11–20 of 388 posts
hacker news admins should investigate the downvote patterns on articles critical of china ...there seems to be a very strong downward pressure on articles critical of china — so much that i suspect there may be a down vote ring..
Also, HN explicitly will remove posts that offer nothing but flamewar bait. Both algorithmically and manually.
I wonder if they have to do this to keep their supply-chain open. Now would be a good time to take that $200bn and invest in some new factories.
When I read Tim Cook's letter, this line at the end jumped out to me as super off. Even if everything else was completely true, how would this decision protect Apple users? Unless all the police have iPhones?
hacker news admins should investigate the downvote patterns on articles critical of china ...there seems to be a very strong downward pressure on articles critical of china — so much that i suspect there may be a down vote ring..
Apple caved under pressure from China. The explanation Cook gave is not just an embarrassment, it calls into question the veracity of all of his other statements. Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors when we know that Cook will dance around sensitive truths? And why should the US government be satisfied with a fully encrypted iMessage given that Apple will cave to d…
American politicians are in their pocket. Chinese not so much.
Users buying what you’re asking on the other hand :man-shrugging:
As for me, I sold my Apple stock yesterday. Tim won't miss my $10k. But I won't miss him when I am able to move to a better platform.
What is unconvincing is that an app's potential to be used with crime is sufficient for people to understand Mr. Cook's bright-line, process, or thinking around the matter.
This app was likely being used in ways which critically supported the mitigation of risk to life, a fact which Mr. Cook described only as "benign"; the failure to discuss the balance against the app's relation to public health, and the failure to frame the nature of Hong Kong police and law, makes any attempted weighing suggested by Mr. Cook to be of low credibility as a lens into his process.
Presumably Google Maps, Search, and other apps also facilitates crime at a magnitude well beyond the app in question, but how does the weighing work?
Can I play devil's advocate for just a moment? Gruber asks for evidence. His only complaints seems to be the lack of evidence and a question of whether the app violates local (Hong Kong) law. Cook's memo directly addresses both of those issues: > However, over the past several days we received credible information, from the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau, as well as from users in Hong Kong, that…
It doesn't seem to me to take much of a leap of faith to think that China is applying pressure on the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau to get this app removed.
Can I play devil's advocate for just a moment? Gruber asks for evidence. His only complaints seems to be the lack of evidence and a question of whether the app violates local (Hong Kong) law. Cook's memo directly addresses both of those issues: > However, over the past several days we received credible information, from the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau, as well as from users in Hong Kong, that…
That would make it obvious that Apple is complying with law, and that they haven't "bowed to pressure" from either side.
If there is a claim that the app is violating law, then that should be validated by a judicial process, not by the operating nuances of a company.
If Apple are receiving reports from users that the law is being broken, they should be passing those on to law enforcement, and publicly complying with the response, not acting as their own arbitrator.