How shocking that a private American corporation should be required to comply with the laws of another - OMG - sovereign nation. Who needs that - our corporations and our government should of course dictate how every other country should handle their internal affairs. We know best for everyone!
Craig’s first words when talking Privacy yesterday were, verbatim: “At Apple, we believe Privacy is a fundamental human right.”
You can’t make a statement like that and then turn around and support a communist regime’s ability to inject itself into consumer’s personal information. If you truly believed Privacy was a “fundamental human right,” you would fight at every turn to preserve it.
Given the way Apple behaves, they should just say, “We believe privacy is important.” Words matter…especially when you describe your personal values.
Oh, please. Simplistic and naive. So, Apple and every other American company should close up shop in every country or jurisdiction that has policies or a law that Apple or the US might not agree with? Heck, there are laws all over the US that I do not agree with, but if I am in the city or state, I obey them. As a shareholder and customer, do I want Apple to forgo the revenue from China, because Chinese citizens can't access a feature or three? Do I want them to stop selling in Russia because they are forced to include certain apps by default. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Or worse, should Apple not make features available to the rest of the world because the Chinese can't have them?!
Declaring a privacy a fundamental human right and needing to compromise in certain jurisdictions are not mutually exclusive things. How do you know if Apple is working to "fight at every turn" to deliver the best experience possible in every area of the world?
Yes. I want Apple selling as many iPhones in China as possible, even with limitations.
I want Caterpillar exporting as much heavy equipment as possible.
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
Completely agree. The world is not black and white. One could argue that there are laws in the U.S. that violate people’s privacy or don’t go as far to protect it as Apple would like. Does that mean they shouldn’t sell their phones here, either?
Apple can either follow the local laws (i.e. operate legally), not follow the laws based on their principles or pull out of the country completely. Option 2 would simply lead to Apple getting fined and/or banned from the country, meaning option 1 and 3 are the only options. Do you think that the countries’ governments would suddenly change their laws because Apple threatens not to sell their devices? No, the only difference for the people living there is that they wouldn’t have access to Apple devices. Even if Apple got together with Samsung, Huawei, LG, google, motorola and every other smartphone manufacturer and somehow got everyone to agree to withhold their devices do you think the local governments would change their laws?
Now, if Apple had evidence that their devices were being used to violate people’s rights in a way that couldn’t be done if they weren’t being sold then I would agree, but that’s not the case.
How shocking that a private American corporation should be required to comply with the laws of another - OMG - sovereign nation. Who needs that - our corporations and our government should of course dictate how every other country should handle their internal affairs. We know best for everyone!
Craig’s first words when talking Privacy yesterday were, verbatim: “At Apple, we believe Privacy is a fundamental human right.”
You can’t make a statement like that and then turn around and support a communist regime’s ability to inject itself into consumer’s personal information. If you truly believed Privacy was a “fundamental human right,” you would fight at every turn to preserve it.
Given the way Apple behaves, they should just say, “We believe privacy is important.” Words matter…especially when you describe your personal values.
Oh, please. Simplistic and naive. So, Apple and every other American company should close up shop in every country or jurisdiction that has policies or a law that Apple or the US might not agree with? Heck, there are laws all over the US that I do not agree with, but if I am in the city or state, I obey them. As a shareholder and customer, do I want Apple to forgo the revenue from China, because Chinese citizens can't access a feature or three? Do I want them to stop selling in Russia because they are forced to include certain apps by default. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Or worse, should Apple not make features available to the rest of the world because the Chinese can't have them?!
Declaring a privacy a fundamental human right and needing to compromise in certain jurisdictions are not mutually exclusive things. How do you know if Apple is working to "fight at every turn" to deliver the best experience possible in every area of the world?
Yes. I want Apple selling as many iPhones in China as possible, even with limitations.
I want Caterpillar exporting as much heavy equipment as possible.
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
They should stop pontificating how moral and ethical of a company they are.
Nonsense. Sounds like you have a problem with them speaking up for gay rights and privacy here in the US. But they’re based here, and can affect policy here. Of course they should stand up for equal civil rights and privacy.
You cannot affect the world in China, so should you stop voting in the US? Stop writing your legislatures? Stop advertising what’s important to you and your customers? No, of course not, that’d be stupid.
I think the objection I'm understanding here is with Apple framing privacy as a "core value" and a "fundamental human right". With so many exceptions applying to billions of users, possibly even the majority of iPhone users, I don't think this matches with 'core value" either. Really important, yes, but it's not being treated as a fundamental right by Apple..
I'm certainly not saying they have many options if they choose to sell in those countries, but I'd note the most important word is "choose". They can choose to treat privacy as the core Apple value they claim it to be and weigh it heavier than profit.
How shocking that a private American corporation should be required to comply with the laws of another - OMG - sovereign nation. Who needs that - our corporations and our government should of course dictate how every other country should handle their internal affairs. We know best for everyone!
And as long as the rules China sets for companies don’t leave its borders, I’m fine with it.
Then you won't be fine with the fact that China wants its digital Yuan to be used by foreign companies placing orders from outside China into China.
Sounds like you talk TLS or IPSec to the Apple server which acts as a proxy. You then talk client-anonymous TLS or IPSec through that to the third-party server, where you make your request.
Apple can tell who you are, but not where you’re going. The third-party server can tell where you’re going, but not who you are.
I still want more technical details, but this is a very promising start.
The “Apple’s privacy pillars” WWDC presentation has more details, although still somewhat high level. It’s definitely a proxy server based approach, with different proxies for inbound vs outbound connections, but it’s definitely not a traditional VPN. One of the common use cases for consumer oriented VPNs (good or bad depending on which side you are on) is to bypass regional restrictions on certain content streaming services. It sounds like private relay uses a pool of regionally clustered proxies selected at random so there is still a course granularity notion of location. It’s not precise enough for detailed location tracking but it is good enough to allow enforcement of region limitations and to allow some level of location based advertising.
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
I reckon 7-11 can't sell beer in certain counties because of local restrictions.
Exactly my point. Yet, they still do business in those locations.
While I agree with your statements in this thread I think the problem with your 7-11 argument is that the company doesn't take the "ethical" stance that beer is a fundamental human right when it opens up stores in areas where the local laws don't allow it to sell alcohol.
The problem with the blanket, black-and-white claims that tnet-primary and other are making is that corporations always have to work within the laws when the operate. If Apple didn't do business in a county where a national law went against their own value system there would be nary a country that Apple could do business, especially the US. I've seen this sort of anti-Apple sentiment ever since Apple regained its mindshare in the market but these comments fail to grasp how a diplomatic presence benefits the people by at least cracking the door whereas completely pulling out would offer no solution and no presence for change.
Damn! I was all set to move to Belarus too, now I find out I can’t use the iCloud private relay there. Well I guess I’ll not move and just stay here in Langley Virginia where I like to connect to Facebook using an Android phone. That way I’ll continue to maintain my privacy, thank you very much!
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
I reckon 7-11 can't sell beer in certain counties because of local restrictions.
Exactly my point. Yet, they still do business in those locations.
While I agree with your statements in this thread I think the problem with your 7-11 argument is that the company doesn't take the "ethical" stance that beer is a fundamental human right when it opens up stores in areas where the local laws don't allow it to sell alcohol.
The problem with the blanket, black-and-white claims that tnet-primary and other are making is that corporations always have to work within the laws when the operate. If Apple didn't do business in a county where a national law went against their own value system there would be nary a country that Apple could do business, especially the US. I've seen this sort of anti-Apple sentiment ever since Apple regained its mindshare in the market but these comments fail to grasp how a diplomatic presence benefits the people by at least cracking the door whereas completely pulling out would offer no solution and no presence for change.
Soli for the win!
An excellent, well explained posting.
Remember this, everyone yelling that a nation’s laws should not be accommodated, these would be the same people who would yell “you have to accommodate my nation’s laws if you want to do business here”.
This is difficult and sensitive diplomacy going on here. With the CCP trying to maintain tight control, Apple(others) in China is a good thing to help keep up the alternate way. You see part of Chinese businessmen wanting to embrace opening to the world, and you see the CCP going after some of them. American and other companies leaving China only embolden the CCP arm.
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
I reckon 7-11 can't sell beer in certain counties because of local restrictions.
Exactly my point. Yet, they still do business in those locations.
While I agree with your statements in this thread I think the problem with your 7-11 argument is that the company doesn't take the "ethical" stance that beer is a fundamental human right when it opens up stores in areas where the local laws don't allow it to sell alcohol.
The problem with the blanket, black-and-white claims that tnet-primary and other are making is that corporations always have to work within the laws when the operate. If Apple didn't do business in a county where a national law went against their own value system there would be nary a country that Apple could do business, especially the US. I've seen this sort of anti-Apple sentiment ever since Apple regained its mindshare in the market but these comments fail to grasp how a diplomatic presence benefits the people by at least cracking the door whereas completely pulling out would offer no solution and no presence for change.
Soli for the win!
An excellent, well explained posting.
This is difficult and sensitive diplomacy going on here. With the CCP trying to maintain tight control, Apple(others) in China is a good thing to help keep up the alternate way. You see part of Chinese businessmen wanting to embrace opening to the world, and you see the CCP going after some of them. American and other companies leaving China only embolden the CCP arm.
There is no "alternate way" in China is there? The same controls apply to every company including Apple. China's leadership will do what they do whether it pleases any of the techs, and one of them (Apple) deciding not to sell products in China any longer as a result would change nothing would it?
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
I reckon 7-11 can't sell beer in certain counties because of local restrictions.
Exactly my point. Yet, they still do business in those locations.
While I agree with your statements in this thread I think the problem with your 7-11 argument is that the company doesn't take the "ethical" stance that beer is a fundamental human right when it opens up stores in areas where the local laws don't allow it to sell alcohol.
The problem with the blanket, black-and-white claims that tnet-primary and other are making is that corporations always have to work within the laws when the operate. If Apple didn't do business in a county where a national law went against their own value system there would be nary a country that Apple could do business, especially the US. I've seen this sort of anti-Apple sentiment ever since Apple regained its mindshare in the market but these comments fail to grasp how a diplomatic presence benefits the people by at least cracking the door whereas completely pulling out would offer no solution and no presence for change.
Soli for the win!
An excellent, well explained posting.
This is difficult and sensitive diplomacy going on here. With the CCP trying to maintain tight control, Apple(others) in China is a good thing to help keep up the alternate way. You see part of Chinese businessmen wanting to embrace opening to the world, and you see the CCP going after some of them. American and other companies leaving China only embolden the CCP arm.
There is no "alternate way" in China is there? The same controls apply to every company including Apple. China's leadership will do what they do whether it pleases any of the techs, and one of them (Apple) deciding not to sell products in China any longer as a result would change nothing would it?
There is otherwise DIDI wouldn’t have listed on US exchanges after being told to wait. There is obviously a business community that doesn’t want quite what the CCP wants. Will the CCP ultimately win? Probably but business and investment with huge returns is a universal language and power.
Apple/American companies leaving likely will hurt the business community’s pull which likely just further emboldens the hardliners in the CCP.
I want 7-11 to be profitable even if they can't sell beer in certain countries because of local restrictions.
I reckon 7-11 can't sell beer in certain counties because of local restrictions.
Exactly my point. Yet, they still do business in those locations.
While I agree with your statements in this thread I think the problem with your 7-11 argument is that the company doesn't take the "ethical" stance that beer is a fundamental human right when it opens up stores in areas where the local laws don't allow it to sell alcohol.
The problem with the blanket, black-and-white claims that tnet-primary and other are making is that corporations always have to work within the laws when the operate. If Apple didn't do business in a county where a national law went against their own value system there would be nary a country that Apple could do business, especially the US. I've seen this sort of anti-Apple sentiment ever since Apple regained its mindshare in the market but these comments fail to grasp how a diplomatic presence benefits the people by at least cracking the door whereas completely pulling out would offer no solution and no presence for change.
Soli for the win!
An excellent, well explained posting.
This is difficult and sensitive diplomacy going on here. With the CCP trying to maintain tight control, Apple(others) in China is a good thing to help keep up the alternate way. You see part of Chinese businessmen wanting to embrace opening to the world, and you see the CCP going after some of them. American and other companies leaving China only embolden the CCP arm.
There is no "alternate way" in China is there? The same controls apply to every company including Apple. China's leadership will do what they do whether it pleases any of the techs, and one of them (Apple) deciding not to sell products in China any longer as a result would change nothing would it?
There is otherwise DIDI wouldn’t have listed on US exchanges after being told to wait.
Comments
Apple can either follow the local laws (i.e. operate legally), not follow the laws based on their principles or pull out of the country completely. Option 2 would simply lead to Apple getting fined and/or banned from the country, meaning option 1 and 3 are the only options. Do you think that the countries’ governments would suddenly change their laws because Apple threatens not to sell their devices? No, the only difference for the people living there is that they wouldn’t have access to Apple devices. Even if Apple got together with Samsung, Huawei, LG, google, motorola and every other smartphone manufacturer and somehow got everyone to agree to withhold their devices do you think the local governments would change their laws?
Now, if Apple had evidence that their devices were being used to violate people’s rights in a way that couldn’t be done if they weren’t being sold then I would agree, but that’s not the case.
Because the vast majority of the devices sold and affected by such policies are the billions of iPhones.
I'm certainly not saying they have many options if they choose to sell in those countries, but I'd note the most important word is "choose". They can choose to treat privacy as the core Apple value they claim it to be and weigh it heavier than profit.
Exactly my point. Yet, they still do business in those locations.
While I agree with your statements in this thread I think the problem with your 7-11 argument is that the company doesn't take the "ethical" stance that beer is a fundamental human right when it opens up stores in areas where the local laws don't allow it to sell alcohol.
The problem with the blanket, black-and-white claims that tnet-primary and other are making is that corporations always have to work within the laws when the operate. If Apple didn't do business in a county where a national law went against their own value system there would be nary a country that Apple could do business, especially the US. I've seen this sort of anti-Apple sentiment ever since Apple regained its mindshare in the market but these comments fail to grasp how a diplomatic presence benefits the people by at least cracking the door whereas completely pulling out would offer no solution and no presence for change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/technology/china-didi-app-removed.html
They were just one of China's tech successes that got a recent tattooed-across-the-forehead reminder who the real power in China is and at whose pleasure they serve.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/where-is-jack-ma-chinese-billionaire-joins-the-list-of-chinas-high-profile-disappearances/punished-for-crossing-the-line/slideshow/80150845.cms