it will solely be because the US (implicitly or explicitly) withdraws its guarantee that it will use the power of its military to keep Taiwan independent. How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever. yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position. This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China. Selling e.g. surveillance technology is not equivalent to banning apps or removing an Emoji flag. What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries. But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China. Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did. I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes.
- fossuser 6y ago
  > "How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever." Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. In fact, the reason the CCP cares so much about suppressing speech and censoring their citizens is because they deeply understand this power. > "This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China." Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it. > "But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China." This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior. > "I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes." I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. Usually with similar "operating within the legal framework of the country" type of arguments. I don't find it very compelling. I'd also argue Apple specifically is enabling oppression of citizens by suppressing speech, and by handing over iCloud access to the CCP.