3 ms·

Except it is a complete 180 from the claim "Apple's been fairly prominently resistant to government snooping", because Apple hasn't. That whole article is abou

Except it is a complete 180 from the claim "Apple's been fairly prominently resistant to government snooping", because Apple hasn't. That whole article is about how Apple is giving in more and more to demands of the Chinese government. Google faced the same with project Dragonfly and employees chose to not kowtow to Chinese government spying. Apple had a choice, and chose profits over privacy by spying for the CCP with it's software.

ceejayoz 5y ago
The claim made upthread that I was responding to was "Apple's collusion with the American government is well-documented at this point" specifically; I said "fairly resistant", too, not "100% perfectly resistant". Unless I become a Chinese citizen/resident, Apple's dealings with China don't particularly concern me much.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Right, but your personal preference doesn't change the fact that Apple is complicit with CCP government spying, counter to the claim that Apple isn't.
dwaite 5y ago
> Apple had a choice, and chose profits over privacy by spying for the CCP with it's software Apple had a choice, and those chose to be able to operate in Chinese markets (including for manufacturing) over blatantly breaking Chinese law. Apple's fight with the FBI over the San Bernardino shooter phone instance was made possible by them having legal recourse in the US to do so. Remember that Apple is only a corporation because the government allows them to be one.
- bduerst 5y ago
  The legality isn't relevant to choosing to kowtow to government spying. It would have also been legal for Google to operate project Dragonfly, but they chose user privacy instead.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    You say kowtow, I say keep essential manufacturing going. Upset the CCP enough, you might not even get parts out of China to assemble elsewhere. Perhaps why Apple has invested in having multiple sources for all of their components, multiple manufacturing facilities in different countries, etc.

ceejayoz 5y ago

The claim made upthread that I was responding to was "Apple's collusion with the American government is well-documented at this point" specifically; I said "fairly resistant", too, not "100% perfectly resistant". Unless I become a Chinese citizen/resident, Apple's dealings with China don't particularly concern me much.

bduerst 5y ago
Right, but your personal preference doesn't change the fact that Apple is complicit with CCP government spying, counter to the claim that Apple isn't.

dwaite 5y ago

> Apple had a choice, and chose profits over privacy by spying for the CCP with it's software Apple had a choice, and those chose to be able to operate in Chinese markets (including for manufacturing) over blatantly breaking Chinese law. Apple's fight with the FBI over the San Bernardino shooter phone instance was made possible by them having legal recourse in the US to do so. Remember that Apple is only a corporation because the government allows them to be one.

bduerst 5y ago
The legality isn't relevant to choosing to kowtow to government spying. It would have also been legal for Google to operate project Dragonfly, but they chose user privacy instead.
- dwaite 5y ago
  You say kowtow, I say keep essential manufacturing going. Upset the CCP enough, you might not even get parts out of China to assemble elsewhere. Perhaps why Apple has invested in having multiple sources for all of their components, multiple manufacturing facilities in different countries, etc.