5 ms·
Until we have some outrageously horrible events which will affect directly general population, all this facts will be comfortably avoided and "mitigated". This
by nbzso 5y ago
Until we have some outrageously horrible events which will affect directly general population, all this facts will be comfortably avoided and "mitigated".
This is systemic problem derived not only from bad management and absence of responsibility.
This is "business as usual" with any big corporation. There is no problem until perception of the problem affects sales directly.
And in the case with Apple, reality is professionally managed toward "reality distortion field" of uneducated masses who are addicted to "latest tech" and "social validation psychology".
I don't know any other corporation which can comfortably keep silence on issues like NSO/Pegasus or just "postpone" intrusion on user privacy as CSAM.
People love their shiny toys. This is exactly the dynamic with tobacco companies in the past.
People believed in one point in time that cigarettes are "healthy things, recommended by physicians".
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/health/gallery/tobacco-health-claims-history/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/health/gallery/tobacco-he...
It is always psychology first, technology second. Or sales and shareholders first, services and tech appliances second.
You can thank "geniuses" like Edward Bernays and his contemporaries for this.
- amelius 5y agoIf Apple wants to insist that they need to have a fully integrated and exclusive AppStore because of "security", then they should be held accountable for security issues. E.g. money-back guarantee at a minimum, and preferably compensation for lost data etc.
- ben_w 5y agoWhile I think Apple can do better, that argument about the App Store doesn’t follow. By analogy: insisting that property follows fire safety regulations doesn’t make governments responsible for arsonists.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"By analogy: insisting that property follows fire safety" Terrible analogy, are you really company operating in 'free market' setting T&C to a sovereign nation passing laws?
- ben_w 5y agoWhy shouldn’t I? Firstly the causality is the same even if the ultimate power and available sanctions are different. The nations can “just ban hacking” the way they can “just ban arson”, and then go “oh no it’s still happening” while locking up hackers and arsonists; or they can say “fire safety on all domestic products” and then it’s harder to set fires, which isn’t much different in causality than a big box store making exactly the same requirement for all the products they sell. Secondly, sovereign nations have been mostly fairly relaxed about the businesses creating and enforcing Ts&Cs, and can always overrule those Ts&Cs as and when they change their minds.
- amelius 5y agoMaybe not if you interpret it strictly. But if Apple doesn't respond timely to exploit reports, then they can be liable for resulting damages.
- ben_w 5y agoI’m absolutely in favour of GDPR-scale fines for failures to fix security critical issues in a timely fashion.
- InsomniacL 5y agoby analogy, when companies make claims that their products are something they're not, they are responsible. https://www.inquirer.com/business/law/london-grenfell-highrise-tower-fire-philadelphia-lawyer-mongeluzzi-fatal-law-20190611.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/law/london-grenfell-highri... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-fire-lawsuit/u-s-companies-sued-over-londons-deadly-grenfell-tower-fire-idUSKCN1TD00O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-fire-lawsuit/u-s-...
- amelius 5y agoTesla's Autopilot comes to mind too.
- goohle 5y agoReal autopilot is much dumber than Tesla's Autopilot, because it doesn't include autothrottle or autobraking mechanisms, it cannot avoid obstacles or change course to avoid collision with another plane (it's separate system). You will have hard time in a court trying to defend your position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
- amelius 5y agoThe average consumer has no knowledge of that use of the word autopilot.
- goohle 5y agoIt's the only use of the word «autopilot». There is no other uses. Tesla Autopilot is just a product name, like Microsoft Windows. Will you sue MS for false advertising just because user need to use a knife to actually open a window on the laptop screen? MS «Windows» just paints rectangles on a screen.
- InsomniacL 5y agoThe term you linked to is specific to aviation, from your link "An autopilot is a system used to control the path of an aircraft". When it comes to Law, at least here in the UK, you will often see the term "Reasonable person". The position that a "Reasonable Person" would assume "AutoPilot" automatically pilots the car would not be hard to defend as it's not reasonable to assume any person who may use 'autopilot' is familiar with the technical capabilities of an unrelated aviation system...
- q-big 5y ago> By analogy: insisting that property follows fire safety regulations doesn’t make governments responsible for arsonists. Rather: if Apple enforces a monopoly on selling fire extinguishers, these should better be really reliable.
- suifbwish 5y agoI think a better analogy would be if the government prevented anyone else from having their own fire extinguisher or non government fire departments. If they prevent anyone else from protecting themselves or seeking alternative means of protection, yes they would be responsible if they do not prevent ALL fires.