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.
[...] 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.
Just capitalism making sweet sweet cash helping totalitarian governments control, monitor and report the activities of their serfs/slaves/citizens.
Facebook calling someone out for not doing enough to protect everyone's privacy
Is it April 1st already?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apple shills with mod points today ^.^
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?
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.
What about the concept that both sides are Evil?
Well?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.