A real consequence would be Apple pulling its entire product line and support from the UK. Then 67 million people could decide if this action by their government is warranted. ... Not possible you say? Why not, Apple did it with Russia for reasons that had nothing to do with any of its products.
How did that go in Russia? Did people rise against government to demand their Apple devices back?
Smart move. Actions have consequences. Though I suspect the Britons will not rise up in outrage. They tolerate a much lower bar for privacy than Americans—camera tracking in the public space in the UK is second only to China. British cop shows often feature sequences where folks are tracked continuously on monitors using a combination of CCTV and cell phone signals.
No. A real consequence would be Apple pulling its entire product line and support from the UK. Then 67 million people could decide if this action by their government is warranted. “You will lose all Apple products” carries way more weight than “you will lose end-to-end encryption for various features”, knowing most consumers have no idea what this means.
Not possible you say? Why not, Apple did it with Russia for reasons that had nothing to do with any of its products.
The net result would be Tim Cook and likely the entire board being let go.
Apple is a publicly traded company and the executive team has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value of their investments. Throwing a tantrum and leaving a country is not an option as Apple would take a financial hit.
The comparison to Russia is not relevant. Apple legally had to stop selling its products in Russia due to sanctions.
Not sure if this applies to ADP though or just iMessage, it sounds like just iMessage for right now.
But at any rate, although quantum computers definitely may weaken encryption, I am not sure it will end up being the immediate death thereof barring some weaknesses in the algorithms themselves.
Smart move. Actions have consequences. Though I suspect the Britons will not rise up in outrage. They tolerate a much lower bar for privacy than Americans—camera tracking in the public space in the UK is second only to China. British cop shows often feature sequences where folks are tracked continuously on monitors using a combination of CCTV and cell phone signals.
No. A real consequence would be Apple pulling its entire product line and support from the UK. Then 67 million people could decide if this action by their government is warranted. “You will lose all Apple products” carries way more weight than “you will lose end-to-end encryption for various features”, knowing most consumers have no idea what this means.
Not possible you say? Why not, Apple did it with Russia for reasons that had nothing to do with any of its products.
The net result would be Tim Cook and likely the entire board being let go.
Apple is a publicly traded company and the executive team has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value of their investments. Throwing a tantrum and leaving a country is not an option as Apple would take a financial hit.
The comparison to Russia is not relevant. Apple legally had to stop selling its products in Russia due to sanctions.
Nonsense.
Maybe some shareholders would call for a vote on overturning this and/or replacing the board. Then the shareholders (most of whom are mutual funds and other institutional investors, but lots are people like you and me) would vote on that and say, "Nah, we're good, keep up the good work, TC and Co."
Smart move. Actions have consequences. Though I suspect the Britons will not rise up in outrage. They tolerate a much lower bar for privacy than Americans—camera tracking in the public space in the UK is second only to China. British cop shows often feature sequences where folks are tracked continuously on monitors using a combination of CCTV and cell phone signals.
No. A real consequence would be Apple pulling its entire product line and support from the UK. Then 67 million people could decide if this action by their government is warranted. “You will lose all Apple products” carries way more weight than “you will lose end-to-end encryption for various features”, knowing most consumers have no idea what this means.
Not possible you say? Why not, Apple did it with Russia for reasons that had nothing to do with any of its products.
The net result would be Tim Cook and likely the entire board being let go.
Apple is a publicly traded company and the executive team has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value of their investments. Throwing a tantrum and leaving a country is not an option as Apple would take a financial hit.
The comparison to Russia is not relevant. Apple legally had to stop selling its products in Russia due to sanctions.
Nonsense.
Maybe some shareholders would call for a vote on overturning this and/or replacing the board. Then the shareholders (most of whom are mutual funds and other institutional investors, but lots are people like you and me) would vote on that and say, "Nah, we're good, keep up the good work, TC and Co."
Actually, what you & @msuberly are saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If Apple had to pull out of markets in which the ruling governments come up with laws/regulations that Apple do not like, they will have to pull out of ALL markets in the world. If Apple sets an example by pulling out of UK, each and every country will come up with similar laws and taunt Apple to pull out. You know - politicians all over the world like to showcase their muscle power pver businesses to show who the boss is.
The only option left for Apple to continue to do business all over the world is - comply with the laws or work with governments through lobbying and get what they want - which is exactly what they are doing all over the world. And Apple CEO Tim Cook & his team have done an extraordinary job so far in making sure that Apple's interests are not majorly affected in a negative way so far.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3825 They also want to grab all historical data (all there is or ever was captured) on their people. What happened to habeas corpus and privacy protections? 2024=1984 Well we shall see how this experiment strikes back on those who invented it…
Smart move. Actions have consequences. Though I suspect the Britons will not rise up in outrage. They tolerate a much lower bar for privacy than Americans—camera tracking in the public space in the UK is second only to China. British cop shows often feature sequences where folks are tracked continuously on monitors using a combination of CCTV and cell phone signals.
No. A real consequence would be Apple pulling its entire product line and support from the UK. Then 67 million people could decide if this action by their government is warranted. “You will lose all Apple products” carries way more weight than “you will lose end-to-end encryption for various features”, knowing most consumers have no idea what this means.
Not possible you say? Why not, Apple did it with Russia for reasons that had nothing to do with any of its products.
The net result would be Tim Cook and likely the entire board being let go.
Apple is a publicly traded company and the executive team has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value of their investments. Throwing a tantrum and leaving a country is not an option as Apple would take a financial hit.
The comparison to Russia is not relevant. Apple legally had to stop selling its products in Russia due to sanctions.
Nonsense.
Maybe some shareholders would call for a vote on overturning this and/or replacing the board. Then the shareholders (most of whom are mutual funds and other institutional investors, but lots are people like you and me) would vote on that and say, "Nah, we're good, keep up the good work, TC and Co."
Removing all products from a large market because one feature runs afoul of the local government is essential saying “if I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home”. It’s the thought process of a child. I doubt anyone with such simplistic thinking would ever make to the executive team or the board and if they did I’d expect their removal. They would be unfit for the role.
What I would expect is someone to act like an adult and look for a solution without compromising the product for everyone else. And that is what happened. They removed the feature and now users in the U.K can decide if they want to address it with their government.
Perhaps think twice before speaking for other people.
Smart move. Actions have consequences. Though I suspect the Britons will not rise up in outrage. They tolerate a much lower bar for privacy than Americans—camera tracking in the public space in the UK is second only to China. British cop shows often feature sequences where folks are tracked continuously on monitors using a combination of CCTV and cell phone signals.
No. A real consequence would be Apple pulling its entire product line and support from the UK. Then 67 million people could decide if this action by their government is warranted. “You will lose all Apple products” carries way more weight than “you will lose end-to-end encryption for various features”, knowing most consumers have no idea what this means.
Not possible you say? Why not, Apple did it with Russia for reasons that had nothing to do with any of its products.
The net result would be Tim Cook and likely the entire board being let go.
Apple is a publicly traded company and the executive team has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value of their investments. Throwing a tantrum and leaving a country is not an option as Apple would take a financial hit.
The comparison to Russia is not relevant. Apple legally had to stop selling its products in Russia due to sanctions.
Nonsense.
Maybe some shareholders would call for a vote on overturning this and/or replacing the board. Then the shareholders (most of whom are mutual funds and other institutional investors, but lots are people like you and me) would vote on that and say, "Nah, we're good, keep up the good work, TC and Co."
Removing all products from a large market because one feature runs afoul of the local government is essential saying “if I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home”. It’s the thought process of a child. I doubt anyone with such simplistic thinking would ever make to the executive team or the board and if they did I’d expect their removal. They would be unfit for the role.
What I would expect is someone to act like an adult and look for a solution without compromising the product for everyone else. And that is what happened. They removed the feature and now users in the U.K can decide if they want to address it with their government.
Perhaps think twice before speaking for other people.
First, this is entirely hypothetical, because Apple wouldn't do this, shouldn't do this, and won't need to do this.
But... if Apple did make a major move by pulling out of a large market because of legal requirements that they couldn't comply with without introducing defects into their most important product, what would happen?
Which is more likely: a) Tim Cook AND the board of directors get replaced. b) Not that.
I would wager a million dollars in AAPL that b) is the right answer.
Maybe some shareholders would call for a vote on overturning this and/or replacing the board. Then the shareholders (most of whom are mutual funds and other institutional investors, but lots are people like you and me) would vote on that and say, "Nah, we're good, keep up the good work, TC and Co."
Perhaps think twice before speaking for other people.
Not immediately obvious how my prediction of how shareholders (the only people capable of removing the board) would act is "speaking for other people," but your prediction about how that same group would act is not. So, I suppose we should both "think twice."
I’m not a lawyer, of course, but what’s the difference between getting a court ordered warrant to enter someone’s home or workplace if they are under investigation for bad acts against the population or the government and doing the same thing to investigate same on someone’s phone?
How do you find a balance between keeping people safe and respecting the rights of the individual?
I thought that’s what the courts were supposed to do and so having a back channel to go into someone’s phone under the authority of the courts isn’t such a bad idea is it? I mean the whole premises if you’re not doing something wrong…
Entering a physical location only affects that location. Having a law that allows the UK to enter any Apple users data affects us all. And opens our data not just to the UK but other governments who will demand the same thing and of course hackers who will find a way in. I never bothered about encryption as I have nothing to hide till suddenly loyalty to one politician and tech titan become a real issue. If you are a racial minority, woman, gay / trans say in the military, drive past an abortion clinic in California or New York and Texas or Florida wants that data now it suddenly becomes a much bigger concern. If you are a dissident or journalist it is an even bigger problem not just in Iran but even the U.S. as a recent decision regarding AP access has shown.
Not sure if this applies to ADP though or just iMessage, it sounds like just iMessage for right now.
But at any rate, although quantum computers definitely may weaken encryption, I am not sure it will end up being the immediate death thereof barring some weaknesses in the algorithms themselves.
Thanks for digging that up. I suppose there will be a back and forth between various offensive and defensive schemes just as there is today. Computers fighting computers. Strange world.
Comments
Why wouldn’t the UK admit travelers from the US?
Apple is a publicly traded company and the executive team has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value of their investments. Throwing a tantrum and leaving a country is not an option as Apple would take a financial hit.
The comparison to Russia is not relevant. Apple legally had to stop selling its products in Russia due to sanctions.
Not sure if this applies to ADP though or just iMessage, it sounds like just iMessage for right now.
But at any rate, although quantum computers definitely may weaken encryption, I am not sure it will end up being the immediate death thereof barring some weaknesses in the algorithms themselves.
Maybe some shareholders would call for a vote on overturning this and/or replacing the board. Then the shareholders (most of whom are mutual funds and other institutional investors, but lots are people like you and me) would vote on that and say, "Nah, we're good, keep up the good work, TC and Co."
The only option left for Apple to continue to do business all over the world is - comply with the laws or work with governments through lobbying and get what they want - which is exactly what they are doing all over the world. And Apple CEO Tim Cook & his team have done an extraordinary job so far in making sure that Apple's interests are not majorly affected in a negative way so far.
Nice.
But... if Apple did make a major move by pulling out of a large market because of legal requirements that they couldn't comply with without introducing defects into their most important product, what would happen?
Which is more likely:
a) Tim Cook AND the board of directors get replaced.
b) Not that.
I would wager a million dollars in AAPL that b) is the right answer.
Not immediately obvious how my prediction of how shareholders (the only people capable of removing the board) would act is "speaking for other people," but your prediction about how that same group would act is not. So, I suppose we should both "think twice."
course hackers who will find a way in. I never bothered about encryption as I have nothing to hide till suddenly loyalty to one politician and tech titan become a real issue. If you are a racial minority, woman, gay / trans say in the military, drive past an abortion clinic in California or New York and Texas or Florida wants that data now it suddenly becomes a much bigger concern. If you are a dissident or journalist it is an even bigger problem not just in Iran but even the U.S. as a recent decision regarding AP access has shown.