51–60 of 388 posts
> In this case, we thoroughly reviewed [the facts], and we believe this decision best protects our users. 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?
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.
> In this case, we thoroughly reviewed [the facts], and we believe this decision best protects our users. 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?
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…
The US isn't a closed market and can't effectively eject Apple from the market. While I disagree with the choice Apple made, it's a very rational one. Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, and massively worse for Apple in the short term. No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet…
I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US isn't a closed market and can't effectively eject Apple from the market. While I disagree with the choice Apple made, it's a very rational one. Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, and massively worse for Apple in the short term. No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet…
> Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.
Are you saying that would have no effect on freedom for the users?
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…
The US isn't a closed market and can't effectively eject Apple from the market. While I disagree with the choice Apple made, it's a very rational one. Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, and massively worse for Apple in the short term. No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet…
How does Apple advance freedom in China?
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…
The US isn't a closed market and can't effectively eject Apple from the market. While I disagree with the choice Apple made, it's a very rational one. Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, and massively worse for Apple in the short term. No company should be expected to back or foment a revolution somewhere, from my perspective they're looking out for their own beet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Permanent removal from China would probably be worse for freedom in China over 20 years, I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.
Because they would be replaced by local Chinese companies. Are you saying that would have no effect on freedom for the users?
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…
The complaint is that Cook's claims are extraordinary and seemingly impossible on their face because of the fundamental nature of the app in question. Its purpose is to show the aggregated position of large concentrations of police, so as to let users avoid confrontations with them. How can such an app be used to "target individual officers for violence", since it provides no information about individual officers?
When so extraordinary a claim is made, hearsay evidence isn't the issue. What is necessary is an explanation of how the seemingly impossible is possible. Cook does not provide this or even address the apparent problem. A neutral person, reading Cook's memo without the proper background, might be mislead into believing the app in question does provide tracking of individual police officers. I don't accept this is an accident on Cook's part. I think he is deliberately attempting to mislead his own employees regarding the nature of the app, and as a consequence his decision to ban it.
Cook's cited but unenumerated "credible" information received from a government body and users only compounds the situation. Cook could provide plenty of additional material to support his claim. He could provide more detailed information on exactly what information was received, in what volume, and in what form. He could explain the efforts the company undertook to perform independent corroboration of the evidence. He could provide a detailed account of why, in this case, he believes an autocratic government currently conducting a brutal repression of its own citizens can be trusted to communicate honestly about it, given neither it, nor any similar autocratic government, has ever spoken honestly about similar situations in the past.
Fundamentally, the problem isn't whatever evidence does or does not exist. It is that Cook's memo is a weak, politician's attempt to justify a misdeed by making absurd claims for which he provides no evidence at all. He is trying to make a problem go away, not engage with a difficult situation as a human being.