4 ms·

1) Yes, this article is about Apple's secret deal with China. But this is exactly the way deals are done in China. They are not going to be public about it and

1) Yes, this article is about Apple's secret deal with China. But this is exactly the way deals are done in China. They are not going to be public about it and they are not going to admit that this investment has anything to do with keeping Apple's business going in China, but in reality, they absolutely are related if not causal. 2) This is not true. Apple used to allow VPN apps on the Chinese App Store up until one day several years ago that they couldn't fight it any more and were forced to take all of them down. It is not Apple going far beyond what was requested/needed to stay in business, they have zero incentive to do so unlike the local Chinese competitors who go all out on "precautious" censorship. It is the same with Android - No VPN apps can be found from ANY app stores in China (Google Playstore is not even available in China). The only reason you can install an VPN app is via an .apk file and this is due to the technical design by Android vs. a closed ecosystem like Apple App Store. I don't think you can say a closed-source system is less morally reasonable at all. There are 10x or more malicious apps that steal user data on Android than Apple App Store due to lack of control and verification. It is just a consequence of two different technical design approaches. Technically speaking, Chinese Android phone companies could just block 3rd-party apk installation anytime they want in the name of security (They already do that by default) and 99% users won't know how to circumvent it. 3) My entire post is actually trying to make a point that you, like most of the commenters in this thread, are idealists who vastly underestimate the value of being able to operate in these markets controlled by authoritarian regimes and reaching the end users. Strategically, the most morally-reasonable way is to help the people in these countries by actually trying to be present even under severe pressures from the regimes to comply with their demands. For example, Google's exit from China is actually a huge mistake. It is the best case scenario for the Chinese government and local Chinese competitors and worst case scenario for the Chinese people, Google and the rest of the free world. After the exit, Google handed their leading search engine market share to Baidu, which provides a much more proactively censored and twisted version of the search results, and the Chinese government gained complete control over the search engines. What used to take a lot of back and forth with Google to censor certain small things, is now a simple phone call to Baidu's Government Relations department to get the whole category wiped out. Same thing happened with Android in China. You think the open-sourced model would bring any less censorship? Not at all. All of the Android App Stores in China are owned and controlled by local companies who comply 100% to government requests. And god knows how many malicious apps are in those app stores to eavesdrop users' private information. It is actually much harder to achieve the same effect with Apple's closed App Store and privacy features. You can buy 3rd party services to track the ID and location history of almost every Android phone sold in China, but this is not available for iPhone users. So before you blame Apple for being a tool, in reality, they actually contribute much more to the freedom and privacy of the end users in these authoritarian markets. Without Apple, 100% phones would be tapped and there is little hurdle for these local governments to do whatever they want with the local companies.

saurik 5y ago
> The only reason you can install an VPN app is via an .apk file and this is due to the technical design by Android vs. a closed ecosystem like Apple App Store. Obviously, I understood this, right? This was the entire reason I can make a point I about how Apple decided to go down an immoral technical design with the goal of making more money than can be morally justified, because we know there were common alternative designs. > Technically speaking, Chinese Android phone companies could just block 3rd-party apk installation anytime they want in the name of security (They already do that by default) and 99% users won't know how to circumvent it. And yet, they don't. I guess the big problem I have with your comment (the original one also) is that there is a certain scenario where you think you have a great point, and the idea that the other people arguing here or the article we are reading might not fit your enemy template is I guess so confusing or maybe frustrating that you are willing to just start smashing reality until it fits. That you are pulling out theoretical futures here to fix your narrative is then telling: that Chinese companies could change something... well, a big part of my point is that they have not already changed something, and we can thereby use that to understand the boundary of what the law in China--not just the written ones but anything unwritten as well--are actually saying. The reality is that, as far it seems both of us know, the only company with much marketshare--INCLUDING OF THE ONES IN CHINA--that outright block your ability to install VPNs on their phones is Apple. This is because Apple has gone to great lengths to design a system where all data and control over hardware is centrally managed by Apple, which causes problems the world over. > Strategically, the most morally-reasonable way is to help the people in these countries by actually trying to be present even under severe pressures from the regimes to comply with their demands. Google didn't even leave China over moral reasons: they did it because China was directly messing with their data centers. It is a move that comes off to me as purely defensive. It thereby isn't at all clear to either myself or many of the other people posting here that Google actually cares to take a stance against China due only to some ethical stance. But like, you do realize I wasn't applauding such an action, anyway, right? While I am not sure I would be against such, I don't actively think Apple should leave China over their inability to host VPNs... I think they should allow people to install VPNs that they don't host, because apparently that's currently allowed in China and the only reason I see that changing is if Apple sets such a strong precedent that it is even possible or reasonable to control an ecosystem from top to bottom that we lose the practical ability--likely throughout the entire world--to even own general purpose computers anymore. > And god knows how many malicious apps are in those app stores to eavesdrop users' private information. As for this whole argument path, you seem to be arguing that people don't deserve freedoms because they are... I guess, dumb? If we don't believe people should have freedoms anyway, maybe we should just accept that authoritarian regimes are a force of good? I mean, the Chinese government is going to make tons of similar arguments about the good they are doing. Could it just be that you are pro-authoritarianism? :( Regardless, you here claim that the possibility of malware people might accidentally install on these devices is somehow a 100% (a number you use later) guarantee of surveillance but ignore that Apple is just handing their centralized collection of user data to China anyway via stuff like iCloud (which is absolutely "in scope" if "users are dumb and will install malware is"... we can't make decisions based on the idea that elites running tech companies have the job of being smarter than the unwashed masses: down that road likes authoritarianism). At this point I felt I should maybe dig into your comment history to try to better understand whatever your position here result is, and in the process of digging through a hunger of pro-censorship positions and defenses of Apple ( I came across something fascinating from a mere three months ago: you are against Apple's CSAM work (which I would expect you to be for, given your arguments here, as it is essentially the exact same scenario). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28230499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28230499 > This part is legit though: governments around the world could pressure Apple to add other forms of surveillance. Be it hashes of non-CSAM, or simply pressure NEMEC or other hash providers, or extending its capabilities to all messages or photos on device. > In my opinion, this is the biggest concern, not the technology. Before, Apple could simply refuse by saying we don't have the capabilities. But now, that excuse is gone. Apple's promise to human review content and only report CSAM is the weakest link. ^ This. This is you making my EXACT ARGUMENT for why having centrally managed software distribution is bad: that once you build such a mechanism, "governments around the world could pressure Apple to add other forms of surveillance" by using that mechanism you didn't have to build, and which all but a totalitarian regime (North Korea) would never force you to have built. "Before, Apple could simply refuse by saying we don't have the capabilities. But now, that excuse is gone. Apple's promise to human review content and only [block scams] is the weakest link." Here is a talk I have at Mozilla Privacy Labs about centralization and the evils thereof, which attempts to link together a ton of these kinds of thoughts. Maybe it would be helpful to sit back and really consider your positions and whether they are at all consistent :(. https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms

saurik 5y ago

> The only reason you can install an VPN app is via an .apk file and this is due to the technical design by Android vs. a closed ecosystem like Apple App Store. Obviously, I understood this, right? This was the entire reason I can make a point I about how Apple decided to go down an immoral technical design with the goal of making more money than can be morally justified, because we know there were common alternative designs. > Technically speaking, Chinese Android phone companies could just block 3rd-party apk installation anytime they want in the name of security (They already do that by default) and 99% users won't know how to circumvent it. And yet, they don't. I guess the big problem I have with your comment (the original one also) is that there is a certain scenario where you think you have a great point, and the idea that the other people arguing here or the article we are reading might not fit your enemy template is I guess so confusing or maybe frustrating that you are willing to just start smashing reality until it fits. That you are pulling out theoretical futures here to fix your narrative is then telling: that Chinese companies could change something... well, a big part of my point is that they have not already changed something, and we can thereby use that to understand the boundary of what the law in China--not just the written ones but anything unwritten as well--are actually saying. The reality is that, as far it seems both of us know, the only company with much marketshare--INCLUDING OF THE ONES IN CHINA--that outright block your ability to install VPNs on their phones is Apple. This is because Apple has gone to great lengths to design a system where all data and control over hardware is centrally managed by Apple, which causes problems the world over. > Strategically, the most morally-reasonable way is to help the people in these countries by actually trying to be present even under severe pressures from the regimes to comply with their demands. Google didn't even leave China over moral reasons: they did it because China was directly messing with their data centers. It is a move that comes off to me as purely defensive. It thereby isn't at all clear to either myself or many of the other people posting here that Google actually cares to take a stance against China due only to some ethical stance. But like, you do realize I wasn't applauding such an action, anyway, right? While I am not sure I would be against such, I don't actively think Apple should leave China over their inability to host VPNs... I think they should allow people to install VPNs that they don't host, because apparently that's currently allowed in China and the only reason I see that changing is if Apple sets such a strong precedent that it is even possible or reasonable to control an ecosystem from top to bottom that we lose the practical ability--likely throughout the entire world--to even own general purpose computers anymore. > And god knows how many malicious apps are in those app stores to eavesdrop users' private information. As for this whole argument path, you seem to be arguing that people don't deserve freedoms because they are... I guess, dumb? If we don't believe people should have freedoms anyway, maybe we should just accept that authoritarian regimes are a force of good? I mean, the Chinese government is going to make tons of similar arguments about the good they are doing. Could it just be that you are pro-authoritarianism? :( Regardless, you here claim that the possibility of malware people might accidentally install on these devices is somehow a 100% (a number you use later) guarantee of surveillance but ignore that Apple is just handing their centralized collection of user data to China anyway via stuff like iCloud (which is absolutely "in scope" if "users are dumb and will install malware is"... we can't make decisions based on the idea that elites running tech companies have the job of being smarter than the unwashed masses: down that road likes authoritarianism). At this point I felt I should maybe dig into your comment history to try to better understand whatever your position here result is, and in the process of digging through a hunger of pro-censorship positions and defenses of Apple ( I came across something fascinating from a mere three months ago: you are against Apple's CSAM work (which I would expect you to be for, given your arguments here, as it is essentially the exact same scenario). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28230499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28230499 > This part is legit though: governments around the world could pressure Apple to add other forms of surveillance. Be it hashes of non-CSAM, or simply pressure NEMEC or other hash providers, or extending its capabilities to all messages or photos on device. > In my opinion, this is the biggest concern, not the technology. Before, Apple could simply refuse by saying we don't have the capabilities. But now, that excuse is gone. Apple's promise to human review content and only report CSAM is the weakest link. ^ This. This is you making my EXACT ARGUMENT for why having centrally managed software distribution is bad: that once you build such a mechanism, "governments around the world could pressure Apple to add other forms of surveillance" by using that mechanism you didn't have to build, and which all but a totalitarian regime (North Korea) would never force you to have built. "Before, Apple could simply refuse by saying we don't have the capabilities. But now, that excuse is gone. Apple's promise to human review content and only [block scams] is the weakest link." Here is a talk I have at Mozilla Privacy Labs about centralization and the evils thereof, which attempts to link together a ton of these kinds of thoughts. Maybe it would be helpful to sit back and really consider your positions and whether they are at all consistent :(. https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms