5 ms·

It's my understanding that Apple simply can't operate in China without playing by those rules. So really, the onus is on the CCP. In this case, is Apple being

It's my understanding that Apple simply can't operate in China without playing by those rules. So really, the onus is on the CCP. In this case, is Apple being compelled to do this by the US government? Or is it a choice Apple has made purely internally? I think that makes a difference.

whatgoodisaroad 5y ago
I agree the question of whether Apple was compelled by whatever government (or if they did this voluntarily) has implications on the ethics of these decisions. They may genuinely have no choice. But I don’t see how it affects the question of whether Apple’s privacy assertions are trustworthy.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> They may genuinely have no choice. There is a choice. Don't comply and have the CCP make you stop selling there. Apple has no principles that can't be tossed aside in exchange for a large market - in other words a lot of money. This should not be unexpected.
  - whatgoodisaroad 5y ago
    Well put. Perhaps it’s cynical, I think that’s true of any corporation of Apple’s size: their only true principle is to maximize shareholder value. The best we can do as privacy-concerned mere-mortals is to take our business where those profit incentives align with our values. Apple’s put a lot of work into advertising that their profits are aligned with values of privacy, but some signs say otherwise.
    - yarky 5y ago
      You shouldn't expect privacy from a third party. You'll be disappointed by definition.
  - cwp 5y ago
    The CCP would make Apple stop manufacturing in China, which would effectively mean that they couldn't sell anything anywhere. Apple does have very deep pockets, but that would be an existential threat.
sixothree 5y ago
Maybe similar pressure was placed on them here and we just aren't privy to it.
- roody15 5y ago
  ding ding we have a correct answer
  - shuckles 5y ago
    This is a claim which should require extraordinary evidence, since Apple has very publicly resisted pressure to build technology at the government’s behest in the past.
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      It’s now common knowledge (as mentioned in the article) that Apple refrained from adding a feature at the government’s behest in the past. It’s a fine line between not adding a feature they don’t like and adding a feature they do.
      - shuckles 5y ago
        This claim is often repeated but the only source for it I’ve found is reporting in Reuters citing anonymous sources. The user experience challenges of end to end encryption are immense, especially since iPhone is many users’ only iCloud client, and I find it hard to believe Apple was moments away from announcing a solution to them but the FBI pressured them out of it. That is not the extraordinary evidence such a claim needs. For example, Bloomberg reported an even better sourced story about supply chain compromises to Apple’s cloud services which has been more or less entirely debunked. In addition, the emphasis on the on-device portion of this scanning project is evidence that Apple views losing access to iCloud data as part of its roadmap.
        matthewdgreen 5y ago
        The Bloomberg claims were explicitly denied by Apple and several other companies. To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never publicly denied the Reuters reporting, and explicitly declined to comment when given the chance by Reuters. It’s certainly one thing to extend the benefit of the doubt to a company in a dispute with a reputable news agency; it’s entirely another thing to take issue with the claim when even the affected company won’t do so.
adventured 5y ago
> is Apple being compelled to do this by the US government? Or is it a choice Apple has made purely internally? I think that makes a difference. You're being downvoted but it's a critical issue. If Apple is currently being compelled to do this, it likely means the US Government has a massive new privacy obliterating program underway and Apple probably isn't the only tech giant joining the human rights violation parade. It's important to find out if that's going on. We can be certain they didn't stop with PRISM. If it turns out to be the case, that Apple has joined up to another vast human rights violating program (they already did it at least once before, remember), the US needs to move forward toward Nuremberg-style trials for all involved Apple management and all involved Apple employees (and not only them). That's the only way it stops. Such human rights violations should not be allowed to continue. How many tech employees at these companies got away with extraordinary human rights violations related to PRISM? Employees at these companies were responsible in part and critical to helping to make it happen. Who are these enablers? Why aren't they in prison? Why is this so rarely discussed on HN? (yeah we all know why) HN is pretty amusing about this topic. Privacy is a human right? Yeah? Also universally HN: but let's not talk about the people actually responsible for the human rights violations; let's not talk about all the techies being paid princely sums to commit human rights atrocities. Let's not talk about prison sentences for what they've done to their fellow humans. Let's not hold tech employees responsible.
- Covzire 5y ago
  The Jan 6 commission is using the riots as a pretext to collect and inspect private speech/communications from a huge list of people who had absolutely nothing to do with January 6 [0] but were politically active for Trump or his campaign or just posted memes on Twitter etc. The massive list of people they're demanding records for is shocking. Privacy doesn't mean anything to the current establishment, if people could just take off their partisan blinders for two seconds they would realize this and we could probably form a plea to congress as unified voice. Give this CSAM system another few years and they won't even have to subpoena for most of the private communication they're already going after today. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/25/jan-6-panels-sweeping-docs-request-targets-trump-family-giuliani-mcenany-and-more/?sh=566ff15b57c4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/25/jan-6...

whatgoodisaroad 5y ago

I agree the question of whether Apple was compelled by whatever government (or if they did this voluntarily) has implications on the ethics of these decisions. They may genuinely have no choice. But I don’t see how it affects the question of whether Apple’s privacy assertions are trustworthy.

phkahler 5y ago
>> They may genuinely have no choice. There is a choice. Don't comply and have the CCP make you stop selling there. Apple has no principles that can't be tossed aside in exchange for a large market - in other words a lot of money. This should not be unexpected.
- whatgoodisaroad 5y ago
  Well put. Perhaps it’s cynical, I think that’s true of any corporation of Apple’s size: their only true principle is to maximize shareholder value. The best we can do as privacy-concerned mere-mortals is to take our business where those profit incentives align with our values. Apple’s put a lot of work into advertising that their profits are aligned with values of privacy, but some signs say otherwise.
  - yarky 5y ago
    You shouldn't expect privacy from a third party. You'll be disappointed by definition.
- cwp 5y ago
  The CCP would make Apple stop manufacturing in China, which would effectively mean that they couldn't sell anything anywhere. Apple does have very deep pockets, but that would be an existential threat.

sixothree 5y ago

Maybe similar pressure was placed on them here and we just aren't privy to it.

roody15 5y ago
ding ding we have a correct answer
- shuckles 5y ago
  This is a claim which should require extraordinary evidence, since Apple has very publicly resisted pressure to build technology at the government’s behest in the past.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    It’s now common knowledge (as mentioned in the article) that Apple refrained from adding a feature at the government’s behest in the past. It’s a fine line between not adding a feature they don’t like and adding a feature they do.
    - shuckles 5y ago
      This claim is often repeated but the only source for it I’ve found is reporting in Reuters citing anonymous sources. The user experience challenges of end to end encryption are immense, especially since iPhone is many users’ only iCloud client, and I find it hard to believe Apple was moments away from announcing a solution to them but the FBI pressured them out of it. That is not the extraordinary evidence such a claim needs. For example, Bloomberg reported an even better sourced story about supply chain compromises to Apple’s cloud services which has been more or less entirely debunked. In addition, the emphasis on the on-device portion of this scanning project is evidence that Apple views losing access to iCloud data as part of its roadmap.
      - matthewdgreen 5y ago
        The Bloomberg claims were explicitly denied by Apple and several other companies. To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never publicly denied the Reuters reporting, and explicitly declined to comment when given the chance by Reuters. It’s certainly one thing to extend the benefit of the doubt to a company in a dispute with a reputable news agency; it’s entirely another thing to take issue with the claim when even the affected company won’t do so.

adventured 5y ago

> is Apple being compelled to do this by the US government? Or is it a choice Apple has made purely internally? I think that makes a difference. You're being downvoted but it's a critical issue. If Apple is currently being compelled to do this, it likely means the US Government has a massive new privacy obliterating program underway and Apple probably isn't the only tech giant joining the human rights violation parade. It's important to find out if that's going on. We can be certain they didn't stop with PRISM. If it turns out to be the case, that Apple has joined up to another vast human rights violating program (they already did it at least once before, remember), the US needs to move forward toward Nuremberg-style trials for all involved Apple management and all involved Apple employees (and not only them). That's the only way it stops. Such human rights violations should not be allowed to continue. How many tech employees at these companies got away with extraordinary human rights violations related to PRISM? Employees at these companies were responsible in part and critical to helping to make it happen. Who are these enablers? Why aren't they in prison? Why is this so rarely discussed on HN? (yeah we all know why) HN is pretty amusing about this topic. Privacy is a human right? Yeah? Also universally HN: but let's not talk about the people actually responsible for the human rights violations; let's not talk about all the techies being paid princely sums to commit human rights atrocities. Let's not talk about prison sentences for what they've done to their fellow humans. Let's not hold tech employees responsible.

Covzire 5y ago
The Jan 6 commission is using the riots as a pretext to collect and inspect private speech/communications from a huge list of people who had absolutely nothing to do with January 6 [0] but were politically active for Trump or his campaign or just posted memes on Twitter etc. The massive list of people they're demanding records for is shocking. Privacy doesn't mean anything to the current establishment, if people could just take off their partisan blinders for two seconds they would realize this and we could probably form a plea to congress as unified voice. Give this CSAM system another few years and they won't even have to subpoena for most of the private communication they're already going after today. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/25/jan-6-panels-sweeping-docs-request-targets-trump-family-giuliani-mcenany-and-more/?sh=566ff15b57c4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/25/jan-6...