371–380 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cook has said repeatedly that they can't buy the labor they have available n China ta any price anywhere in the world. It's not a problem they can throw money at unfortunately.
Why couldn't they cut into their profit margins if he cared that much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the only possible model. You can also have wholly foreign owned Chinese subsidiaries in the free trade zone if you get the appropriate licenses granted. Forgot the details though, sorry. That setup is apparently relatively "easy" for trade with physical goods, our lawyers told us some years ago, but wanting to do e-commerce without selling physical items meant all sorts of additional licenses had to be sou…
> That setup is apparently relatively "easy" for trade with physical goods, our lawyers told us some years ago, [...] As someone who is going through this process currently (WFOE), the easiness of the thing was probably exaggerated by your lawyers ;). The most annoying thing is that it is quite hard to get a definitive answer of the kind of licenses one needs, who grants them, and especially the criteria to meet.
Yeah, it's qualitatively the same problem. Just there is prior art for physical goods. And I put the "easy" in scare quotes for a reason! Good luck!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. > Second, damages from having your illegal actions uncovered aren't recoverable when there's a valid warrant, it would be clearly against public policy. As I said, some of them are innocent and don't have any illegal actions to uncover. > if somehow there was a theory of liability it would be capped at the cost of the phone, which is negligible. They can sue for additio…
I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. In the counterfactual world where Apple made the software, I doubt there'd be any suits against Apple for it, and it likely wouldn't even be public. Remember, the only times they would get a warrant is when they already have the phone in their possession, and there'd be no reason to let the suspect know they cracked the p…
Which public policy?
> shouldn't Apple be equally as liabile for making phones that the police can crack, even if they don't use Apple to crack them?
An enterprising lawyer can certainly find clients and file this lawsuit.
Are there any alternative explanations? Why do you think Apple fought the case? The owners of the device wanted the data extracted, but Apple refused. The FBI told Apple that Apple could keep the build that allows brute-forcing the pin code and never give it to anyone else, so it would be secured just as much as the key used to sign the system image. Apple was about to get huge egg on its face, and it simply distracted everybody by refusing to comply with a completely reasonable request while quietly changing their Privacy page. A company that truly cared about privacy would admit their slip up and offer a way for their customers to get a device that actually gave them the security that Apple had told them the devices they bought had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. In the counterfactual world where Apple made the software, I doubt there'd be any suits against Apple for it, and it likely wouldn't even be public. Remember, the only times they would get a warrant is when they already have the phone in their possession, and there'd be no reason to let the suspect know they cracked the p…
> I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. Which public policy? > shouldn't Apple be equally as liabile for making phones that the police can crack, even if they don't use Apple to crack them? An enterprising lawyer can certainly find clients and file this lawsuit. Are there any alternative explanations? Why do you think Apple fought the case? The owners of the…
Courts can and do rule based on what they perceive is in the public interest in the absence of any particular statute saying so. Imposing liability for complying with a court order seems unlikely to be considered in the public interest.
>Are there any alternative explanations?
Apple correctly thought they'd get a lot of positive PR with little downside.
>A company that truly cared about privacy would admit their slip up and offer a way for their customers to get a device that actually gave them the security that Apple had told them the devices they bought had
They basically did this with Secure Enclave. There's no PR benefit to admitting they could technically do something that they've never done, so its not surprising they didn't announce that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment has made a really really deep impression on me. For the past several years, I’ve been a hardcore Apple loyalist only for their stance on privacy and security. It’s time to stop being deluded. I’m going to stop paying premium for apple and assume all my devices are hostile by default. What the actual fuck Apple.
Before you made such judgement you need to think why you have freedom of speech and privacy here, because they all protected by US laws. The companies here can do things against government for protecting users privacy and security is because laws protected them. Also, the privacy people talked about these days is more focusing on how these data got stored and used by companies and advertisement agencies. They shouldn…
I honestly don't think that you can assume your data is safe in the US. The laws are lax and not well-enforced (and are mostly civil in nature anyway). The US may be better than China on this score, but it's worse than a lot of other modern nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they're looking out for their own beet [sic] interest and the best interest of their customers I'm sure you think you just explained this, but it completely escaped me. How is yanking this app in the best interest of their customers? Let's break "their customers" into 3 groups: 1. Protestors in HK. It clearly isn't in their best interest . So not those customers, right? 2. Non-protestors in China (including HK). Yo…
Perhaps it could be argued that Apple is completely dependent on manufacturing facilities within China and losing that access would indeed be lethal. Some of Apple's biggest competitors outside China recognized that risk a long time ago and moved to minimize it. Why has Apple left themselves so vulnerable? Is it the only way they could produce inexpensively enough to stay competitive? Or is it, again, pure naked gree…
I hope you’re joking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I was thinking about the complexity of the world the other day, and how so many people hold diametrically opposed beliefs, but often based on solid reasoning and genuine facts. How could this be? If you think about it, the modern world is so complex, with…
> …the modern world is so complex… […] …with all of the inter-connected, Nth order cause and effect going on, how is a person who wants to be as objective as possible supposed to actually come up with a reasonable model of what's going on, even if they're willing to put in the work? If you don't already watch it, you may really enjoy "The Good Place". (Any additional elaboration would be a spoiler.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think that could be a valid choice for Apple to make, and I think reasonable people could disagree about which choice Apple ended up making. 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 inte…
And what of Twitter and Telegram and Messenger and Gmail and Weechat and Outlook?
This is also the same organization whose spokesperson that called a protestor being brutalized by officers a "yellow object" and who have been routinely documented fabricating evidence. Taking their word at face value is patently absurd.
Tim's statement doesn't add up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should users believe that (closed source) iMessage encryption is free from backdoors That's an easy one: the encryption happens client side and thus any backdoor has to sit on the clients and, if it exists, would be available to security researchers. There is no guarantee of it happening, but I believe some of those researchers reverse engineer whatever binary apple published and then check it for backdoors. Of…
Doctored binaries (that leak private keys) can be sent to only select devices of a people under surveillance. So reverse-engineering generally available app will show nothing. Apple REALLY must be coerced into allowing app sideloading (and accept push notifications not only through APNS)
Or they could just beef up progressive web apps...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "iCloud services and all the data you store with iCloud, including photos, videos, documents, and backups, will be subject to the new terms and conditions of iCloud operated by GCBD." How do I know if my data is on the Chinese iCloud? I've been to China once and connected to iCloud.
My understanding is that it's based on the region setting of your phone, but I'd be happy to be corrected.
As one can log in and out of multiple Apple IDs (from different countries) in the App Store without breaking anything synced with one's primary iCloud account, it's very likely that Apple encourages this as a best practice.