7 ms·

China. Specifically, gradual capitulation to China. "Apple's earnings for Greater China in Q2 2021 were up 87.5% from this time last year, to $17.7 billion. Du

China. Specifically, gradual capitulation to China. "Apple's earnings for Greater China in Q2 2021 were up 87.5% from this time last year, to $17.7 billion. During its latest earnings call, Apple has announced dramatically increased revenues from Greater China for the three months ending March, 2021." China has cracked down hard on domestic Internet companies over the past few weeks (deliberately crushing their tech stock market to rein in these companies and enforce governmental data surveillance/control). They're not going to leave Apple out. Apple literally cannot lose that market. Its market cap would be halved. Saying they're going after child abuse in the US using a new algorithm is the perfect cover for gradual entry into enabling mass surveillance for China. No one can argue with the child abuse use case, but there will be plenty of consternation when this is used to scan for messages critical of Xi and the boys.

randyrand 5y ago
It’s really sad how right you are. Never admitted it to myself yet.
- yarky 5y ago
  Why sad? It seems to me this is the only thing to expect from a for-profit corporation under these circumstances. I don't really see how anybody could expect something different, specially here.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    The coffee shop hacker culture belives there is such thing as good and bad companies, hence why Google has been able to fool them with "do no evil" crap.
    - yarky 5y ago
      Believe != Reality. I still don't see the why though. It seems obvious to me that nothing is to be expected from corporations, other than a hopefully nice product at a reasonable price. Anything other than that sounds like wishful thinking to my ears, but I might be philosophically wrong.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        It is wishful thinking, yet you will find plenty of places arguing about company X "good", company Z "bad". Any good deeds a company happens to do, is for publicity and helping sales.
- onethought 5y ago
  It's sad that you think they're right. Rather than asking evidence of such a bold claim.
dwaite 5y ago
These new features both launch US-only, however.
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  So far.
onethought 5y ago
This is all pure speculation. Everyone in china is using WeChat anyway. China have this capability already. No one is sitting around a table thinking: "What do we do about Apple Messages", and if they were their solution would be: Block Apple messages. NOT: Ask an American company to implement spying for us and trust that they'll do it accurately... non sensical. As pointed out this feature isn't even being launched in China. But sorry to derail your narrative: China are the bad guys and all bad things are because of china.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > As pointed out this feature isn't even being launched in China. Source?
  - onethought 5y ago
    That’s right let’s ask for the source of the extremely believable claim of only launched in US[0]. But no one sourcing the “China is pressuring Apple to do this”. As stated in the article Apple have said it is US only and will be switched on country by country… so surely if this was “BeCAusE ChIna!!!” It’d be switched on there first right? [0] https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq/?_gl=1*l17q2t*_ga*YW1wLWZQcXhXbVJqRFhBVkdkNFhSX09TNDZvbGQxQllFeERHSkNaZXhXVl9EQ3N4bjJsWXdsdl83NXFVRjR2c3I3RWE https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq/?_gl=1*l17q2t*....
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      Well, its actually extremely believable that its launching everywhere that gets iOS 15. And your confidence indicated you had a source ;) > so surely if this was “BeCAusE ChIna!!!” It’d be switched on there first right? Is all of your comments on here arguments?
      - onethought 5y ago
        Not at all. But the consistent “China are evil, and that is the reason These pure US companies do bad things” is infuriating. Then when you point out the fallacy of this kind of thinking getting one word: “source” adds to the frustration. Even if it was launched globally it didn’t at all invalidate my point. They would ban the entire App in question, not back door it. See Facebook/Twitter as a well known example.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
So you think if Apple announced a new algorithm that would be used for mass surveillance of the Chinese, there'd be some kind of mass outrage. And to avoid that mass outrage, they're starting with mass surveillance against Americans instead. None of that makes sense. Why would using the system only to target child abuse in the US make people change their mind about using it against political dissidents?
- dijit 5y ago
  Well, speaking broadly: that’s not how politics works. If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash. Case in point: the British NHS (because we can see it happening in real time). Add the capability to do something for a good reason (NHS spending should be more efficient; we need approved suppliers // do it for the children) in order to make the further move of what you really want without much resistance (privatise parts of the NHS; eventually much of the NHS // back door every terrorist, dissident, detractor)
  - 45ure 5y ago
    >If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash. In this context, it is exactly how politics work, and you have described shifting the Overton window or even floating the Trial balloon. re: NHS. The case you are making doesn't fit your reasoning. As for privatisation in general, the current government is following a very basic rulebook: 1. Sabotage/kneecap an institution/ 2. Offer a solution involving cronies/ 3. Achievement Unlocked 1. For example, some Tory MP's (the elite that make the decisions for the plebs) don't need to rely on NHS for healthcare exclusively, hence they have a callous attitude towards it. They deploy all manner of subterfuge, replete with claps, lies and smiles, to starve out a public service funded by taxpayers. 2. The ultimate goal; offer a solution to the problem you manufactured (1) and share the spoils amongst yourselves, by awarding/rewarding and looking after each other's interests. 3. Self-explanatory.
- jiocrag 5y ago
  You're deliberately ignoring the use case, which makes your argument look silly. Scenario 1: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart child abuse in the United States. Scenario 2: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart Chinese dissidence. Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world? Apple *has* to take an orthogonal approach to giving China the surveillance capacity it desires. It can't openly enable a regime that just covered up and obfuscated investigation into perhaps the greatest human tragedy of our generation. Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation... but it will deploy mass on-device privacy invasion for people who aren't even suspects to thwart child abuse? Ask yourself: What changed? If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, I don't know what to tell you...
cookiengineer 5y ago
> scan for messages critical of Xi and the boys. I see what you did there. Touché.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> Apple literally cannot lose that market China could also ban manufacturing there. That would suck for AAPL too.
__m 5y ago
That's rich. who was that snowden guy again? Where do they launch this surveillance?

randyrand 5y ago

It’s really sad how right you are. Never admitted it to myself yet.

yarky 5y ago
Why sad? It seems to me this is the only thing to expect from a for-profit corporation under these circumstances. I don't really see how anybody could expect something different, specially here.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  The coffee shop hacker culture belives there is such thing as good and bad companies, hence why Google has been able to fool them with "do no evil" crap.
  - yarky 5y ago
    Believe != Reality. I still don't see the why though. It seems obvious to me that nothing is to be expected from corporations, other than a hopefully nice product at a reasonable price. Anything other than that sounds like wishful thinking to my ears, but I might be philosophically wrong.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      It is wishful thinking, yet you will find plenty of places arguing about company X "good", company Z "bad". Any good deeds a company happens to do, is for publicity and helping sales.
onethought 5y ago
It's sad that you think they're right. Rather than asking evidence of such a bold claim.

dwaite 5y ago

These new features both launch US-only, however.

PartiallyTyped 5y ago
So far.

onethought 5y ago

This is all pure speculation. Everyone in china is using WeChat anyway. China have this capability already. No one is sitting around a table thinking: "What do we do about Apple Messages", and if they were their solution would be: Block Apple messages. NOT: Ask an American company to implement spying for us and trust that they'll do it accurately... non sensical. As pointed out this feature isn't even being launched in China. But sorry to derail your narrative: China are the bad guys and all bad things are because of china.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> As pointed out this feature isn't even being launched in China. Source?
- onethought 5y ago
  That’s right let’s ask for the source of the extremely believable claim of only launched in US[0]. But no one sourcing the “China is pressuring Apple to do this”. As stated in the article Apple have said it is US only and will be switched on country by country… so surely if this was “BeCAusE ChIna!!!” It’d be switched on there first right? [0] https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq/?_gl=1*l17q2t*_ga*YW1wLWZQcXhXbVJqRFhBVkdkNFhSX09TNDZvbGQxQllFeERHSkNaZXhXVl9EQ3N4bjJsWXdsdl83NXFVRjR2c3I3RWE https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq/?_gl=1*l17q2t*....
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    Well, its actually extremely believable that its launching everywhere that gets iOS 15. And your confidence indicated you had a source ;) > so surely if this was “BeCAusE ChIna!!!” It’d be switched on there first right? Is all of your comments on here arguments?
    - onethought 5y ago
      Not at all. But the consistent “China are evil, and that is the reason These pure US companies do bad things” is infuriating. Then when you point out the fallacy of this kind of thinking getting one word: “source” adds to the frustration. Even if it was launched globally it didn’t at all invalidate my point. They would ban the entire App in question, not back door it. See Facebook/Twitter as a well known example.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

So you think if Apple announced a new algorithm that would be used for mass surveillance of the Chinese, there'd be some kind of mass outrage. And to avoid that mass outrage, they're starting with mass surveillance against Americans instead. None of that makes sense. Why would using the system only to target child abuse in the US make people change their mind about using it against political dissidents?

dijit 5y ago
Well, speaking broadly: that’s not how politics works. If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash. Case in point: the British NHS (because we can see it happening in real time). Add the capability to do something for a good reason (NHS spending should be more efficient; we need approved suppliers // do it for the children) in order to make the further move of what you really want without much resistance (privatise parts of the NHS; eventually much of the NHS // back door every terrorist, dissident, detractor)
- 45ure 5y ago
  >If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash. In this context, it is exactly how politics work, and you have described shifting the Overton window or even floating the Trial balloon. re: NHS. The case you are making doesn't fit your reasoning. As for privatisation in general, the current government is following a very basic rulebook: 1. Sabotage/kneecap an institution/ 2. Offer a solution involving cronies/ 3. Achievement Unlocked 1. For example, some Tory MP's (the elite that make the decisions for the plebs) don't need to rely on NHS for healthcare exclusively, hence they have a callous attitude towards it. They deploy all manner of subterfuge, replete with claps, lies and smiles, to starve out a public service funded by taxpayers. 2. The ultimate goal; offer a solution to the problem you manufactured (1) and share the spoils amongst yourselves, by awarding/rewarding and looking after each other's interests. 3. Self-explanatory.
jiocrag 5y ago
You're deliberately ignoring the use case, which makes your argument look silly. Scenario 1: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart child abuse in the United States. Scenario 2: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart Chinese dissidence. Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world? Apple *has* to take an orthogonal approach to giving China the surveillance capacity it desires. It can't openly enable a regime that just covered up and obfuscated investigation into perhaps the greatest human tragedy of our generation. Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation... but it will deploy mass on-device privacy invasion for people who aren't even suspects to thwart child abuse? Ask yourself: What changed? If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, I don't know what to tell you...

cookiengineer 5y ago

> scan for messages critical of Xi and the boys. I see what you did there. Touché.

vineyardmike 5y ago

> Apple literally cannot lose that market China could also ban manufacturing there. That would suck for AAPL too.

__m 5y ago

That's rich. who was that snowden guy again? Where do they launch this surveillance?