[...] Sen. Wyden wrote in part of the letter. "By permitting the app in your respective stores, your companies are making it easier for Saudi men to control their family members from the convenience of their smartphones and restrict their movement.
In another thread, someone (I can't remember who) pointed out another side to the affects of the app. It makes it easier for open-minded men to approve travel and facilitate the movement of family members.
The problem is the law of the land which codifies control of women, not the app per se. If the app did not exist, what would happen when a woman presented her passport at an airport? Would she still require patriarchal approval to travel? If not, the app adds a layer of oppression. If so, maybe the app makes it easier for the patriarch to approve the trip, which he'd have to do by some other means anyway.
I have no idea whether the functions of the app are a net benefit or detriment to women living under restrictive laws, but until those laws change we should be careful not to accidentally make things worse.
Regardless of the merits of this app (or not), this is a politician “directing” a private entity to do something about a third party’s product. In another country no less. Fascist.
I saw no "directing" in this story. "Demanding"? Yes. Histrionic grandstanding? Yes. Using his influence as a Senator to try to get Apple to do what he wants? Yes.
Using the force of law to compel Apple to remove the app (which is what would be required to meet the definition of fascicst)? No.
Irrespective of what the rest of the app does or allows, this particular facet is what's at issue. I personally find it reprehensible and think that Apple should remove the app if the developer won't remove the functionality. I mean, if an app were to allow a user to donate to various charities around the world, find missing children, help solve murders and view porn, it would be removed, regardless of how helpful the rest of it was, would it not?
Global tech companies getting caught between the rock and a hard place of global politics. I wonder if Senator Wyden is willing to compensate Google and Apple for their loss of business should they be banned in Saudi Arabia because of his demands. What about Chinese and Russian demands for customer data to be stored in-country? Do you really think Huawei and Samsung would have any misgivings taking over the Saudi Arabian smartphone market because Apple is forced out?
I guess it depends. If they are going to go down the road of caring about ethics (as they seem to in some cases), then it shouldn't be a matter of 'how much do good ethics impact our bottom line.' You do it because it's the right thing to do, not because it makes the most money.
On the other hand, I'd rather see a company getting into ethics have some kind of grounding and consistency. I haven't seen that from Apple, so maybe better they just don't play the game.
Those are our ethics not theirs. Why should US companies be used as the pawns of colonisation?
Well, it’s not a matter of Western beliefs, culture and ethics. It’s a matter of human rights. Would you make the same comment if it were slavery that the Saudis were protecting instead of the oppression of women? Hey, it’s their culture so let ‘em have slaves if they want? Who are we to object?
What a silly comparison. Akin to 'Well if you like pizza what if it were molten iron'.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Apparently, it is a matter of Western beliefs. At least a billion non-Western people have no problem with this.
As an aside, I don't see the ever courageous Senator taking China to task for the internment of 1M Muslims in western China.
... While one of those services are the "Guardianship" services, there are other services like registering your car, renewing your passport, and making appointments with government officials for offline services. This is probably why Apple and Google approved it, they reasonably saw it as no different as IRS2GO by the US Federal Government ...
So, if IRS2GO bundled lots of other services with a slave-owner service, then the whole thing would be fine? Maybe there's more to the story, but the aspect of it in focus seems problematic.
I am not saying that the whole thing is fine. I was responding to the whole "Apple & Google approved a slave app" narrative. The Google Translate of the description says "[The application] is the official application of e-services for individuals, which is provided through the Abshar electronic platform in Saudi Arabia." With that description and the fact that it was coming form a developer account registered to the Saudi Government, I probably would have approved it too. Now that it has been identified that "Guardianship" is one of those services I have no problem with additional review which Tim Cook is doing (https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/13/apples-tim-cook-promises-to-take-at-look-at-controversial-saudi-app-used-to-track-women) and the whole "do we have the right to force our values on other cultures" debate.
My issue was that Apple and Google did not approve a slave app, they approved a government services app that they later learned includes a service that the western world (including me) finds oppressive.
Comments
The problem is the law of the land which codifies control of women, not the app per se. If the app did not exist, what would happen when a woman presented her passport at an airport? Would she still require patriarchal approval to travel? If not, the app adds a layer of oppression. If so, maybe the app makes it easier for the patriarch to approve the trip, which he'd have to do by some other means anyway.
I have no idea whether the functions of the app are a net benefit or detriment to women living under restrictive laws, but until those laws change we should be careful not to accidentally make things worse.
Using the force of law to compel Apple to remove the app (which is what would be required to meet the definition of fascicst)? No.
Irrespective of what the rest of the app does or allows, this particular facet is what's at issue. I personally find it reprehensible and think that Apple should remove the app if the developer won't remove the functionality. I mean, if an app were to allow a user to donate to various charities around the world, find missing children, help solve murders and view porn, it would be removed, regardless of how helpful the rest of it was, would it not?
My issue was that Apple and Google did not approve a slave app, they approved a government services app that they later learned includes a service that the western world (including me) finds oppressive.