Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Pulling Apps By Iranian Developers From The App Store To Comply With US Sanctions (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Apple is pulling apps created by Iranian developers that are specifically designed for people in Iran from its App Stores to comply with US sanctions, The New York Times reports. Apple does not sell its products in Iran and an Iranian version of the Apple App Store doesn't exist, but smuggled iPhones are popular among wealthy Iranians. Iranian developers have created thousands of apps for these users and offer them on App Stores in other countries including the US App Store. For the last few weeks, Apple has been removing Iranian food delivery and shopping apps, and on Thursday, it removed Snapp, an Uber-like ride hailing app that is popular in Iran.
Way to go Trump administration! This is how we will make peace with the Iranian people.
Did something just happen to trigger this? The decades old US sanctions against Iran were partially lifted on January 16, 2016. Why does Apple suddenly feel the need to clamp down now?
You just rent your hardware and software from Apple, you don't own it. Silly people.
Iraq and Iran are two different countries.
Apple also recently removed VPN apps used by Chinese people to avoid the Great Firewall and read and say things their govt doesn't want them to read and say, after pressure from the Chinese government.
Central control is dangerous, even when the party with the control is a "good guy". They can be leaned on by others with the power to hurt them, and have to do that other's bidding. Or they can just screw up and brick 100 million IoT devices which are centrally controlled.
The original idea of the internet was DEcentralization, but consumer behavior has pushed towards more and more centralization. Not just Apple, look also to Facebook and others gaining control over what used to be a distributed communication network. That centralization plays right into the hands of authoritarian all over the world who see themself as the masters of everyone else.
Be careful! If we destroy the decentralized internet, it will be very hard to ever get it back.
So you offered criticism but no solution. Other than sanctions, how do you pressure a rogue that threatens other nations with annihilation into complying with nuclear weapons sanctions?
BTW, sanctions or no sanctions, it's not like the Iranian people -- the overwhelming majority of whom are poor -- aren't going to suffer at the hands of the powerful./p?
...removing Iranian food delivery and shopping apps, and on Thursday, it removed Snapp, an Uber-like ride hailing app that is popular in Iran.
Thus neutralising yet another key component of Iran's uranium enrichment industry's supply chain ... or not.
Not sure, it doesn't seem like many people gave the US any sanctions when they actually did use them so the point about sanctions is grandstanding by bigger nations, thus the argument is moot.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Okay so 200 years ago, people used to drink strychnine "for health benefits". I offer to you that strychnine is actually toxic and detrimental to your health in any quantity that has any effect whatsoever, and you should stop drinking it.
You might have noticed my criticism was that we're proving to the Iranian people that they should definitely support their government in destroying the amoral United States which has wrongly attacked them and caused suffering and death to innocent women and children. We're giving their government the moral support of their people to rally war against us. We're giving them the weapons they need to fight us more-effectively.
Administrative incompetence is said to be the deciding factor in America's loss of the Korean war. A lack of moral support among the American people is said to be the deciding factor in America's loss of the Vietnam war. By imposing these sanctions, we're working to ensure Iran's fight against America won't be Iran's Vietnam.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The thing is that sanctions hardly change anything. The sanctioned countries radicalize even more and hatred grows within the population because many end up thinking that the US is to blame for their poverty (which might or not be true). I don't have a solution for this problem, but perhaps it all starts calling them "rogue" just because they have a different mindset. I don't think Iran will start nuking everyone else just because they have nuclear power. Cuba is not going to invade other countries. North Korea would bomb Seoul back to the stone age with or without sanctions if they were to do it. This is more a "legalize it" kind of debate, I think.
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
one poke in the eye at a time.
How is Iran a rogue nation? What right do we have to criticise them? A country that has not posed a threat to anyone wants the right to defend itself from those (including the US) that threaten it. Why shouldn't they? Instead going around threatening countries the one thing that would work far better would be an incentive to take a different path. The US has never tried that. The Iranians are not a poor people as you suggest and if you went there you would be shocked by how different it is to the propaganda on TV. Iraq was a major ally of ours in that area until out of the blue we destroyed a civilised country as thanks for helping us. We did not beat Iraq as they relied on us for their defence so in reality we beat ourselves. Yes, Iraq gassed Kurds with gas we supplied and using aircraft we were the ground crew for and knew the flight plans of. They attacked Iran for us several times with WMDs we gave them. So Iran has good reason to believe that we will do harm and that they do have good reason to do all they can to defend themselves and also that doing what the US is bullying them to do will not get a good result. Why should they, a long time enemy expect better than a long time ally? They have no reason whatsoever to roll over and every reason to develop whatever they can to defend themselves.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Sorry, we do not like democracy. Syria was a good secular democracy with a leader that keeps getting over 90% of the vote, so we are busy trying to turn it into a terrorist run hell hole. Iraq was also a secular democracy so we destroyed it and turned it into a terrorist hell hole. Libya was a representative democracy that had a lot to teach the US but we destroyed it and turned it into a terrorist hell hole. I think these countries see a pattern and know that the US destroys democracies. Some stupid fat guy named his country the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and look where that is going. No, democracy gets you destroyed.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Exactly what I was thinking. They should have known better than to buy iPhones; Apple is infamous for this kind of thing.
First, you put sanctions on the bastards who messed up Iran placing tyrants into power.
Well they're pretty much all dead now. So their "descendants", as in those that now hold those positions or modern equivalent? Well if you're talking from a US perspective they're your "besties" so sanctions won't be high on the agenda.
I'll add this sort of thing to my lengthy list of reasons that you don't want to be locked into a walled garden: it subjects you further to the vagaries of international politics.
Sums it up well. They saw what happened to Iraq. Why wouldn't they want nukes to defend themselves? Can't blame them one bit.
The apps Apple is pulling are specifically ones that were produced by Iranian developers in the first place.
Pretty much the same thing I said, yeah, though you got modded up and I got +0 Flamebait. Probably not for putting "Iranian" instead of "Iraqi" talking about when we dropped bags of food.
It's not like it's an unfounded assertion. Economic sanctions really do mainly attack a country by starving out its labor force--the civilian population providing the economic productivity which runs the nation-state--which is a less-ugly form of bombing schools and hospitals. If we're going to use force, we should use force on military targets. It's not like we won't win by means of having a ginormous military machine to smash their little toys into powder.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I am a balanced person who can see the merits of Iran. Iran has a lot going for it, historically & today.
- Iran has an amazing historical art, Zoroastrian origins, historical precedents in human rights & rights of mothers with state-care, and medicine & math.
- Iran was a progressive country until the 70's/80's.
BUT when you say
>A country that has not posed a threat to anyone...
You are really showing a lack of world knowledge.
- Iran routinely threatens the infidel Israel, the white-devil USA, and even other Islamic nations.
- Iran threatens its own people through strict dress-code police and jailing vocal dissidents.
- Iran builds threatening tech that it sends to North Korea, a country that threatens the West daily.
- Iran is very vocal about its desire for a flaming Israel & USA, (west in general), and actively supports/finances terrorism (in other countries).
Iran has been quiet for a few years, maybe that's why you forgot. They have recently been in the news again for some of the things mentioned above.
Welcome to A/C's refresher course.
Technically, a country is considered "rogue" if it does not play in the UN's various treaty regimes (e.g., IAEA) , or violate terms of a UN security council resolution (e.g., United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 disallowing Iran to test ballistic missile tech).
Probably isn't "fair", but things in geo-politics are rarely ever fair.
Despite president Carter's totally inept handling of the Shah (despite being warned by the State Department) that resulted in the anti-USA escalation after his overthrow, I doubt the USA will soon forgive Iran for allowing the embassy to be overrun and the subsequent taking the hostages (non "rogue" nations are supposed to respect diplomatic immunity and simply "expel" diplomats). I suspect the USA will continue to apply the "rogue" label (whether still actually true or not) w/o giving them the benefit of the doubt for the for the foreseeable future as long as their interests are not aligned to the USA.
FWIW, it appears that Iran and Israel are pretty much aligned for conflict soon. Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hezbollah's increasing role in the ISIL/Syria war mean that if al-Assad and Syria prevail (and it looks likely), Hezbollah will effectively be once again primed for mobilization against Israel. I doubt Israel will like that scenario and I doubt that Iran's interests in this matter aligns with the USA's interests in the region so I guess Iran will continue to wear the "rogue" label for a while.
While Trump has spoken about the need for peace w/ Russia, as well as urging peace b/w Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palis, he's never said that he wants peace w/ 'the Iranian people' (which is about as represented by their regime as Castro or Maduro represent the Cuban or Venezuelan people)
So this will prevent Iranians from having any use for iPhones, and shuts Apple out of that market. Although I wonder - why now? They could have done it all this while to protest Iran's persecution of LGBTQ people. Also, would Iran be able to use rooted Android phones w/o access to Google's Play store?
The other question - has US fully put back the sanctions on Iran? Whatever it's done can't be adequate, since Europe & Russia are no longer a part of the sanctions regime
sanctions against whole countries (particularly non-democratic) hurt way more innocent people than the perpetrators of whatever misdeeds sanctions aim to stop.
target specific bad acting individuals.
Because if history has shown us one thing, it's that unprovoked bombings in countries that pose no realistic threat to us achieves lasting success.
Israel's raids on Iraq's, and a few years ago, Syria's, attempts to build nukes did! Both countries switched their focus to chemical/biological weapons.
And both countries were run by rulers who were committed to wiping Israel off the map. Countries that fought wars against Israel in the past, so not sure what you mean by 'realistic threat'
Of course this is bullying of those nations who have nuclear technology against those who don't... What gives one country more of a right to develop nuclear technologies than any other? It's basically bullying and keeping smaller countries "in their place". Look at existing countries which *do* have nuclear weapons such as pakistan. They're not stupid enough to actually use those weapons because they know the retaliation would immediately wipe them out, but simply having them gives them a much louder voice and stops other countries from pushing them around and making unreasonable demands against them.
Communist countries having nukes, while tragic, had one saving grace: since they were interested in self preservation, they never actually used those, as that would inevitably provoke a counter-attack. Even in North Korea's case, despite the sabre-rattling, they've not gone that far.
Islamic countries having nukes are different. Since they're capable of suicide attacks and indeed have eschatological ambitions, they are more likely to use it than not. Pakistan having nukes is bad enough, and so would be the case w/ Iran. Also, if Iran gets it, you can bet that the Saudis would give Pakistan all the money they want to get a portion of that arsenal. Everybody here who rants about the Saudis and their Islamic extremism will have that to chew on!
The part that the White House opposed was denying the president the authority to lift those sanctions w/o Senate approval. They ought to have challenged it in court on constitutional grounds.
If the president is the commander in chief and can declare wars, an extension of that authority is that he can also end wars and declare peace. Imposing or lifting sanctions are extensions of that, since many countries often choose to diplomatically regard that as a de-facto declaration of war. In fact, in WWII, Japan pretty much resented US sanctions on it due to its occupation of China, which is what caused Pearl Harbor. So regardless of where one stands on Trump's views on Russia, it's dangerous to leave the question of sanctions in the hands of war mongers like McCain, Graham, Rubio et al
Okay, Cuba is a great example of why sanctions are a moral policy. Only the US has (actually now had) sanctions against Cuba. Every other country in the world has normal trade relations w/ Cuba: much of its trade is w/ Europe. Despite all that, the Cuban people continue to live in abject poverty and oppression.
Those who make the argument that sanctions only hurt people, not the government can learn from this example. Even not having sanctions has hurt the Cuban people. At this stage though, it's just a case of waiting for Raul Castro to die out, and hope that the Communist Party implodes thereafter
The reason sanctions worked in the case of South Africa is that they weren't a dictatorship: they did care about what happened at least to their White people, and also, they did care what European countries and the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand thought about them.
Neither of these applies to Iran, Cuba or North Korea