As only the well to do people in China have iPhones this could be a nice cherry picking exercise for the Chinese government to take advantage of. If US government wants to ban Huawei electronics from operating in the US, why doesn't China threaten to ban Apple from its own country, seems only fair?
The heads of the US intelligence agencies said they have reason to believe Huawei is shady. Nobody can say that about Apple.
Now you can doubt the US intelligence agencies when they say they have reasons to believe it -- but then you must also doubt them when they say the same about Russian meddling in the election. As normal citizens we'll likely never see the evidence in either.
I think we’re going to enter the spin zone. ߤ⦬t;/div>
The one were the Chinese users and Apple have to follow Chinese laws, unless Apple becomes a foreign power, there is nothing else to do here. And yes, in the US, the government can ask the same, that's why Apple is trying to move away from actually owning those encryption keys even for Icloud storage although they do have to "know" some of the metadata cause well, Apple knows who you are obviously. So, they could match a origin apple ID with a destination one and yet not know or be able to retrieve the content of the message.
It doesn't make Apple evil, immoral or anything of that sort. They're a business. They chase PROFIT! just like other companies do. Corporate declarations, events organized by public relations, statements of principal and the like are all coordinated and crafted to support PROFIT!
Like any other company Apple too will modify policies and procedures if they negatively affect revenues. That's business and why Apple exists: To make the greatest amount of profit they can. "Making the world a better place" is along for the ride and helps Apple market their products, framing their public persona quite nicely in giving buyers a social reason on top of a hardware one for Apple products to be worth a premium. If there comes a time it does not they'll modify as needed. Standing up for customer privacy goes only so far and is not what drives Apple to do what they do.
While profit is the air corporations breath, it's Apple is not 100% driven by "PROFIT!" alone. They engage in many decisions at the expense of profit, including their industry-leading accessibility and environmental initiatives. Famously Cook told off a shareholder who asked him to focus only on profit:
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing [applies] about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.
....so no, their "making the world a better place" is not just marketing fluff, it's a core value held by the company. It's real, unlike Google's "Don't be evil" weasel words.
If Apple didn’t make such a bid deal about privacy and human rights then maybe people wouldn’t care.
Why do you have such a problem with Apple standing up for human rights? As I recall from prior discussions it seems the gay rights thing really gets to some people. How odd.
You can't win them all -- especially in a totalitarian communist state like China. But that sure as hell doesnt mean they shouldn't try right here at home, where we have the freedom to make a difference.
Money beats Ethics everytime. Will Apple then become complicit in arrests for 'thought-crimes' and 'political sabotage' and such? Following the Orwellian mandate of '1984' this makes me nauseated and Apple can't put enough sweet paint on it to make it palatable.
So who you gonna go to for your telecommunications and data needs? I’d really like to know. You spout this Orwellian nonsense but your ilk never propose any realistic actions to do anything about it. And if the FBI or NSA shows up at your doorstep you’ll piss your pants and cry like a baby, right?
It is what it is. Gonna stop selling rope because a dissident might be hanged with it?
It's not quite the same thing. There's a difference between selling rope and manufacturing electric chairs. I'm not suggesting that Apple (or any company) would stop doing business in China, but we now criticize companies (like IBM, Bertelsmann, Ford and GM) for doing business with the Nazis. Now there was a difference in that those companies had business relations directly with the Nazi government - it wasn't just about selling consumer products, but it still raises the question of how much should American companies cave to the interests of foreign governments, especially because we know that the Chinese wants those keys so it can spy on its citizens.
My problem is that it doesn't seem like Apple put up much of a fight. Yet they sure put up a fight when the U.S. Government or local police departments demand access to encrypted iPhones, etc. At the very least, Apple could have threatened to pull its manufacturing out of China and move it to India, Korea or South America, even if that was just a negotiating position. It's one thing to partner with a Chinese company, but now they're delivering keys?
I can understand both China and Apple's actions. But hope there is some detailed reportage from Western tech savvy journalists to help those with Chinese ID who wish to freely communicate without skewering themselves. For instance, if you don't back up iMessage to the cloud is that encryption still secure?
Apple and China have a mutually beneficial relationship. Just think of Apple's contributions in building up China's prowess in infotech infrastructure. But if Apple develops messaging into more of a social network could become more of an issue. You might see that breaking off as a separate app perhaps five years ahead.
@hexclock : yeah but iCloud as it is is pretty unhackable, but what I'm talking about is a network that cannot display information off sight it just collects it, I've never heard of any possibility to hack iCloud from a computer not registered to it, I mean if every iPhone automatically backed all it's data on the cloud with no means for the owner to login to access it would be akin to my proposition. Do you though find my little solution would still come short overall ? acknowledging the issue you've raised.
So I've been thinking, the could be a viable solution for this. So imagine this, Apple Samsung Microsoft and entire Tech community comes together to build "Magi" a closed end supper computer system with near human speech and critical analysis.
The Magi will collect insane amounts of data about every one using a computer in a particular region then analyze and store that info. Built with no feasible way of remote hacking or remote access of the system. To access information you have to be physically in the building, engaging with the computer in person, but there is no clicking on a keyboard and mouse accessing unlimited, unrelated and personal information about any one, to get information you have to talk or interrogate Magi e.g
Agent: Hello "M" I am officer KD6-3.7, authenticate.
Magi: good morning officer K what can I do for you this morning ?
K: a Robert Dear of Charleston, South Carolina and Louisville, Kentucky has been flagged, community members have reported N1 behavioral patterns triggering this "look see" any thing note worthy ?
Magi: let me see.... Ok I found this C2 level rhetoric on a marijuana Internet forum: "Turn to JESUS or burn in hell [...] WAKE UP SINNERS U CANT SAVE YOURSELF U WILL DIE AN WORMS SHALL EAT YOUR FLESH, NOW YOUR SOUL IS GOING SOMEWHERE."
Magi: He also posted notes on the same forum describing his own marijuana usage and stating that he was looking for women to "party" with.
K: any group links ?
Magi: none at this point
K: what's you're Determination ?
Magi: I recommend a (grade: 5 hate sentiment) reprimand, 10m radius prohibition zone and (level: 2 pri-monitor) serve.
K: I see, print the papper work, I'll petition a Judge's signature and pay Mr Dear a visit.
Yes I know very cute but, this way the police can have reasonable access to information they migh need but they have to ask for specific information related to suspicion or connection to probable cause or infliction of criminality or unlawfull pattens of behavior and or activity.
The government uses computer to sieve through these large data sets any way, it's not like supper computers aren't doing a lot of this already.
What I think in undesirable is any group of people having this kind of power, people are corruptible and greedy and nasty even at their most noblest of causes and not to be trusted under the best circumstances.
I believe this might be the greatest calling for computing, and who better positions to get them there than Apple. The system could rapidly get so sophisticated that it could flag people itself and warn of imminent danger. Could be cool, no ?
Disagree ?
You could make it like Demolition man with automatic fine dispensers for "bad" expression of thoughts
So I've been thinking, the could be a viable solution for this. So imagine this, Apple Samsung Microsoft and entire Tech community comes together to build "Magi" a closed end supper computer system with near human speech and critical analysis.
The Magi will collect insane amounts of data about every one using a computer in a particular region then analyze and store that info. Built with no feasible way of remote hacking or remote access of the system. To access information you have to be physically in the building, engaging with the computer in person, but there is no clicking on a keyboard and mouse accessing unlimited, unrelated and personal information about any one, to get information you have to talk or interrogate Magi e.g
Agent: Hello "M" I am officer KD6-3.7, authenticate.
Magi: good morning officer K what can I do for you this morning ?
K: a Robert Dear of Charleston, South Carolina and Louisville, Kentucky has been flagged, community members have reported N1 behavioral patterns triggering this "look see" any thing note worthy ?
Magi: let me see.... Ok I found this C2 level rhetoric on a marijuana Internet forum: "Turn to JESUS or burn in hell [...] WAKE UP SINNERS U CANT SAVE YOURSELF U WILL DIE AN WORMS SHALL EAT YOUR FLESH, NOW YOUR SOUL IS GOING SOMEWHERE."
Magi: He also posted notes on the same forum describing his own marijuana usage and stating that he was looking for women to "party" with.
K: any group links ?
Magi: none at this point
K: what's you're Determination ?
Magi: I recommend a (grade: 5 hate sentiment) reprimand, 10m radius prohibition zone and (level: 2 pri-monitor) serve.
K: I see, print the papper work, I'll petition a Judge's signature and pay Mr Dear a visit.
Yes I know very cute but, this way the police can have reasonable access to information they migh need but they have to ask for specific information related to suspicion or connection to probable cause or infliction of criminality or unlawfull pattens of behavior and or activity.
The government uses computer to sieve through these large data sets any way, it's not like supper computers aren't doing a lot of this already.
What I think in undesirable is any group of people having this kind of power, people are corruptible and greedy and nasty even at their most noblest of causes and not to be trusted under the best circumstances.
I believe this might be the greatest calling for computing, and who better positions to get them there than Apple. The system could rapidly get so sophisticated that it could flag people itself and warn of imminent danger. Could be cool, no ?
Disagree ?
You could make it like Demolition man with automatic fine dispensers for "bad" expression of thoughts
Yeah, still wondering about the three shells though
And let's not forget "hey Siri illuminate" I thought that was so cool when Snipes changed that minister guy's home light command, how weird we actually do that now
Apple is the last large company to do this. Microsoft did this years ago. Google did this years ago. There is no escaping Chinese law if you want to do business in China. Obviously, encrypting your backups helps maintain your privacy even in China.
Nope, Google didn't do that because they left the Chinese market early 2010 over exactly an issue like that (they had been hacked by the Chinese government and decided that they no longer want to comply with the censorship rules).
Encrypting your backups doesn't do much unless you never communicate any of your files. As soon as you transfer them through email etc. they are subject to government control.
@hexclock : yeah but iCloud as it is is pretty unhackable, but what I'm talking about is a network that cannot display information off sight it just collects it, I've never heard of any possibility to hack iCloud from a computer not registered to it, I mean if every iPhone automatically backed all it's data on the cloud with no means for the owner to login to access it would be akin to my proposition. Do you though find my little solution would still come short overall ? acknowledging the issue you've raised.
Your idea is indeed interesting, while raising the ethical question of who would be in charge of this thing. In regard to iCloud, it relies on Amazon web services, Microsoft Azure, and most recently, Google. Do you consider any of those entities unbreacheable?
I think we’re going to enter the spin zone. ߤ⦬t;/div>
The one were the Chinese users and Apple have to follow Chinese laws, unless Apple becomes a foreign power, there is nothing else to do here. And yes, in the US, the government can ask the same, that's why Apple is trying to move away from actually owning those encryption keys even for Icloud storage although they do have to "know" some of the metadata cause well, Apple knows who you are obviously. So, they could match a origin apple ID with a destination one and yet not know or be able to retrieve the content of the message.
It doesn't make Apple evil, immoral or anything of that sort. They're a business. They chase PROFIT! just like other companies do. Corporate declarations, events organized by public relations, statements of principal and the like are all coordinated and crafted to support PROFIT!
Like any other company Apple too will modify policies and procedures if they negatively affect revenues. That's business and why Apple exists: To make the greatest amount of profit they can. "Making the world a better place" is along for the ride and helps Apple market their products, framing their public persona quite nicely in giving buyers a social reason on top of a hardware one for Apple products to be worth a premium. If there comes a time it does not they'll modify as needed. Standing up for customer privacy goes only so far and is not what drives Apple to do what they do.
While profit is the air corporations breath, it's Apple is not 100% driven by "PROFIT!" alone. They engage in many decisions at the expense of profit, including their industry-leading accessibility and environmental initiatives. Famously Cook told off a shareholder who asked him to focus only on profit:
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing [applies] about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.
....so no, their "making the world a better place" is not just marketing fluff, it's a core value held by the company. It's real, unlike Google's "Don't be evil" weasel words.
You know, it's uninformed bullshit like this that can get me riled up.
Google left China in early 2010 - they gave up their 30% market share in search in that country and ceded everything to Baidu because they no longer wanted to comply with Chinese censorship laws.
I am not aware that Apple has ever done anything remotely on that scale. The fact that they are not willing to leave China over this issue is proof that it would simply be a cost they are not willing to pay.
I don't have any illusions about companies in general - they cannot afford to be altruistic and I think neither Google nor Apple are. Only sometimes, are there decisions - far in between - where a company makes a principled stand - and Google made one in China which was extremely costly to them and that deserves to be recognized.
Apple is the last large company to do this. Microsoft did this years ago. Google did this years ago. There is no escaping Chinese law if you want to do business in China. Obviously, encrypting your backups helps maintain your privacy even in China.
Microsoft began moving user data under Chinese control last year. Google NEVER has done so, and I would be a bit surprised if they would no matter how much much money they could make there.
To be fair, this is only possible because Google doesn't have any Chinese users. That is the only defense against these kind of laws. Google is building up some research groups after they mostly left in 2010 - and there were rumors about Play store coming to China. But I don't believe anything will come out of this: China doesn't want Google back as a consumer service.
@hexclock : yeah but iCloud as it is is pretty unhackable, but what I'm talking about is a network that cannot display information off sight it just collects it, I've never heard of any possibility to hack iCloud from a computer not registered to it, I mean if every iPhone automatically backed all it's data on the cloud with no means for the owner to login to access it would be akin to my proposition. Do you though find my little solution would still come short overall ? acknowledging the issue you've raised.
Your idea is indeed interesting, while raising the ethical question of who would be in charge of this thing. In regard to iCloud, it relies on Amazon web services, Microsoft Azure, and most recently, Google. Do you consider any of those entities unbreacheable?
Oh yeah forgot about that, good point, but Apple is building up its capacity though.
The question of who would own or be in charge, it would be split three ways, the customers or citezens who buy the devices own the data, if you own a device that connects, you own a peace of the system equivalent to the hardware holding you're digital record, the job of the tech company like Apple would be to design, build, maintain and opperate the infrastructure serving as gate keepers whilst also constantly improving the system, the government's role would be to finance thus buying their right to access.
So I've been thinking, the could be a viable solution for this. So imagine this, Apple Samsung Microsoft and entire Tech community comes together to build "Magi" a closed end supper computer system with near human speech and critical analysis.
The Magi will collect insane amounts of data about every one using a computer in a particular region then analyze and store that info. Built with no feasible way of remote hacking or remote access of the system. To access information you have to be physically in the building, engaging with the computer in person, but there is no clicking on a keyboard and mouse accessing unlimited, unrelated and personal information about any one, to get information you have to talk or interrogate Magi e.g
Agent: Hello "M" I am officer KD6-3.7, authenticate.
Magi: good morning officer K what can I do for you this morning ?
K: a Robert Dear of Charleston, South Carolina and Louisville, Kentucky has been flagged, community members have reported N1 behavioral patterns triggering this "look see" any thing note worthy ?
Magi: let me see.... Ok I found this C2 level rhetoric on a marijuana Internet forum: "Turn to JESUS or burn in hell [...] WAKE UP SINNERS U CANT SAVE YOURSELF U WILL DIE AN WORMS SHALL EAT YOUR FLESH, NOW YOUR SOUL IS GOING SOMEWHERE."
Magi: He also posted notes on the same forum describing his own marijuana usage and stating that he was looking for women to "party" with.
K: any group links ?
Magi: none at this point
K: what's you're Determination ?
Magi: I recommend a (grade: 5 hate sentiment) reprimand, 10m radius prohibition zone and (level: 2 pri-monitor) serve.
K: I see, print the papper work, I'll petition a Judge's signature and pay Mr Dear a visit.
Yes I know very cute but, this way the police can have reasonable access to information they migh need but they have to ask for specific information related to suspicion or connection to probable cause or infliction of criminality or unlawfull pattens of behavior and or activity.
The government uses computer to sieve through these large data sets any way, it's not like supper computers aren't doing a lot of this already.
What I think in undesirable is any group of people having this kind of power, people are corruptible and greedy and nasty even at their most noblest of causes and not to be trusted under the best circumstances.
I believe this might be the greatest calling for computing, and who better positions to get them there than Apple. The system could rapidly get so sophisticated that it could flag people itself and warn of imminent danger. Could be cool, no ?
Disagree ?
Sounds like Skynet or Ultron or Minority Report or Project Insight???
If Apple didn’t make such a bid deal about privacy and human rights then maybe people wouldn’t care.
IT's a good thing they did.
The only problem is that they've shown they can be bought.
It's the old saying: "everyone has a price."
I imagine Apple let an opportunity to be a change agent slip by for short term revenue results.
Sure, the other players will have a temporary leg up in China if Apple stood there ground, but that would have been turned into a differentiator to Apples benefit elsewhere - along with commanding an underground market (but we won't speak of such things).
"While we advocated against iCloud being subject to these laws, we were ultimately unsuccessful," Apple said in a statement. The company went on to argue that maintaining iCloud with its partner GCBD is better than discontinuing the service [of course, as it keeps you in profit], as doing so would lead to a negative user experience [how so? because they would be using another product?] and would be detrimental to user privacy [come on, dude ], the report said.
With you until that last part Apple.
We get it. Apple is a business. THE reasons businesses exist is to profit.
Just stick with the truth. Don't tell people that you think they are stupid with that last line.
Comments
Now you can doubt the US intelligence agencies when they say they have reasons to believe it -- but then you must also doubt them when they say the same about Russian meddling in the election. As normal citizens we'll likely never see the evidence in either.
While profit is the air corporations breath, it's Apple is not 100% driven by "PROFIT!" alone. They engage in many decisions at the expense of profit, including their industry-leading accessibility and environmental initiatives. Famously Cook told off a shareholder who asked him to focus only on profit:
"Tim Cook Erupts After Shareholder Asks Him To Focus Only On Profit"
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservative-think-tank-2014-2
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing [applies] about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.
....so no, their "making the world a better place" is not just marketing fluff, it's a core value held by the company. It's real, unlike Google's "Don't be evil" weasel words.
Why do you have such a problem with Apple standing up for human rights? As I recall from prior discussions it seems the gay rights thing really gets to some people. How odd.
You can't win them all -- especially in a totalitarian communist state like China. But that sure as hell doesnt mean they shouldn't try right here at home, where we have the freedom to make a difference.
My problem is that it doesn't seem like Apple put up much of a fight. Yet they sure put up a fight when the U.S. Government or local police departments demand access to encrypted iPhones, etc. At the very least, Apple could have threatened to pull its manufacturing out of China and move it to India, Korea or South America, even if that was just a negotiating position. It's one thing to partner with a Chinese company, but now they're delivering keys?
Apple and China have a mutually beneficial relationship. Just think of Apple's contributions in building up China's prowess in infotech infrastructure. But if Apple develops messaging into more of a social network could become more of an issue. You might see that breaking off as a separate app perhaps five years ahead.
And let's not forget "hey Siri illuminate" I thought that was so cool when Snipes changed that minister guy's home light command, how weird we actually do that now
Encrypting your backups doesn't do much unless you never communicate any of your files. As soon as you transfer them through email etc. they are subject to government control.
In regard to iCloud, it relies on Amazon web services, Microsoft Azure, and most recently, Google. Do you consider any of those entities unbreacheable?
Google left China in early 2010 - they gave up their 30% market share in search in that country and ceded everything to Baidu because they no longer wanted to comply with Chinese censorship laws.
I am not aware that Apple has ever done anything remotely on that scale. The fact that they are not willing to leave China over this issue is proof that it would simply be a cost they are not willing to pay.
I don't have any illusions about companies in general - they cannot afford to be altruistic and I think neither Google nor Apple are. Only sometimes, are there decisions - far in between - where a company makes a principled stand - and Google made one in China which was extremely costly to them and that deserves to be recognized.
The question of who would own or be in charge, it would be split three ways, the customers or citezens who buy the devices own the data, if you own a device that connects, you own a peace of the system equivalent to the hardware holding you're digital record, the job of the tech company like Apple would be to design, build, maintain and opperate the infrastructure serving as gate keepers whilst also constantly improving the system, the government's role would be to finance thus buying their right to access.
Something stinks there.
IT's a good thing they did.
The only problem is that they've shown they can be bought.
It's the old saying: "everyone has a price."
I imagine Apple let an opportunity to be a change agent slip by for short term revenue results.
Sure, the other players will have a temporary leg up in China if Apple stood there ground, but that would have been turned into a differentiator to Apples benefit elsewhere - along with commanding an underground market (but we won't speak of such things).
With you until that last part Apple.
We get it. Apple is a business. THE reasons businesses exist is to profit.
Just stick with the truth. Don't tell people that you think they are stupid with that last line.