Apple is being hypocritical in this case. Giving in to the demands of government when it hurts their business ( if it did take privacy as seriously as HN makes it out to be, they would take a stand in China) while advocating privacy in Western world.
Apple are legally required to follow the law of countries they do business in. In China the law requires that the government, not third party apps, gains access to additional information. Apple can limit third party app privacy violations while still following the law.
The only stand Apple could take here is:
- Stop selling in China
- Have executives go to jail
Just as if they violated US law or EU-member's law.
That is a poor argument. "Selling" a product is not a principle or a virtue that one is required to comply with. Protecting the privacy of users is. Being non-discriminatory is. What if they had to do business in a country that forbids gay people from working? Using your logic - "Oh well they had to fire all their gay employees to just follow the law".
Its hypocritical of Apple to suggest they truly care about privacy other than as a means to simply differentiate themselves to sell some more shiny objects - which might well be a common cutthroat business tactic.
Your logic is bonkers. Not every principle or virtue is a hill that every inch is worth dying over. The US and EU (and pretty much every other country) also have many laws and regulations that are not privacy friendly. You claim this means they should close up shop (or only sell to seasteaders) if they are a true privacyman? It's a recycled version of the 'Al Gore has a big house' joke, guess he's doesn't really care about the environment. Heyo!
If people simply admitted that Apple (like many others) will compromise on their privacy principles in exchange for commercial gain - we would never have been having a conversation on this topic. People want to hold Apple to a higher standard.. maybe thats also part of the problem.
Is it really that simple? Put yourself in the execs' shoes for a few minutes. You can obey the laws of China and do business in China... or you can take a stand on principle and leave the market, giving up not only the revenue, but the small amount of positive influence you might have on their society as a whole.
How is that necessarily any better for humanity than simply obeying the local laws, going along to get along, while making it clear to your Chinese customers that their counterparts in more enlightened countries enjoy more privacy, more features, and an overall better experience?
I spoke with some people at a certain well-known company working on satellite Internet service a while back, and I asked them the same question. "What are you going to do when the Chinese try to shut you down for providing uncensored Internet service?" It was hard to argue with their response. They feel it is possible to make money and be a positive influence in various closed totalitarian societies including China. I think that's basically Apple's take on it as well.
Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.
Well, I'm saying that we should probably ignore Apple when they say[1] stuff like "At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right." My cynical reading would be "At Apple, we're going to compromise on what we believe to be a fundamental human right, to make a few bucks, and if in the process we happen to have a positive impact on some dictatorial regimes, that would be cool too".
>Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale.
To be sure, it is never a good option. People have tried to sue the Chinese government, unsuccessfully so far. Nobody is denying that the chinese government has a horrible human rights record too.
>It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.
Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal..
Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal..
No, I switched contexts to the satellite Internet service developer I mentioned. They are on track to deploy a significant LEO constellation over the next few years. If they succeed, they will effectively be the Internet for a large chunk of the world. So if they don't make arrangements to accommodate various countries' censorship regulations, then citizens of places like China, Iran or North Korea who are caught with their receivers will be in a great deal of trouble, and the company's executives will not be able to travel to those regions without fearing arrest.
It is also hypocritical for privacy advocates to purchase products from China.
Their purchases directly fund a regime opposed to their moral positions, either through taxes and duties or payments to the many thousands of firms (like COSCO) that are controlled wholly or in part by the Chinese government or military.
The hypocritical-ness doesn’t go away because corporations are larger than individuals, the transaction is in a different direction, or because the moral position is privately-held.
>It is also hypocritical for privacy advocates to purchase products from China.
If you take Apple out of the argument for a second, thats quite a complex case. I think you can have two positions "we don't compromise on privacy" and "were trying to improve the situation the best way we know how". Under #2, you could make the argument that buying a general purpose tool such as a computer made in china, and using it to promote privacy is a net benefit, than not having the tool to promote your cause.
> "Selling" a product is not a principle or a virtue that one is required to comply with. Protecting the privacy of users is.
A foreign country has passed laws disagreeing with your value judgement. In any case, Apple is a business. As a consumer, I care first and foremost about my privacy and the privacy of those in my country. That is not impinged upon by China forcing Apple's hand in their own country. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Any good act by a corporation can be explained away as a business strategy. Just as any good act by an individual can be explained away as a means to garner status, or because the individual derives personal satisfaction from either the act or the effects of good behavior.
Are you arguing that one must always impute manipulative motives to a corporation? (And should therefore not reward consequentially better behavior, because it must be based on invalid motives?)
Or is your point that Apple is uniquely hypocritical? If so, on what evidence about Apple in particular?
>Any good act by a corporation can be explained away as a business strategy. Just as any good act by an individual can be explained away as a means to garner status, or because the individual derives personal satisfaction from either the act or the effects of good behavior.
Sure, I would agree that if the outcome is good, then the intention is not relevant. Apple might have a positive effect in China despite compromising on privacy.
>Are you arguing that one must always impute manipulative motives to a corporation? (And should therefore not reward consequentially better behavior, because it must be based on invalid motives?)
I'm saying recognize the hypocrisy instead of constructing weird arguments to justify it.
>Or is your point that Apple is uniquely hypocritical? (And if so, on what evidence?
Certainly not. I said its a common business tactic.
> I'm saying recognize the hypocrisy instead of constructing weird arguments to justify it.
People with different priors on whether Apple's managers (or managers in general, or managers of large corporations in general) are likely to be hypocrites, will probably have opposite judgements about which explanation is a “weird argument”. So I don't think framing it in these terms will resolve any disagreement, unless there's some non-circular criterion (maybe you have one and I haven't seen it or am not understanding it) for judging an argument “weird”.
I use the same criterion that people use when they use it in their day-to-day conversations. Lets not get into the definition of words. In any case its not my goal to resolve disagreement or to convince someone of something. I don't view conversations in such narrow ways. I'm only interested in having interesting conversations with reasonable folks.
And what, US law just magically happens to be properly balanced, unlike the legal systems elsewhere?
Following your logic, every single company in the US is either ethically aligned with US law or horrible, awful hypocrites. Apparently there are no other possibilities.
It's not a location dependent core belief. The Chinese laws make it this way. Apple is not a sovereign government with the right to do as they please. They operate in the rules and under the same threat of force everyone else does in every nation they operate.
That we live in an area of the world where you can choose to make the decisions they do without serious repercussions should make you pause and think about how important the checks we have are, because in China there aren't many ways to get around the problem above besides ignoring the largest developing market in the world.
Apple's #1 principle is to make the best product in the market. That's what they've done: the alternatives to iPhones in China are much worse in terms of privacy. Apple would not be helping anyone by going to the mat on this.
What a bunch of crap. When I visited China, my iPhone was the thing that worked. I was able to use e.g. Apple Maps, iMessage without having to install spyware like WeChat.
If I were Chinese, I would get an iPhone and disable iCloud Backup. Yes it sucks that I'd have to do that, but it's way better than having spyware built into the firmware like domestic OEMs do (Huawei, etc.). It's good for privacy that Apple remains an option in China.
Providing your users with the maximum freedom, privacy and security possible under the law is a reasonable and ethical position to take, especially if you believe your products provide the best security and privacy on the market and withdrawing them would leave your customers with only worse options available.
If you honestly believed that to be true, how could you justify withdrawing from that market on ethical grounds?
Umm. No. I don’t wear the same clothes in a desert and a forest. To do so would be foolish. Imposing yourself on others when you have no power to do is not wise. I can keep my house clean but can’t expect everyone in my neighborhood to do so.
Hmm. Let's consider the forces involved here:
1. Apple makes their hardware in China.
2. Apple sells their hardware in China.
3. If Apple doesn't comply with China, 1 could be affected, not just 2.
4. Apple cannot move their hardware manufacturing to US (now), without losing their competitive edge, because everybody makes their hardware in China.
Do you think if Apple could be privacy oriented in China, it wouldn't? It simply doesn't have the power to do it in China. Don't equate it to Google, FB and numerous others who despite having a chance to be privacy oriented in US, won't.
This is like Cantor's infinities. Sure they are all infinities. But they aren't the same.
To unpack your #1 statement. Lets say that Apple makes their hardware and then ships it out of China. China makes money, gets some jobs out of it, some tech knowhow etc. China has no reason to stop that.
Now, apple's desire to sell devices in china that comply with chinese laws (which potentially compromise user privacy) is a separate issue altogether. Business wise, I don't think they can afford to avoid china altogether. So maybe they can simply say that "they're doing the best they can" and take the PR hit.
Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important.
This is a similar argument we had a couple decades ago about companies doing business in South Africa, which at the time had official racial segregation policies (Apartheid). There was a popular push for divestment and it was fairly successful.
> Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important.
They're a corporation, their sole ethic is "to make money," full stop, that is the only reason Apple exists. To ignore China as a market would cost them millions if not billions of dollars.
Tons of businesses with very ethical practices operate in and with China. China's current anti-privacy stances are unfortunate, but if we refuse to do business with them, all we're doing is giving a leg-up to Chinese corporations who don't even pretend to care about user privacy in the form of an insulated market.
I'm glad you are starting to acknowledge that Apple will sell its users for money. It is just for now it seems to have other venues to get that money. Except in China where it needs to sell its users to the government in order to be able to extract money from that market right now.
Like every business operating in China, Apple has to comply with local laws. And that's what they do. Everyone else who operates in China complies with them as well. Apple also complies with US laws and laws of EU.
With China, there's literally no option aside from having their products being barred from being sold or manufactured there.
The fact they're standing up for user rights when given a legal possibility is a good sign, compared to most major companies which are harvesting anything and everything even going beyond the scope of what's legally permissible.
Apple is just like any other western company - their shareholders and chiefs don't really give a fuck about privacy. They only care about their bottom line.
If China demanded that someone from your company sacrifice a new-born baby in order to do business there, I'm positive that we'd still have many, many western companies doing business in China.
I can’t be the only person tired of this canard, right? It’s said over and over that the benefit of Apple is an alignment of incentives in Western markets. That is to say, Apple is not faux-idealistic, they are capitalistic, and in most places that aligns with user goals. China is the exception, but for the same reasons.
Apple is being hypocritical in this case. Giving in to the demands of government when it hurts their business ( if it did take privacy as seriously as HN makes it out to be, they would take a stand in China) while advocating privacy in Western world.