Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 209 posts

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#51

Post by IBM »

mcone wrote: post #47
IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

> Apple isn't a vessel for anyone's foreign policy objectives and it isn't a substitute for the state. You're absolutely right, and you should follow this to its logical conclusion. Apple only does what's in its best interests. The company consistently acts to strengthen its brand whenever possible to make more money. It's irrational to expect a corporation, whether it's Apple or any other entity, to act ethically. E…

>Imagine what would happened, for instance, if Apple hadn't pushed back against the FBI. Their customers would have been enraged, just as they are now.

They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a business.

The public at large wouldn't have cared just like they don't care when Apple complies with lawful orders for information as they do now [1].

[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelin...

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#52

Post by schoen »

_ptgt wrote: post #26
sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

While I agree with attempts to prevent governments from controlling speech, have spent a fair amount of time working on that, and was disturbed by Apple's role here, I don't think the dichotomy you present works as cleanly as you suggest. State power and culture shape and reinforce each other in an extremely complex way.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#53

Post by pharrington »

_ptgt wrote: post #26
sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

The argument isn't that the lack of political freedom in China is tolerable because that's just how Chinese culture is, but rather that corporations must not be the ones deciding which laws are applicable where.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#54

Post by mcone »

IBM wrote: post #51
mcone wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple isn't a vessel for anyone's foreign policy objectives and it isn't a substitute for the state. You're absolutely right, and you should follow this to its logical conclusion. Apple only does what's in its best interests. The company consistently acts to strengthen its brand whenever possible to make more money. It's irrational to expect a corporation, whether it's Apple or any other entity, to act ethically. E…

>Imagine what would happened, for instance, if Apple hadn't pushed back against the FBI. Their customers would have been enraged, just as they are now. They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a b…

> They absolutely would not have.

Perhaps not. But Apple absolutely benefited from the overwhelmingly positive press coverage it received as a result of their decision to oppose the FBI. And when the FBI withdrew their request, Apple looked like the winner. So yes, I do believe they opposed the FBI in that instance to strengthen their brand.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#55

Post by MBCook »

sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

You're right. That's why neither iMessage nor FaceTime use encryption in china. Because they don't care.

Oh wait, Apple still uses into end encryption in China for both of those so that the Government Camp spy on people.

Getting rid of VPN apps is part of staying in China. So the question you have to ask is which is better for Apple to do: stay trying out without VPNs but keeping their consumer products encrypted whenever possible, or keep VPNs in the store and get all their products kicked out of the country.

If Apple gets kicked out, the no one gets to use VPNs on their iPhones. They don't get to use iPhones at all. They lose the encryption of iMessage in FaceTime.

(and the board may not let them pull out of China to anyway)

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#56

Post by rtpg »

taneq wrote: post #46
rtpg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not their job to do it. It's nobody's job to do it. They still potentially can fix the problem. Wouldn't it be great if they used their influence to help fix things? I agree that there's a "choose your battles" aspect to this. Considering what Apple did with the San Bernandino case, this seems (ideologically) right, but the potential losses are pretty high.

Depending on your viewpoint, it's not even a problem. Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.

It would be hypocritical to say someone is wrong while, on the same point, say someone else is right (despite the actions being the same).

It's not hypocritical to say someone is wrong without mentioning all the other people are wrong. You can't list literally every bad thing that happens in every press release, and you can scope criticism.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#57

Post by thundergolfer »

maus42 wrote: post #50
mikestew wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nobody's job to do it. What I read from that is that you do not think that it is a more appropriate role for, say, the U. S. government. If that is the case, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My POV is that to a large extent the U.s government has that leeway because they don't have financial incentives/disincentives to steer their decisions (this falls apart when viewed in a larger economic sense,…

Sure, if you are an US citizen, you can argue that it should be US government's job to represent your ideals in the wider world. But your government is not the only party responsible for representing your moral or political positions in the world. For example, the US government collectively is not particularly famous for 100% morally upstanding behavior. Granted, the US behaves often better than other great powers, a…

Spot on.

The US Government is supposed to represent the people, and thus must uphold that people's values. The US government is a moral agent.

A person is a moral agent.

Though many here are happy to concede the reality that Apple is comprised of individuals and that it exists as an organisation as a part of society, and just view it as a profit-maximising entity. This is perverse. A corporation is a moral agent, and when it's morality conflicts with it's profits, morality should win. We'd expect nothing less of literally everybody/everything else.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#58

Post by jnbiche »

taneq wrote: post #46
rtpg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not their job to do it. It's nobody's job to do it. They still potentially can fix the problem. Wouldn't it be great if they used their influence to help fix things? I agree that there's a "choose your battles" aspect to this. Considering what Apple did with the San Bernandino case, this seems (ideologically) right, but the potential losses are pretty high.

Depending on your viewpoint, it's not even a problem. Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.

> Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.

Uh, did you miss the whole iPhone/FBI thing here. Not only did many of us in the US (and virtually all of us on HN) accept them telling us that our government was wrong and should change, we relished it! We were glad someone finally stood up to the US government and its surveillance overreach.

Could it be that many, perhaps most, Chinese would think the same way? I suspect so, given how many of them use VPNs there.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#59

Post by maus42 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #31

Why does a western moral standard give Apple the right to break Chinese law? Where do you draw that line? What US laws are ok to break? Should Apple export other US laws like labor standards? If so, Alabama or California law? Like it or not, globalism means that we're participants in a huge global community. Part of being in a community is respecting your neighbors, even when you disagree with them.

As many others commented elsewhere, moral relativism is not very robust ethical system in a global community.

If you ever have kids, why would you teach them some morals over others? Would you teach that some moral standard (pick any! say, "it's not generally okay to steal others' stuff") would just stop by the virtue that they just happen move to different jurisdiction where the government is not interested in e.g. property rights? Or it is okay that just the natives of Thiefmark have their stuff stolen by others? Can you go and take their stuff with you to Hobbiton, given they live in Thiefmark and King Thiofden is not going to punish you for that? What if the raiders of Rohan move to your neighborhood?

This is a different issue whether it makes sense or is productive in the long term to fight against the Chinese law in some particular way. But sensible ethical systems are universal.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#60

Post by AndyMcConachie »

What dangerous precedent? That Apple is a company that is governed by the rule of law?

I find it fundamentally strange that we expect our corporate overlords to do anything other than maximize their profits. I'd certainly like them to do more than that, but I don't have the expectation that they will. And expecting them to break the law, or leave the Chinese market, is simply just crazy.

It sucks that China treats its citizens in this manner, but I plan on abiding by Chinese law the next time I'm in China or I wouldn't go. Why should Apple be any different, and why is this somehow their fault?

Post reply on HN