Regardless of your opinion on whether it's acceptable, given what is happening in Belarus, that the protestors are working to identify riot police as a way to "fight back"....it's quite interesting (to me at least) that Apple is trying to direct the actions of an app developer after users have already installed that application. Is Apple now the arbitrator of "what computations are allowable on the device you purchased"?
Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
571–580 of 634 posts
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should it be Apple's business to police terrorists? Governments have found it convenient to offload policing to communication companies, via putting liability on them unless they do. I don't think this is the way to go.
I'm a moderate, I didn't say it should be Apple's business, I'm saying maybe it's a good thing if our comms infrastructure affords Apple the flexibility to do this. If Apple wants to change their TOS and say "publishing personal information is now OK", that is one thing. Maybe publishing personal information should be allowed. The point is that there is an intelligent human being weighing tradeoffs and trying to make…
>I'm saying maybe it's a good thing if our comms infrastructure affords Apple the flexibility to do this.
I'm having trouble understanding your point. Apple makes devices. They sell (not rent or lease) those devices.
As such, just as if I were to buy a gun or a knife or a dozen chicken wings, what I do with such a device isn't anyone else's business. It's mine.
If I use that gun or knife to injure or kill someone, is the gun or knife manufacturer involved? No. Because I, not the manufacturer, am responsible for my actions. They have nothing to do with it.
If I insert those chicken wings into orifices other than my mouth, is that any business of the restaurant who sold them to me? No. For the same reasons.
As such, Apple is no more part of the "comms infrastructure" (and especially in this case, as it isn't Apple software -- like iMessage -- being used) than the knife manufacturer is part of my circus knife throwing act.
This issue is broader than the awful stuff going on in Belarus.
Who owns the stuff you purchase? If the manufacturer (and/or other private entities) can unilaterally decide what you can or cannot do with your own property, then you don't really own it.
And there will always be some folks who object to the use of, well, just about anything.
Should the folks at PETA[0] be able to block communications between a group of friends going hunting for deer or quail?
In their understanding, that's exactly the same as a group plotting to kill humans.
The situation in Belarus is more complicated, as it pits the the government against the governed. Even so, I say it's not the place of a manufacturer to tell someone what they may or may not do with a product once it has been sold.
What's more, Telegram needs to decide what happens on their infrastructure and Apple has no business being involved at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme...
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can sideload tiktok on your android if you're so inclined.
So what? If that was a practical means of installing it for most people, the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK.
> the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK.
Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.
I believe it is also possible to share apps via Bluetooth.
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#574Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? Telegram is a platform for user-generated content and it seems odd for Apple to single-out those 3 channels/groups specifically - what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram? And why Telegram in particular? Why doesn't Apple give the same ultimatum to Facebook to pressure them to block access to militant ethnonationalist gro…
>Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though?
I imagine that it's through the terms of the contract signed by Telegram to be allowed into the App Store.
That Apple is flexing its market share (and walled garden) to enforce those terms on Telegram isn't even unusual.
But that doesn't make it ethical or right.
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? If that was a practical means of installing it for most people, the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK.
> the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK. Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.…
>Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.
You mean like the MAFIAA[0] has been doing for decades?
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#576Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…
This seems to match this post, where apple is asking to remove telegram groups used to de-anonymize law enforcement members. Apple could do something really simple if they wanted to not interfeer with how people organize their fight: allow to install apps outside of the app store. This would force law enforcement to deal with Telegram directly rather than being able to take advantage of apple's own authoritarian way…
As this is the inevitable consequence of a platform where a central party controls all software on it, Apple picked profit day 1.
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#577Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? Telegram is a platform for user-generated content and it seems odd for Apple to single-out those 3 channels/groups specifically - what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram? And why Telegram in particular? Why doesn't Apple give the same ultimatum to Facebook to pressure them to block access to militant ethnonationalist gro…
To be fair, Telegram is a total nightmare. It's like bitcoin or Tor and dark web, it may facilitate anonymous free speech, but in doing so, it facilitates a helluva lot of crime. There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
>
To be fair, Telegram is a total nightmare. It's like bitcoin or Tor and dark web, it may facilitate anonymous free speech, but in doing so, it facilitates a helluva lot of crime.
So what? Freedom of speech isn't meant to be just free speech as long as it's approved by some government.
>There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
One of those things is not like the other.
From an ethical standpoint, the only limits on freedom should be those that infringe on the rights of others.
As in, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre one is very different from the other. I agree yelling fire in a crowded place can't be allowed - causes people to panic, because it's not possible to 'unhear' a sound. But posting bomb-making information (or really, any information) should be allowed. This information is voluntarily consumed, so it has no danger…
>This applies to _any_ information, not just bomb making information. Like the information the crowded theater is on fire? I mean I agree, information should be free, but that's a bad way to phrase the argument.
>Like the information the crowded theater is on fire?
Check Holme's quote. It's not "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." It's "Falsely yelling fire..."
Do you see the difference?
In fact, The Schenk[0] case was partially overturned by Brandenberg[1], where that example was superseded by "incitement to imminent lawless action," as it's more specific.
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Belarus government can just block the App store entirely and may, if Apple does not comply. So what??? Protestors are being imprisoned and tortured, they actually hanged protest organizers from trees, as a scare tactic, does Apple really want to go on public record as an enabler of this? It is ethically abhorrent, disgusting and beyond terrifying. If the team responsible for this at Apple is reading this thread…
Are you planning to dox Apple employees? That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands. It seems like a little much to call Apple an ‘enabler’ for being against doxing. Just because protesters use a tactic doesn’t mean everyone needs to support it, especially if it is a tacit call to violence.
Apple is restraining their hands so they can't fight back while they are being punched in the gut. This is not a peaceful act.
Re: Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK. Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.…
>Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites. You mean like the MAFIAA[0] has been doing for decades…
My understanding is that the legal and technical process for getting ISPs to block access to a foreign website is one that takes weeks or months. Also, even with this power, I'm not sure how effective the MAFIAA have been at stopping people from downloading copyrighted media:
https://www.mobiles24.co/downloads/s/96965-m1769-speak_softl...