frac

Cacophony said:

digitalclips said:

Unfortunately, these days,  his name will cause many in this country to dismiss anything he say without thought.

I'm 100% behind Apple, but I do think it's absolutely ridiculous that SAUDI ARABIA is representing the human rights council. You're right, many do dismiss him. Not because of his skin or name, but because of his country and their historical *and current* actions directly opposed to human rights....

thewhitefalcon said:

SpamSandwich said:

Believe it or not, the UN has no jurisdiction over the US. His opinion is noted.

Thankfully. If I had my way we'd kick them out of the US entirely. 

The UN's Ten Principles.

Human Rights

Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and

Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. 

Labour

Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and

Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. 

Environment

Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;

Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and

Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies. 

Anti-Corruption

Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

Where exactly is there any threat to US interests?

How would US isolationism, help in any of these principles? or promote American interests in the wider world?

cali said:

I find it funny spyware companies like Goog are hoping on the hype train. Free advertising and good reputation right?

Apple should tell Goog "No thanks", hop off the bandwagon.

pembroke said:

Re:
"Our job is to protect our customers, and our customers have incredibly detailed information on their phones. There's probably more information about you on your phone than there is in your house," Cook said in Friday's ABC interview, noting many people keep contact information, health records, private communications and more on their smartphones. "So it's not just about privacy, but it's also about public safety."

Is total privacy a human right? Is total privacy possible? Is total privacy natural? I'd say "no" to all three. Anyone living in a small community has little to no privacy, apart from what they do behind closed doors. Once they participate in a communal event (and what is the cellular network and the internet if not communal?) then an expectation of total guaranteed privacy is fanciful. 

Re:  "There's probably more information about you on your phone than there is in your house"
Well, perhaps THAT is the problem, People should stop holding so much key information on their phones that are made to operate across a public utility like the cellular network and the internet. If mobile phones disappeared tomorrow people would adjust and adapt and continue to function quite well.

Re: "Re: "Our job is to protect our customers"
Is it? Apple's job is to make sure that their mobile phones can connect to industry standard telecommunications protocols, otherwise no one would buy their phones. And that's about it as far as Apple's 'job' is concerned. If people want to hold all their banking info and other info they want to keep from the eyes of others on their phones that use the public utilities then that is their concern, not Apple's. You can have all the total privacy you want if you don't use a phone of any sort or send eMails across public networks.  

If I manufacture a paper notepad and people write private information on it, it is not my job to guarantee that no one else can see that paper notebook, especially if it is being sent across some communal network to someone else. 

Even if known 'subversives' are sending letters through the post, government authorities can request judicial authority to open that mail, in the interests of general public safety. 

And of course, who decides who is a subversive? The great and the good within the judicial system. And can we guarantee that those people really ARE great and good? There will never be a unanimous agreement over who is deserving of being 'great and good', particularly relative to others.

Keeping information pursuant to community safety secret, or not a secret, is the job of the Community's security agents, not Apple's.  You can have total guaranteed privacy if you live alone on an island...but "no man is an island".