Slashdot Mirror


Ex-Facebook Security Chief Calls Out Tim Cook and Apple's Practices in China (cnbc.com)

On Wednesday, Tim Cook lambasted at many companies, saying they are weaponizing data against people and societies. Cook's remarks made headlines across the world. But someone reminded that even Apple appears to be bending backwards at places. Agreeing with everything Tim Cook had shared, Alex Stamos, former CSO of Facebook called out the company over its actions to limit access to apps in China. From a report: "We don't want the media to create an incentive structure that ignores treating Chinese citizens as less-deserving of privacy protections because a CEO is willing to bad-mouth the business model of their primary competitor, who uses advertising to subsidize cheaper devices," Stamos said in a series of tweets responding to recent comments made by Apple CEO Tim Cook.

[...] Though Stamos said he agreed with "almost everything" Cook said, in a series of tweets he called out Apple for blocking the ability to download VPN and encrypted messaging apps in China, which could provide ways to connect to the internet and send messages privately and without surveillance.

91 comments

  1. Nothing to see here by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just capitalism making sweet sweet cash helping totalitarian governments control, monitor and report the activities of their serfs/slaves/citizens.

    1. Re: Nothing to see here by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing about Stamos is, he is wrong in one respect. Tim Cook is trying to influence opinions on privacy vs. security by speaking his mind. He isn't flouting law.

      In China, it is law to block those services. Like it or not, their rule of law applies to US companies who do business there. The right way to change laws is to debate and convince law makers (or whatever system you hve arranged to determine what your laws are) and not simply flout them.

      Apple should absolutely follow Chinese law when operating in China, and its employees or management are free to speak their minds when they are here (I don't know if China has free speech laws) if they disagree with those laws.

      We would expect a Chinese company operating in the US to respect American laws when they are operating here, irrespective if they disagree with them.

      Apple has done nothing wrong by trying to follow the law there. Neither for that matter has google. It's just stupid PR that got mishandled.

      I disagree with many laws in the US, but I don't protest them by breaking those laws, I voice my opinions in the hopes that opinion will persuade government to move towards my way of thinking. Tim Cook is doing the same thing.

    2. Re: Nothing to see here by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if China has free speech laws.

      Well, they have the following type of free speech laws, which I will illustrate via a joke from the early 1960s. By the way, my ex-girlfriend, who was born and raised in China, loved this joke because it really hit home for her.

      An American named Jim goes with a tour group to Moscow and while there he meets a local Russian, Ivan. Their conversation goes like this:
      Ivan: So, Jim, you are American. How you like trip to Moscow?
      Jim: I have enjoyed it very much. Red Square is beautiful and there are so many interesting places in Moscow. The Russian people have been very friendly also.
      Ivan: I am glad you like Moscow.
      Jim: But there is one thing I don't like. You don't have freedom here.
      Ivan: What you mean, we don't have freedom here?
      Jim: You can't criticize the government. When I go home, if I want to, I can stand outside the White House and say that the president is a bad man and nobody will arrest me.
      Ivan: Oh, it is the same here. If I want, any day I can go stand outside the Kremlin and say that the American president is a bad man and nobody will arrest me.

    3. Re: Nothing to see here by mspohr · · Score: 2

      He is just following orders.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re: Nothing to see here by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      In other words Tim Cook is furthering the aims of a totalitarian regime. Nice to know you are a fucking ass-hole that doesn't give too shits if people are being screwed over....

    5. Re: Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why not flout a law that you disagree with, as long as you get away with it? The reason US companies obey Chinese law when in China, and Chinese companies obey US law when in US, is because they would be detected and punished. But if you take away detection and punishment, what does obedience have to offer?

      This is all irrespective of speaking your mind. People can try to persuade lawmakers regardless of whether they're obeying or disobeying.

      So is there really a strategic advantage to saying "this law sucks, but I'm going to obey" vs "this law sucks, so I'm going to disobey", if there aren't any negative consequences for the latter? I think there isn't.

    6. Re: Nothing to see here by GNious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not sure Putin will appreciate people trashtalking his employees ...

    7. Re: Nothing to see here by saloomy · · Score: 1

      It's not American businesses job to refute totalitarian regimes. When in Rome, you follow Roman laws. You have an issue with it, contact the State department.

    8. Re: Nothing to see here by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Because that's not how a civilized society works out it's issues. We have all agreed on a system by which our laws are determined. It's called "the consent of the governed".

      Getting away with something doesn't make it right. If you disagree, voice your opinion. Vote. Contribute. Campaign. Run. Get involved in the civic process. Anarchy is a bad alternative.

    9. Re: Nothing to see here by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Apple should absolutely follow Chinese law when operating in China

      What if they employed their world beating creativity in devising methods to skirt paying corporate taxes; towards innovating ways to skirt laws and regulations designed to curtail freedom of speech and expression? Or is that just not profitable enough?

    10. Re: Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Corporations are just organizations of people. And iis everyone's job to oppose totalitarians. This hiding behind the mythical entity of a "business" being anything other than people is nonsense.

    11. Re: Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "the consent of the governed"

      Hahahahahahaha! And if you're a good little boy, Santa Claus will come down the chimney and bring you presents!

    12. Re: Nothing to see here by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      The thing about Stamos is, he is wrong in one respect. Tim Cook is trying to influence opinions on privacy vs. security by speaking his mind.

      I think you missed the point. Mr. Cook spouts off about user privacy, but happily hands over all Chinese user data to the Chinese govt. So privacy is good for US users, but not good for Chinese users. Too bad for them.
      https://www.theverge.com/2018/...

      And the hypocrisy re: Google is that for the most part Google doesn't do business in China, and recently shut down a project that was aimed at providing a China-approved service.
      https://www.wired.com/story/co...

      Don't get me wrong, I think both companies should do business in China. It's better for them to be there in business with caveats than to be locked out completely. That opens the door for them to be a force for change at some later date. But Mr. Cook should be a little more careful about what he says on his marketing parades.

    13. Re: Nothing to see here by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      It's not American businesses job to refute totalitarian regimes.

      That's true, unless the president has a conspiracy theory that the business is plotting against him:
      https://www.wired.com/story/co...

    14. Re: Nothing to see here by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So is there really a strategic advantage to saying "this law sucks, but I'm going to obey" vs "this law sucks, so I'm going to disobey", if there aren't any negative consequences for the latter? I think there isn't.

      Why are you even going down this road? Of course there are consequences to breaking Chinese law. You get kicked out. No more business in China. Not to mention it hurts relations, and results in a more locked down China going forward.

    15. Re: Nothing to see here by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo accidental mod.

    16. Re: Nothing to see here by saloomy · · Score: 1

      What an asshat. If you don't have consent of the governed... you have a revolution. Just ask King Louis of Francs.

    17. Re: Nothing to see here by saloomy · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. In some countries, they want their king. They may be be devout, religious followers of their king. Like England. The Queen has the authority to declare war. To decapitate the government. She has never exercised that power, but she still has it. She doesn't need a drivers license, since it's her country. It's pretty totalitarian but her subjects are mostly in support of her. You can't argue that you as an American (I presume) have the authority to determine how other nations organize themselves. They do. They may ask for help achieving that end, but it's ultimately not your call.

    18. Re: Nothing to see here by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Your eighth-grade 'government' lectures are not serving you well. Such a tool.

    19. Re: Nothing to see here by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The Queen is a bad example as She rules with Parliament and while you're right about her having various reserve powers, if She uses them in a way that is unconstitutional (and the Constitution is unwritten and can be changed by Parliament, at least after brexit), She can and will be deposed, probably in a nice way like Edward VIII, in a mean way like James II or with extreme prejudice like Charles the 1st.
      Better example is the King of Saudi Arabia, and even he bends to international pressure.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re: Nothing to see here by dryeo · · Score: 2

      That's only true to a point and at some point, laws have to be flouted so they can be changed. America was founded by flouting laws. Slavery was ended by flouting laws. Segregation was also ended by flouting laws, people insisting they could ride at the front of the bus even if illegal. Now prohibition is slowly going away due to people flouting the laws.
      Some of these laws would never have changed if people had just discussed them with the law makers. Take prohibition, if everyone obeyed the law, there wouldn't be an argument to end it. Shit my government was convinced in 1973 that prohibiting marijuana was stupid and unethical but it took until last week to end the prohibition. 45 years of people flouting the law before the law was changed and the opposition is still talking about re-illegalizing it, for the same stupid reasons that it was illegal for so long.
      For some things, people are all emotional and do not respond to logic and arguing against their believes gets you nowhere.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    21. Re: Nothing to see here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The right way to change laws is to debate and convince law makers (or whatever system you hve arranged to determine what your laws are) and not simply flout them.

      HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In China there are actually limits even to the way you criticize other leaders. China's leaders value stability over all else, and if you display signs of being zealot, even an Anti-American zealot, then you get monitored or even arrested. Why? Because it's easy to re-channel that anti-foreign sentiment against the Party.

    23. Re: Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple has done nothing wrong by trying to follow the law there."
      Apple had no problem violating US law when they refused to comply with a Federal Warrant to assist in accessing the phone of the terrorist who went on a killing spree in in San Bernardino.

      Apple frames it's commitment to protecting it's users privacy and their data as an ethical endeavor which should be universally adhered to. The truth is their ethics are what ever makes them the most money. In the US people are complaining about a lack of privacy so Apple claims to fully support that and tailors their marketing efforts accordingly. In China the public can only complain about government approved topics and going off script is your ticket to the re-education center. Apple's only concern is maximizing their profit and will do anything the Chinese government tells them too in order to make that profit. Apple is fine with using what amounts to slave labor to cut their manufacturing costs in China. And on top of everything Apple hides it's taxable revenue off shore to avoid paying taxes in the US.

    24. Re: Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah try flouting US sanctions and see how you enjoy the rest of your lives.

      You can be an activist but expecting companies to take go against the law or stay away is a slippery slope.

    25. Re: Nothing to see here by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Because that's not how a civilized society works out it's issues. We have all agreed on a system by which our laws are determined. It's called "the consent of the governed".

      If the government expects us to obey the law, then it should set a better example.

  2. Now I've seen it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Facebook calling someone out for not doing enough to protect everyone's privacy

    Is it April 1st already?

    1. Re:Now I've seen it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Facebook calling someone out for not doing enough to protect everyone's privacy

      Is it April 1st already?

      It is not Facebook, it is Facebook's former Chief Security Officer (C.S.O.) Stamos Alex (Alexandros in Greek), a fellow Greek-American who has some strong opinions about privacy/security (that i may disagree with, but...).

    2. Re:Now I've seen it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it April 1st already?

      Every day is April 1st.

    3. Re:Now I've seen it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook calling someone out for not doing enough to protect everyone's privacy

      Is it April 1st already?

      It is not Facebook, it is Facebook's former Chief Security Officer (C.S.O.) Stamos Alex (Alexandros in Greek), a fellow Greek-American who has some strong opinions about privacy/security (that i may disagree with, but...).

      Former still means he had a hand in it.

    4. Re: Now I've seen it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So George Washington had a hand in Watergate

  3. Not just an Apple problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone selling in China has had to play by the Chinese government rules or face not being able to sell in China. The argument made is interesting. So if Apple gives in to Chinese government regulations in China they shouldn't fight for privacy rights elsewhere and this absolves Google and Facebook from their horrible privacy practices everywhere?

    1. Re:Not just an Apple problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so it's fine that Apple is complying with Chinese data requests, but flipping the bird at the FBI after a terrorist attack, claiming that they can't?

    2. Re:Not just an Apple problem by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So if Apple gives in to Chinese government regulations in China they shouldn't fight for privacy rights elsewhere and this absolves Google and Facebook from their horrible privacy practices everywhere?

      Google doesn't do business in China (for the most part). Apple does. Should Google trot out their CEO and have him start pointing the finger at Apple for doing business there?

  4. Following local law is unethical? by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see nothing hypocritical here. In one case they are forced to follow local chinese laws that the US finds repugnant. The other is selling private data which isn't covered by US laws mostly.

    In actual fact in the US we also allow authorities to demand access to data. Apple is actually making technology that prevents that from being abused. Whereas other's are selling the data they harvest either directly or through what they allow the apps to collect.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Following local law is unethical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a nice side step and a red herring, but understandable one given the different attitudes towards governments and law globally. I suspect that Stamos would have profitable career as a US congressman or a senator.

    2. Re:Following local law is unethical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've never exactly been a big fan of Apple, but let's be clear here, there's a distinct difference between Apple who is following local laws that force it to not protect privacy and Facebook breakinglocal laws that protect privacy.

      There's a reason Facebook got slapped with the maximum possible fine in the UK today for acting illegally in it's handling of personal data.

      This is kind of like, "Yeah we're cunts because we raped, tortured, then murdered your children, but those guys over there got a speeding ticket once so they're obviously just as bad and can't possible criticise us!".

  5. I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure China bans the use of snooping protections on the internet - much the same way many states in the US ban radar detectors.
    I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.

    1. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure China bans the use of snooping protections on the internet ...

      Yeah, that's because the Chinese goobers snoop on their citizens... oops, I mean oppressed underlings. Big companies are enabling the Chinese goobers to oppress (i.e. harm people) so that makes Apple and Google complicit.

    2. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by PPH · · Score: 1

      At least Chinese people can avoid snooping by their government by leaving the country. No such luck for US persons.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.

      No, that is reserved for Google.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radar detectors are not banned, you moron.

    5. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radar detectors are not banned, you moron.

      Actually, they are in some states.... but hey, I guess a little google-fu was too much for you to handle before resorting to personal attacks.

    6. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why Google should be encouraging people in China to use VPNs and refuse to "operate" in China. The real problem with that is Google has no issue fiddling with its search results to get a foothold in China even though there is literally no way that the Chinese government would ever allow Google to have anything close to the sort of position it has in other countries: it puts its own state backed businesses first to keep work (and control) local.

    7. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.

      Can you fault Google for following the laws of the country they operate in?

      Just a little perspective: the consequences of Google storing my search queries is targeted ads. The consequences of Apple letting the Chinese govt control their servers is imprisonment or death for Chinese citizens.

    8. Re: I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      They are also banned in Canada.

    9. Re:I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's just the fucking tax and bank reporting laws. If you're a US citizen, EVERYTHING you do overseas involving money gets reported back to the mothership.

  6. FB recently got hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Via a ridiculously simple method

    Therefore, ex security chief's word is trash.

  7. ##announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yo can you guys not use ##announcement tabs as advertisements for your stupid mainframe garbage?

    Thanks.

  8. Re:Marketing by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    I think they do care about privacy, but whether it's for philosophical reasons or simply as a matter of good business (i.e., marketing and PR) is up for debate.

    If you look at what they do as a company, a lot of their products or services are designed to make it harder to access personal data. You can cynically argue that they only do this because it's a blow to their competition that thrives off being able to sell that data as opposed to Apple who gets by selling expensive gadgets, but from my perspective as a consumer, I don't care if the product does more to protect my privacy. If Apple does it purely out of greed or a desire to destroy their competition, I'm no better or worse off than if they do it because of some deeply held principles on the part of everyone working there.

    Maybe they don't care about privacy as much as you would like them to, but I think they do a better job of it than most other companies and I hope they continue to make improvements in those areas.

  9. China has Apple by the balls by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Though Stamos said he agreed with "almost everything" Cook said, in a series of tweets he called out Apple for blocking the ability to download VPN and encrypted messaging apps in China, which could provide ways to connect to the internet and send messages privately and without surveillance.

    It's easy to take the moral high ground when you have nothing at stake. While ethically he probably has a valid point, Apple along with every other maker of electronics has a problem. Apple's products are mostly made in China and there aren't a lot of good alternative manufacturing options currently for the sorts of volumes and products Apple needs to make. China has a rather scary high percentage of market share in the electronics industry. It's rare to find a product that doesn't have significant China content in it. Therefore China's government has Apple by the balls if they don't cooperate with China's state surveillance policies.

    Now this is to some degree a problem of Apple's own making and it doesn't excuse their behavior in cooperating with this sort of oppression. But we can understand why they do what they do even if we don't approve. Yes it makes them hypocrites to some degree but I'm not sure how much of a choice they realistically have right at this moment.

    1. Re:China has Apple by the balls by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah rationalizing. I think that's what some Germans said when Hitler came to power too.

    2. Re:China has Apple by the balls by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      But how hard do they squeeze? That is to say, could or have the Chinese government forced Apple to put backdoors into iOS to spy on other nation states?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:China has Apple by the balls by CapS · · Score: 2

      Apple could set up production elsewhere and refuse to sell devices in China. But that likely would take them even further from discussions with China about changing their laws.

    4. Re: China has Apple by the balls by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      "Discussions with China about changing their law????"

      China has close to 1,000,000 people of Islamic background in re-education camps today, right now.

      I suppose there could be a "People's Friendship Association" that Apple could participate in. Perhaps Apple could work to promote recycling, or unisex restrooms in China.

    5. Re:China has Apple by the balls by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      I suspect Apple has enough cash on hand to build a complete toolchain from scratch, from silicon refinery to component manufacture, chip foundry and final assembly.

    6. Re:China has Apple by the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that China is positioning itself to control the majority of the rare earth supply. Moving factories is only a small part of this discussion...

  10. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly! Just more apple marketing bullshit and lies.

  11. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no, they totally care about privacy, they just care immensely more about $

  12. Choices and consequences by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.

    Oh I can fault them for it. They made the choice to do business in China and they get to live with the consequences both good and bad. I understand that they are in a pickle since China could shut them down in a heartbeat if they didn't follow China's laws. But Apple put key parts of their supply chain voluntarily under Chinese authority and so they basically handed their spine to the Chinese government in the process. I get why Apple did what they did but they don't get off the hook ethically just because they painted themselves into a corner.

    1. Re:Choices and consequences by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I get why Apple did what they did but they don't get off the hook ethically just because they painted themselves into a corner.

      Fortunately, Apple is the only company in th eworld that has entered into the unholy evil of the Chinese. We should put them out of business, euthanize Cook and everyone else, and allow companies that do not bend to the communist Chinese demands like Google, who have never compromised their principles - and never will.

      Android has a perfect track record of Truth, Justice, and the American way. And fortunately, no Android phones or components are made in China, everything is made in the USA.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  13. oh bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is publicly refusing the FBI data off iPhones while funneling data to the Chinese government. This isn't a "play by the local laws" thing, it's blatantly illegal behavior by a multinational that thinks it's above the law.

    1. Re:oh bullshit by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Apple is publicly refusing the FBI data off iPhones while funneling data to the Chinese government. This isn't a "play by the local laws" thing, it's blatantly illegal behavior by a multinational that thinks it's above the law.

      Please cite the specific law that was violated.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    2. Re:oh bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The All Writs act of 1798 is the law that Apple violated when they refused to comply with the district court order to help the FBI extract data from the San Bernardino shooter.

      Nice try at misdirection, but I call your [citation needed] bluff.

    3. Re: oh bullshit by saloomy · · Score: 2

      To comply with the all writs act, would violate their first amendment right not to speak (or write software) by being compelled to by law.

      Since in this case the two laws were contradictory, the courts needed to sort it out.

      Oh, and get off your high-horse. You look like an idiot riding it with a dunce hat on.

    4. Re: oh bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, so can we blow off all subpoenas? Because that's your argument. By your same argument, the court can't compel testimony to be honest, because that's a violation of free speech. And clearly, writing software is speech, because that software is clearly public.

      No, the court order did not compel Apple to write software. The order was very well written to give Apple the ability to aid in roughly any manner that give the FBI access to the evidence. Among approaches available to Apple were also to give a signing key to the FBI, to modify the signing key on the phone, to extract the data and give only that to the FBI, and some others that didn't require any software to be written. Now, modifying a parameter in already published software, and signing that modified software was the most obvious approach, but it was most certainly not compelled in the court order.

    5. Re:oh bullshit by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      The All Writs act of 1798 is the law that Apple violated when they refused to comply with the district court order to help the FBI extract data from the San Bernardino shooter.

      Nice try at misdirection, but I call your [citation needed] bluff.

      Incorrect. Apple's argument wasn't "we don't want to" it was "we can't, we don't have the keys". They did comply and supplied all the info they had access to from iCloud and the like. The argument was over whether Apple should be required to try to hack their own OS, but this was never tested in court since the FBI didn't pursue it.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:oh bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "we don't have the keys" argument is a bald lie, as they publish updates to the security subsystem.

    7. Re: oh bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me thinks you don't know how computers work.

    8. Re: oh bullshit by saloomy · · Score: 1

      No you can not just "blow off all subpoenas". The court orders you to show up, if you feel that you don't want to, you can argue your case, the court (which issued the subpoena) will hear you out and throw you out anyway.

      Apple didn't have the ability to open the phone, without writing software to bypass authentication, and signing the software so the phone adopted it. They would have had to write a version that works differently. They didn't feel they had to, since it would violate their first amendment rights. So... they went to court to argue that.

    9. Re: oh bullshit by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Cool, so can we blow off all subpoenas? Because that's your argument. By your same argument, the court can't compel testimony to be honest, because that's a violation of free speech. And clearly, writing software is speech, because that software is clearly public.

      That was not illegal for Apple to do. Because Apple has no other standing to challenge the subpoena in court, for instance they have no privacy interest in the data, they *must* violate the subpoena, or in this case the All Writs Act, in order to generate their own standing to challenge it in court. They can not follow the subpoena but also challenge it because then they would have no standing to challenge it and the court would dismiss their challenge for lack of standing.

      Microsoft had to do the same thing in the recent case where the court ordered them to take action to retrieve data from overseas.

  14. Re:Marketing by Luthair · · Score: 0

    I don't believe they did - recall they tried and failed to launch a social network (Ping), they also tried and failed at advertising with iAd. Articles also suggest that Apple is trying again at their hand at advertising. They also collect telemetry, have a record of every purchase you make on their devices, and if you're dumb enough from stores when you use Apple Pay

    Apple is also often misleading in their messaging about data encryption (hint data being encrypted when Apple has the keys is moot).

  15. China is not the US or Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stamos is a idiot, China is not a free society built on a government who provides people with rights to privacy. We complain about a lot of intrusions but its nothing like what has always been the case in China. As with Google's search interest with China, if you want a piece of China you have to work within those restrictions. Maybe Stamos wasn't born yet when the great political cleansing that happens when people revolt, its quickly squashed and removed.

  16. Morality from the cheap seats by sjbe · · Score: 0

    Ah rationalizing. I think that's what some Germans said when Hitler came to power too.

    Didn't take you long to Godwin this conversation.

    So your take on it is that Apple should shut down all production immediately and cease operations because China has laws you don't approve of and that Apple has no power to change? Great plan...

  17. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If you look at what they do as a company, a lot of their products or services are designed to make it harder to access personal data.

    No, their products are designed to extract as much value as possible from that data, and leaking it to other entities reduces the value. Apple's corporate culture is much, much more cynical than Google. Remember, Google walked out of China. Apple walked in.

  18. Wait, the former Yahoo CSO is doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, let me get this straight... Alex Stamos, infamous attention whore and overseer of the _biggest password breach of all time_ while he was CSO at Yahoo... is criticizing Tim Cook on how to run a company in terms of security? The only smartphone manufacturer with a built-in TPM that isn't complete shit? And has reasonable supply chain security?

    Ok, Alex. Keep stuffing your dick into random mailboxes you fuckwitted sack of shit.

  19. Re:Marketing by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    You can have a social network or advertising platform without scummy behavior related to data practices. I don't see how attempting to do either is a mark against Apple and neither of those efforts seem to exist. I suspect that Apple failed in part because advertising is more effective when you do collect all manner of data on people and that not having the ability to target ads in that way, makes them much less valuable. Ping was also only related to music, which made it niche and non-viable from day one even if people had any interest in using it.

    As far as purchase records go, they have to keep them due to U.S. laws (or those of other jurisdictions) related to records of financial transactions. Any other payment service is going to have the same records and the same option of selling information mined from those records. The question is whether or not Apple sells any of that information or do anything else with it, even if only for their own internal use. I don't use Apple Pay so I've never bothered to look into it.

  20. Re:Marketing by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Apple shills with mod points today ^.^

  21. Security keys by Harry_Bawls · · Score: 0

    Didn't Tim happily hand over the keys to their encryption tech to the Chinese government and fight tooth and nail here against doing that even though it would have helped in an anti-terror investigation?

    1. Re: Security keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No

  22. difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a difference in promoting what you believe in (lobbying for change) and flaunting law. Apple wants strong privacy for its users so it fights for that with algorithms and lobbying in the US.

    If the US system decides that there must be a backdoor for law enforcement I'm positive Apple will comply.

    China's system has decided what they want. Their people have collectively decided what is best for them based on their beliefs/system/institutions. Apple can still promote what it believes in by creating the algorithms and lobbying for changes but they will not and should not enforce their beliefs on another collective culture.

    Google can claim "don't do evil" by just giving up on a people/culture but they were just hiding their heads in the sand.

    The most moral path is to engage and try to effect change through legal means.

  23. Re: Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Google is making a tailor made search engine for China.

  24. Practices in China? by Conspicuous+Coward · · Score: 2

    I know it's been a while, but anybody who read the Snowden disclosures should be well aware that Apple were (and I assume are) part of the NSA's "Prism" program. Apple have been sending their users data wholesale to the US government for years.

    Why only call out practices in China here? Is it acceptable for Apple to aid the US government in repressing people, but not the Chinese government?

    Apple's business model is different from that of wholly advertising/data focused companies such as Facebook/Google and as such their surveillance can afford to be less intrusive than that of those organisations, but is anybody seriously under the delusion that their commitment to privacy is anything more than marketing at this point?

    1. Re:Practices in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Participating in the Prism program is likely not really optional. Even if not strictly a legal requirement, the political pressure probably would be very high to participate (look at the criticism they got for not unlocking a phone). Perhaps this is why Apple has systematically reduced the amount of data they have about their users? Even if they participate, the data they send has less value.

  25. Both sides by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    What about the concept that both sides are Evil?

    Well?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --