41–50 of 388 posts
Gruber is taking Ceglowski and HKmap.live's comments at face value, but they aren't disinterested actors. They both have (admirable) agendas in the pro-democracy protests. Of course they're going to characterize the app in the best light possible (it's so you can avoid the protests and avoid inadvertently running into cops). Apple most likely did get legitimate examples of the app being used for that, and that was al…
I can hope, even though it won't happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not intimate enough with any of the parties involved in this situation, so my reply will also be comfortably generic: Yes, it's a reasonable demand. If public opinion is asking something of Apple, and its CEO chooses to answer, every aspect of the answer is open to scrutiny. Gruber indeed lists the specific evidence he would expect: > - When was HKmap.live “used maliciously to target individual officers for viole…
I'm just not sure what that evidence could look like. Like I said, don't we have sufficient evidence that this app was used to organize protests in Hong Kong, and that some protesters in Hong Kong committed violence against officers and against individuals and property where no police were present? As for Hong Kong law, I can agree that it might be nice to cite a specific law, but I also don't find it at all difficul…
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…
My first question is whether the "Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau" is a reliable source of information under the current circumstances. I haven't been reading all the news about the Hong Kong protests, but what I have been reading suggests that China is applying an enormous amount of pressure to halt the protests, or reduce the international visibility of what is happening in Hong Kong. It doesn't…
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…
> His only complaints seems to be the lack of evidence That's seriously disingenuous. His complaints is about how what Tim wrote doesn't make any sense, not about evidence. He only ask for evidence because he is logical, he knows that he may have not thought of everything and could be potentially wrong. > The first allegation is that “the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence”. Thi…
Of course the app doesn't show individual officers, but I don't think it's reasonable to interpret Cook's memo as claiming that the app literally showed the location of individual officers. An app that shows hotspots of police activity can obviously be used to find and target individual officers for violence.
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…
No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet interest and the best interest of their customers.
I hope the FCC can somehow massively fine Apple for this. It's completely disgusting and pathetic. I can hope, even though it won't happen.
Apple's supply chain is China-based. If Apple doesn't pull app, then China's leadership probably shuts down that supply chain. China's leadership doesn't give a damn about Apple or Foxcomm or even the NBA. It's probably a real blow to Tim Cook since he is famous for setting up such an amazing supply chain. He put Apple in such a dangerous position. He caved and made up an excuse.
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…
Would it not make more sense, in such a highly charged political environment, that Apple should tie their own hands and only remove the app at the mandate of a court order? 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 n…
But it seems very plausible to me that Apple was presented with credible information that this app was being used to organize violent attacks and that Apple made a reasonable choice to ban the app according to Apple's policies about following local laws as well as Apple's internal policies about apps causing harm. I think that can be the case regardless of anyone at Apple's views about the merits of the Hong Kong protests as a whole.