Ex-Facebook Security Chief Calls Out Tim Cook and Apple's Practices in China (cnbc.com) 91
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.
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
Just capitalism making sweet sweet cash helping totalitarian governments control, monitor and report the activities of their serfs/slaves/citizens.
Re: Nothing to see here (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.
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:5, 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.
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:4, Funny)
Not sure Putin will appreciate people trashtalking his employees ...
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to undo accidental mod.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: oh bullshit (Score:3)
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.
Re: oh bullshit (Score:2)
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 rig
Re: (Score:2)
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 thi
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
He is just following orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:2)
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.
Re: Nothing to see here (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.
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [wired.com]
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:2)
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.
Re: Nothing to see here (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!
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:2)
What an asshat. If you don't have consent of the governed... you have a revolution. Just ask King Louis of Francs.
Re: Nothing to see here (Score:2)
Your eighth-grade 'government' lectures are not serving you well. Such a tool.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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/... [theverge.com]
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... [wired.com]
Don't get me wrong, I think both companies should
Re: (Score:3)
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 woul
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org].
Now I've seen it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook calling someone out for not doing enough to protect everyone's privacy
Is it April 1st already?
Re: (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...).
Re: Now I've seen it all (Score:1)
So George Washington had a hand in Watergate
Not just an Apple problem (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Following local law is unethical? (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.
Re: (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 speedin
I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Chinese people can avoid snooping by their government by leaving the country. No such luck for US persons.
Choices and consequences (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: I believe that's because it's ILLEGAL (Score:2)
They are also banned in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 perspectiv
Re: (Score:1)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has Apple by the balls (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Morality from the cheap seats (Score:1)
Ah rationalizing. I think that's what some Germans said when Hitler came to power too.
Didn't take you long to Godwin [wikipedia.org] 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...
Re: (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.
Re: China has Apple by the balls (Score:3)
"Discussions with China about changing their law????"
China has close to 1,000,000 people of Islamic background [nytimes.com] 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.
Re: (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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Practices in China? (Score:3)
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?
Both sides (Score:2)
What about the concept that both sides are Evil?
Well?