steven n.

melgross said:

Apple definitely shouldn’t have this app.  Now that it’s public that they do, we can hope that they will swiftly remove it from the store. They should also prevent the ones that are already out from working.

both Apple and Google need much stricter guidelines, and need to more rigorously police their stores. I know that Google’s attitude has always been to turn away from what’s in there as they were trying to increase the apps to meet Apple’s numbers. But that race is long over. Google now needs to do whatever it can to stop malicious apps of any kind. Apple needs to step its own wfforts up.

Mel,

I have always enjoyed your posts but I think this is more detailed than the simple "They should have the app". Given this app is little more than a wrapper on existing data on the Saudi government web site, is the logical conclusion Apple's Safari should filter out the specific pages allowing this tracking? Or is that against Net Neutrality? 

While I find many (most?) of the restrictions Saudi places on its citizens (both men and women) oppressive, the US has 714,300% more simple burglaries, 5,600% higher opiate drug usage and 450% higher murder rate when compared to Saudi Arabia. NOTE: The "," is being used as a group separator and not a decimal point.

Is it safety by the point of a gun? In my view, yes. In theirs? I don't know. Is it better to walk away from the table so we have 0 influence to slowly change the regime or do you stay at the table so you can at least carry on a conversation? Personally, I believe it is the second option.

spice-boy said:

Apple as well as most (Western) mega corporations need to stop enabling oppressors by giving them the tools treat half of those counties population as property. We are all humans, we are born with rights and they should all be the same no matter your gender, race....etc. Unfortunately capitalist greed is spineless when standing up for what is really important. 

Sadly, these are far more nuanced discussions than simple talking points like "We are all humans", "capitalist greed is spineless" and "most (Western) mega corporations need to stop enabling oppressors" tropes.

There is a fine line everyone has to draw from tyrannically forcing their views of morality on different cultures and standing up for true oppressiveness. Would I want to live in Saudi Arabia? Nope. Not a chance. Do I feel qualified to judge an entire culture with broad (and in may view, simplistic) statements like: "Apple as well as most (Western) mega corporations need to stop enabling oppressors by giving them the tools treat half of those counties population as property. We are all humans, we are born with rights and they should all be the same no matter your gender, race....etc. Unfortunately capitalist greed is spineless when standing up for what is really important. "  Not even close.

lordjohnwhorfin said:

67 years old is elderly? Screw you, AppleInsider.

Given average life expectancy in a Norway is around 79 years for a male, 69 would be elderly, yes. Doesn’t mean people stop being active and simply live in a lazy boy, but 69 is not muddled aged or a spring chicken. 

cropr said:

I am chessplayer and a common rule in chess strategy is that the threat is stronger than the execution. That why I don't understand the actions of Apple. Apple might contractually be 100% right, but it should have looked at other options to make Facebook and Google comply to its requirements. Publicly threatening the revoke the certificate is much more effective than actually doing it

This could hit massively back in Apple's face.  CIO's of large companies have now to consider the possibility that Apple could cripple the internal working of the company by revoking the certificate.  So a CIO might start contemplating if it would not be better to standardize on Android. Even if only a small percentage of the CIO actually decides to do that,  Apple can only loose.

This is incoherent at best. The threat of check mate is not nearly as effective as a checkmate. 

Likewise, a CIO should know better than to use their enterprise deployment keys to allow side loading of apps to the general public. This reaks of basic incompetence or extreme arrogance. 

'“Many services set up automated systems to respond to access requests, but they often don’t even remotely provide the data that every user has a right to,” Schrems said. “This leads to structural violations of users’ rights, as these systems are built to withhold the relevant information.”' I did a data request and was exceedingly impressed with the sheer completeness of the data. I am wondering what proof he has as to what data is not provided. I am guessing ... NOT. Lets through a fishhook out and see if we can collect some revenue for the social coffers.