6 ms·

The money line “Where national law and international human rights standards differ, we follow the higher standard. Where they are in conflict, we respect natio

The money line “Where national law and international human rights standards differ, we follow the higher standard. Where they are in conflict, we respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights.” In other words, business as usual, more virtue signalling. This weasel word statement means they stand for nothing. They will still do business in the country. They are upholding no values if they allow national law to trump their ideals.

throwaway4good 6y ago
What are they supposed to say? We would go against the local laws of a country if we think they violate human rights?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  If you’re not going to stand for human rights, at least don’t claim that you are.
- wpurvis 6y ago
  "We refuse to work with countries that engage in ongoing human rights abuses."
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Which countries are those? And who decides which go on the list?
    - adamsvystun 6y ago
      I doesn't matter much as long as there is a list. Apple can even publish it's own list, then everybody can debate if this is a good list or bad list. Currently there is no list - no discussion.
    - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
      Obviously Apple. That's the entire point of taking a principled stance on something. If a country is not on the list, Apple is declaring they don't think it does human rights abuses.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Apple? Because this is a statement about their moral principles.
  - hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
    There's no consensus among scholars about how many human rights exist, how to realize them, and how to prioritize them. For example, is healthcare a right? Is food a right? Is education a right? Is there a "right to development"?
    - K0nserv 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... seems like a good lowest bar to hit, incidentally the policy being discussed in this thread was based on it
    - danShumway 6y ago
      It is possible (and in fact, expected) of companies that take these kinds of pledges to have a baseline set of human rights that most people (or at least most people on Apple's board) will agree on, even if there is ambiguity around the edges. The alternative is saying, "we'll stand for this thing that we refuse to define in even vague terms, and as a result it will be impossible for anyone to evaluate whether or not we're succeeding, or even making progress." If Apple can't determine even in broad terms what is and isn't a rights violation, then their declaration is meaningless. They don't need to decide for everyone, and not everyone needs to agree with them -- it's fine for other people and companies to come up with their own criteria. But Apple has to at least some internal idea of what they mean when they say they stand for something, otherwise it will be impossible for them to build real policies around the declaration. And some of this honestly isn't that controversial among scholars. As an analogy, if I commit to avoiding stocking unhealthy products in my store, I don't need to know for certain whether or not coffee is healthy in order to say Cadbury Eggs are not -- pretty much everyone agrees on that. In the same way, we don't really need to debate whether or not healthcare is a human right to understand that forced abortions, forced monitoring and 'reeducation', and concentration camps for Uighurs are violations of their human rights.
    - runbyfruity 6y ago
      "There is no consensus among scholars, therefore human rights don't exist."
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    Couple of honest questions to you (or anyone else reading this who thinks along the same lines). Firstly, are you saying anyone who happened to be born in China is complicit in e.g. the crimes committed against Uighur population and thus doesn't deserve to be able to legally buy an Apple phone in their country? Secondly, if Apple exits a non-free country, do you expect that to improve the situation? Make the country freer? In China this would leave the population to local tech, which is pretty much owned by CCP and subject to its every whim—as opposed to Apple’s cooperating to the degree required to not break the law. What's the benefit to be had here?
    - runbyfruity 6y ago
      Apple doesn't help prop up an authoritarian regime? CCP gonna CCP, but at least Apple's hands are clean. It's not any individual Chinese citizen's fault, but they unfortunately have to deal with the consequences of an illiberal, ruthless regime.
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        So your idea is that the presence of Apple helps (props up) CCP, the absence would hurt CCP? Any details as to how? My belief is it's the opposite and I've outlined why I think Apple’s withdrawal would strengthen the regime in my comment above.
        john-shaffer 6y ago
        If the CCP believed that Apple's absence would strengthen the regime, then they would get rid of Apple. Clearly they think it's in their best interest to have Apple around. You can disagree with them, but I think the CCP is much better positioned to know what's in their interest than we are.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        You are granting CCP omniscience, power and integrity they don't have. Apple probably came to China to expand their market, had enough lawyers to navigate the muddy bureaucracy, CCP could block them regardless but decided to let them open shops and profit from taxes for now. Many Chinese would buy Apple products overseas in HK or Taiwan anyway; CCP is powerless to stop it and would not mind a share of the sales. CCP may be blind to Western values brought in by Apple, or discount their influence, or tolerate them for now because it is economically lucrative.
- K0nserv 6y ago
  The challenged the FBI in court to protect the privacy and rights of their users, so you they can at least state they will challenge any such requests to the fullest extent of the law. They could also commit to not enter markets where local law isn't compatible with human rights and "freedom of information and expression". Although the most relevant such country is China and no way are they leaving that market and in addition their whole supply chain is massively dependent on China.
  - xenospn 6y ago
    Doesn't Google make phones in china without being otherwise active there?
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      They're starting to move Pixel production to Vietnam. It's also less of a freedom of information and expression issue when the Play Store doesn't operate in China like the App Store does.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sneak 6y ago
    Apple essentially failed to patch a current plaintext backdoor to iMessage end to end encryption (due to the fact that device backups, on by default, containing complete plaintext message history are NOT end to end encrypted and are uploaded to Apple with Apple keys each night) because they didn’t want to cross the FBI. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... https://sneak.berlin/20200604/if-zoom-is-wrong-so-is-apple/ https://sneak.berlin/20200604/if-zoom-is-wrong-so-is-apple/
  - baddox 6y ago
    Challenging the FBI in court is not in violation of US laws.
- nabla9 6y ago
  "We are committed for finding markets solutions to human rights. Apple Store fee in China is now 50% and the money goes to organizations supporting human rights."
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    In other words, “respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights”. Open phrasing allows creativity with options without revealing any specific plans to CCP.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I mean if they want to make these kinds of statements then yeah, kinda. Because following national laws even when you disagree with them is the default. I don't fault anyone for taking this position since I don't think anyone is ever obligated to self-sacrifice. But civil disobedience is the act of protest and something deserving of praise.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- adamsvystun 6y ago
  It bad to violate human rights to comply with local laws of a country. But it's even worse to do that and claim that you are upholding the human rights. What they should do is either: be honest and say that they comply with local laws of a country even if they think they violate human rights; or don't violate human rights.
- Proven 6y ago
  Very smart. Except that Apple follows China's laws and censors free speech even outside of China.
- thelastname 6y ago
  Yes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ksk 6y ago
  Unless their position is "all countries equally violate human rights", they should minimize their footprint in countries with egregious human rights violations. They get to decide which countries go onto that list. Maybe they think China has an excellent record, or is no worse than others. If so, let them state that.
- rbecker 6y ago
  "We refuse to put ourselves in a position where we can be compelled to violate human rights." - such as the position of arbiter of what may run on your phone.
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    And not encrypting iCloud backups
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  They're not "supposed" to say anything. Every normal business claims to follow local laws and we don't praise them for it. What are we supposed to say? They can claim to stand up for human rights and freedom of information and expression while kowtowing to China?
- millstone 6y ago
  If you live in China and care about privacy, get an iPhone. The local offerings (Huawei, etc) are compromised, and Google's stuff is blocked. Apple's in a tough spot, but the iPhone is one of a few remaining viable choices that isn't dominated by the PRC and why roll Apple for that? What's the plan if Apple pulls out?
gadders 6y ago
Supposing one standard is "ban hate speech" and another is "freedom of speech" - how do you choose the higher standard of those two?
- kjakm 6y ago
  In an international human rights context, typically, freedom of speech is a qualified right as opposed to an absolute right. In other words it can be curtailed to an extent if it comes into conflict with other human rights.
  - gadders 6y ago
    That's one point of view, but others exist.
    - kjakm 6y ago
      It’s not a point of view, it’s the legal position of at least the European Convention on Human Rights/UK Human Rights Act and I believe also the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

throwaway4good 6y ago

What are they supposed to say? We would go against the local laws of a country if we think they violate human rights?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
If you’re not going to stand for human rights, at least don’t claim that you are.
wpurvis 6y ago
"We refuse to work with countries that engage in ongoing human rights abuses."
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Which countries are those? And who decides which go on the list?
  - adamsvystun 6y ago
    I doesn't matter much as long as there is a list. Apple can even publish it's own list, then everybody can debate if this is a good list or bad list. Currently there is no list - no discussion.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    Obviously Apple. That's the entire point of taking a principled stance on something. If a country is not on the list, Apple is declaring they don't think it does human rights abuses.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Apple? Because this is a statement about their moral principles.
- hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
  There's no consensus among scholars about how many human rights exist, how to realize them, and how to prioritize them. For example, is healthcare a right? Is food a right? Is education a right? Is there a "right to development"?
  - K0nserv 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... seems like a good lowest bar to hit, incidentally the policy being discussed in this thread was based on it
  - danShumway 6y ago
    It is possible (and in fact, expected) of companies that take these kinds of pledges to have a baseline set of human rights that most people (or at least most people on Apple's board) will agree on, even if there is ambiguity around the edges. The alternative is saying, "we'll stand for this thing that we refuse to define in even vague terms, and as a result it will be impossible for anyone to evaluate whether or not we're succeeding, or even making progress." If Apple can't determine even in broad terms what is and isn't a rights violation, then their declaration is meaningless. They don't need to decide for everyone, and not everyone needs to agree with them -- it's fine for other people and companies to come up with their own criteria. But Apple has to at least some internal idea of what they mean when they say they stand for something, otherwise it will be impossible for them to build real policies around the declaration. And some of this honestly isn't that controversial among scholars. As an analogy, if I commit to avoiding stocking unhealthy products in my store, I don't need to know for certain whether or not coffee is healthy in order to say Cadbury Eggs are not -- pretty much everyone agrees on that. In the same way, we don't really need to debate whether or not healthcare is a human right to understand that forced abortions, forced monitoring and 'reeducation', and concentration camps for Uighurs are violations of their human rights.
  - runbyfruity 6y ago
    "There is no consensus among scholars, therefore human rights don't exist."
- strogonoff 6y ago
  Couple of honest questions to you (or anyone else reading this who thinks along the same lines). Firstly, are you saying anyone who happened to be born in China is complicit in e.g. the crimes committed against Uighur population and thus doesn't deserve to be able to legally buy an Apple phone in their country? Secondly, if Apple exits a non-free country, do you expect that to improve the situation? Make the country freer? In China this would leave the population to local tech, which is pretty much owned by CCP and subject to its every whim—as opposed to Apple’s cooperating to the degree required to not break the law. What's the benefit to be had here?
  - runbyfruity 6y ago
    Apple doesn't help prop up an authoritarian regime? CCP gonna CCP, but at least Apple's hands are clean. It's not any individual Chinese citizen's fault, but they unfortunately have to deal with the consequences of an illiberal, ruthless regime.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      So your idea is that the presence of Apple helps (props up) CCP, the absence would hurt CCP? Any details as to how? My belief is it's the opposite and I've outlined why I think Apple’s withdrawal would strengthen the regime in my comment above.
      - john-shaffer 6y ago
        If the CCP believed that Apple's absence would strengthen the regime, then they would get rid of Apple. Clearly they think it's in their best interest to have Apple around. You can disagree with them, but I think the CCP is much better positioned to know what's in their interest than we are.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        You are granting CCP omniscience, power and integrity they don't have. Apple probably came to China to expand their market, had enough lawyers to navigate the muddy bureaucracy, CCP could block them regardless but decided to let them open shops and profit from taxes for now. Many Chinese would buy Apple products overseas in HK or Taiwan anyway; CCP is powerless to stop it and would not mind a share of the sales. CCP may be blind to Western values brought in by Apple, or discount their influence, or tolerate them for now because it is economically lucrative.
K0nserv 6y ago
The challenged the FBI in court to protect the privacy and rights of their users, so you they can at least state they will challenge any such requests to the fullest extent of the law. They could also commit to not enter markets where local law isn't compatible with human rights and "freedom of information and expression". Although the most relevant such country is China and no way are they leaving that market and in addition their whole supply chain is massively dependent on China.
- xenospn 6y ago
  Doesn't Google make phones in china without being otherwise active there?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    They're starting to move Pixel production to Vietnam. It's also less of a freedom of information and expression issue when the Play Store doesn't operate in China like the App Store does.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sneak 6y ago
  Apple essentially failed to patch a current plaintext backdoor to iMessage end to end encryption (due to the fact that device backups, on by default, containing complete plaintext message history are NOT end to end encrypted and are uploaded to Apple with Apple keys each night) because they didn’t want to cross the FBI. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... https://sneak.berlin/20200604/if-zoom-is-wrong-so-is-apple/ https://sneak.berlin/20200604/if-zoom-is-wrong-so-is-apple/
- baddox 6y ago
  Challenging the FBI in court is not in violation of US laws.
nabla9 6y ago
"We are committed for finding markets solutions to human rights. Apple Store fee in China is now 50% and the money goes to organizations supporting human rights."
- strogonoff 6y ago
  In other words, “respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights”. Open phrasing allows creativity with options without revealing any specific plans to CCP.
Spivak 6y ago
I mean if they want to make these kinds of statements then yeah, kinda. Because following national laws even when you disagree with them is the default. I don't fault anyone for taking this position since I don't think anyone is ever obligated to self-sacrifice. But civil disobedience is the act of protest and something deserving of praise.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adamsvystun 6y ago
It bad to violate human rights to comply with local laws of a country. But it's even worse to do that and claim that you are upholding the human rights. What they should do is either: be honest and say that they comply with local laws of a country even if they think they violate human rights; or don't violate human rights.
Proven 6y ago
Very smart. Except that Apple follows China's laws and censors free speech even outside of China.
thelastname 6y ago
Yes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ksk 6y ago
Unless their position is "all countries equally violate human rights", they should minimize their footprint in countries with egregious human rights violations. They get to decide which countries go onto that list. Maybe they think China has an excellent record, or is no worse than others. If so, let them state that.
rbecker 6y ago
"We refuse to put ourselves in a position where we can be compelled to violate human rights." - such as the position of arbiter of what may run on your phone.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  And not encrypting iCloud backups
themacguffinman 6y ago
They're not "supposed" to say anything. Every normal business claims to follow local laws and we don't praise them for it. What are we supposed to say? They can claim to stand up for human rights and freedom of information and expression while kowtowing to China?
millstone 6y ago
If you live in China and care about privacy, get an iPhone. The local offerings (Huawei, etc) are compromised, and Google's stuff is blocked. Apple's in a tough spot, but the iPhone is one of a few remaining viable choices that isn't dominated by the PRC and why roll Apple for that? What's the plan if Apple pulls out?

gadders 6y ago

Supposing one standard is "ban hate speech" and another is "freedom of speech" - how do you choose the higher standard of those two?

kjakm 6y ago
In an international human rights context, typically, freedom of speech is a qualified right as opposed to an absolute right. In other words it can be curtailed to an extent if it comes into conflict with other human rights.
- gadders 6y ago
  That's one point of view, but others exist.
  - kjakm 6y ago
    It’s not a point of view, it’s the legal position of at least the European Convention on Human Rights/UK Human Rights Act and I believe also the UN Declaration of Human Rights.