Does China afford people and companies the same ability to “not work with the FBI” that the United States does?
Because at the end of the day, Apple is following US law by refusing to freely hand things over. That’s what warrants, etc, are for.
In the US we intentionally make it theoretically hard for law enforcement to do their job so they’re theoretically more likely to get the right person if the full flow of law enforcement, all the way through the courts with capable, well-funded and appropriately timed lawyers are allowed to do their jobs.
Thought for sure this was an op-ed. But, it helps to know the context was this was back in 2016.
Think about this: if only the snapdragon based devices were as well-designed as the Apple SoCs, the focus back then (and now) wouldn't be on just Apple - it would also be on Qualcomm and device OEMs.
I don't prefer iOS but I really wish Android's security & privacy were as good. It's slowly getting closer. But Apple is raising the bar again - now with anti-tracking features.
This makes sense to me, there is legal and cultural differences.
China is a sovereign country, and Apple is just playing by the rules in that country, one that is rooted in authoritarianism and surveillance.
In America, although companies could voluntarily work with law enforcement, the cultural norm and historical momentum is rooted in pushing back against big government and the people’s role in checking the government’s power. There are many different viewpoints around this and those ideas constantly changing.
It should be no surprise though, that Apple may have different strategies in different counties.
It is not disrespectful to the FBI or the government to expect that they play by their own rules. China is being dealt with like an oppressive dictatorship and the FBI is being interacted with like a law enforcement agency in a functioning democracy.
Palantir's leader, Dr. Alexzander Karp, was, of course, entirely right in his prescient letter to investors earlier this year calling other big tech companies "potentially treasonous." The Apples of the world have lost sight of who actually holds their reins. We need a strong national leader to bring them to heel and remind them that serving the needs of the Western people and states is far more "moral" (and what do the Apples know about "morals"?!) than serving the needs of authoritatorian states overseas.
I wonder if leaders in China’s or Russia’s spheres of influence say identical statements about us? Maybe some more surveillance will help us all make some order out of this chaos.
I’d have a lot less issue with companies selling to China if they didn’t simultaneously pretend to be moral forces for good. Michael Jordan understood this years ago and I will forever have more respect for him than Lebron and his selective activism.
As they say, a man’s true character comes to light in hardship; and there is nothing difficult about adopting the moral crusade of the day back here in the so-called Free World. What matters is how you act when things are difficult, when you have something to lose.
Google's withdrawal from China in 2010 stands out as perhaps the most eminently courageous move a technology mega-corp has made against a powerful nation state. The tragedy is that the world didn't care - signaling perhaps to all future decisions makers that, well, the we don't really care.
Not only did we not appreciate the significance of what happened or reward the deed, we have adopted in these peak social media years a style of criticism that blackens every shade of gray. No leadership will ever make Google's mistake again.
The lore is that Google heroically pulled out of China because they wouldn't compromise the purity of their search results. The reality is somewhat more complex—in short, Google played chicken with China and lost.
"In the end, though, it wasn’t censorship or competition that drove Google out of China. It was a far-reaching hacking attack known as Operation Aurora that targeted everything from Google’s intellectual property to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The attack, which Google said came from within China, pushed company leadership over the edge."
The 'lore' that I've always heard is that Google pulled out due to both censorship and privacy, in that the attack succeeded against some user accounts.
At the time they were the #2 search engine in China, and when they pulled out MS saw it as an opportunity to try to take their place. This came back to mind last week when spoke about their noble willingness to take Google's place in Australia - to do the right thing in support of a just law (/s).
>”...if they didn’t simultaneously pretend to be moral forces for good. Michael Jordan understood this years ago...”
moral consistency is not why jordan avoided activism. he did so because he knew his whole identity as best basketball player in the world (not to mention his fortunes) could be taken away by oligarchal owners if he made any misstep or perceived slight. he was hyper-competitive and didn’t want to play a losing game.
(like so many others, jordan was my basketball idol growing up.)
I’m not saying Jordan is a moral hero, but that he isn’t a hypocrite. I appreciate the cold professionalism far more than the hypocrisy of someone like LeBron.
What do you see as the hypocrisy of LeBron? He's a successful athlete, and also is a person concerned about racism and institutional failings in his country and in his community. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of athletes have used their positions to advocate for causes unrelated to sport. Think about Muhammad Ali losing his title for refusing to fight in Vietnam.
The odd man out here is Michael Jordan, with his "Republicans buy sneakers too" quip.
I mean, in the 'silence is violence' era, public figures are condemned for NOT publicly condemning things that 'should' be condemned.
At the same time, I understand why people don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, so it can get tricky as a public figure. On one hand, yes I see the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their actions, but I make it a habit to remember that if I were in their shoes, I may not do any 'better', so who am I to judge.
Since we are talking about the NBA, Charles Barkley famously said "I am not a role model" where I'm not sure it's easy to get away with that today.
Lebron could have easily said “no comment” or “I don’t know enough about the situation to weigh in.”
Instead, he gave an absurd statement about the tweet “hurting people spiritually” purely because he has a lot of financial interests in China. Hence my charge of hypocrisy.
What good would it do for anyone if Apple were to follow the way Google did? People in China wouldn't have freer access to the non-China internet, or less heavy-handed government intervention, if they had to VPN from Lenovo laptop instead of a Mac. I think this is unhelpful for the ideals that Westerners like to have, specifically because it's a moral crusade.
It makes Apple products highly valuable in China in an economy outside of the government's control. Having a bigger black market in China encourages freedom. It would be a huge deal.
Tell China no, they extricate you from the country, and rewrite history that you never existed.
Tell the FBI no, they'll posture, threaten, and sue, but not do anything too extreme that can't be payed off with lobbying and other backdoor political activity.
Apple won't bite the rather large hand that feeds them, or manufactures 100% all of their overpriced gadgets that supply them profits from the rest of the world. China already has all their intellectual property handed over gracefully, they really don't need Apple other than as a brand.
> I don't think China will be able to make a global brand like Apple in my lifetime.
In my part of Europe (and whenever traveling in Africa), I see more Huawei ads in the street on any given day than Apple ones. Apple is a global brand, but it is also a premium global brand, meaning it is only visible where salaries are high enough for people to afford it. Huawei and Xiaomi, on the other hand, are both global and affordable to even the developing world.
All your points are valid and I'm not saying China can't make a brand. But you're comparing Pepsi to Coke. Everybody knows which one is more desirable.
"Pepsi" is now the generic word for "soft drink" in a number of countries. So, not a good example. And you overestimate how much more desirable Apple seems over Chinese brands in the developing world: millions and millions of people have never even seen an Apple device nor any advertising for it, while Chinese products are their world.
> "Pepsi" is now the generic word for "soft drink" in a number of countries.
This is interesting. It's the opposite in most of the Americas, and I never saw anything like that in Europe. But I admittedly know very little about Africa and East Asia.
> millions and millions of people have never even seen an Apple device nor any advertising for it, while Chinese products are their world.
I'm not saying Chinese products aren't ubiquitous, I'm saying they can't build a globally dominant brand like Apple. These people also associate this stuff with being cheap, and once they have the means they will want to switch to a more premium product, aka Apple. If anything this sounds like an argument for Android over Apple and I think it's backwards. Android is everywhere but Apple (I realize I'm being a little loose with iOS vs Apple) is still the premium brand.
Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree. Cheers.
> once they have the means they will want to switch to a more premium product, aka Apple.
Huawei’s range of products and reputation continues to grow. It is no longer seen, as it once was, as a low-end brand in much of Europe (that would be Xiaomi). So, by the time that developing-world populations are able to afford Apple solutions, Huawei would have already covered the higher-end segment and become known for quality.
I strongly encourage you to see Africa and Asia firsthand before making claims about Apple versus other brands.
I realize this is going to sound like I'm being hyperbolic to continue the argument, but I've literally never seen a Huawei phone in my life. It's hard for me to imagine them becoming the Apple of anything when I don't know anybody who has one (at least to my knowledge).
But you have a point. I have blind spots. I could be wrong. Ultimately this is just my opinion.
Your post history suggests that you are in the USA. That is where Apple phones have the greatest market penetration (and Huawei, perhaps, the least) and the mobile landscape looks most clearly like "Apple versus Android". But again, if you just get out there and travel the world, you will soon find that Apple is little-known in so much of it.
You understand that up until mid 2019 Hauwei was using Android, right? And even today, it's just a fork of android. Hauwei was never able to write their own OS or even create their own products. Their first routers would boot up with the IOS command prompt, and even their manuals had cut and paste of IOS documentation. Just blatant copying.
Once Hauwei actually builds innovative operating systems and creates new product spaces that aren't ripped off copies of western models, they can start acquiring the reputation of making good products.
I don't know what's the point for Huawei using Android. Using Android is the only viable choice to make usable smartphone for developed world and it's (basically) OSS.
I disagree about the FBI, they can still make life miserable if they wanted to, just look at Michael Flynn. If the FBI wanted to, they could force Apple, but it wouldn't be pretty. IMO the problem with the FBI vs Apple is that the FBI is afraid of pissing off Apple, because the company has better, wealthier, more powerful friends.
Hmm. My first thought is that this is not China. We have different expectations here and ones that sometimes run counter to the conveniences US law enforcement would like to have. Whatever happens in China, my expectations are that our goverment should work differently here and Apple should as well.
Well, yeah, but that puts all their talk about privacy in a different light. They sell it like it's a moral principle or a human right, not just what works best for them in certain Western markets.
Sure, but regardless of how they justify what they do I only care that their domestic actions are consistent with US laws, traditions, and expectations.
Notefor dang: this is from 2016 and should say (2016)
Seems like a lot of posture and innuendo without a substantive argument. I was hoping to read that Apple was cooperating with Chinese security forces but nothing is actually said on this topic. At least it does mention the removal of some apps relating to Tibet; since then Apple has done the same in HK. I don't know if they have done so in other countries (removed apps due to political pressure).
But the Chinese SKUs have the same security mechanisms as the US SKUs and there is no evidence that the FBI faces any greater or less challenges in accessing phone data.
Germany also has a "local data storage" requirement but I guess they aren't scary like China is.
On removing apps due to government requests, both Apple and Google do it in the territories they operate in. Over the last year or so, the Indian government has had several tens of Chinese origin apps banned on these stores (including apps like TikTok and PUBG, among many others).
Russia says they are going to require certain russia-specific apps preloaded on all phones sold in Russia. In wonder what Apple will do. Lack of bundled crapware was one of the selling points for the original iPhone.
I recall talking to an ex Apple employee who basically said the same thing, Apple really has no moral standing lecturing other companies on privacy when it has essentially capitulated to the Chinese government.
What’s more frustrating with Apple is that a lot of data on iCloud is still not encrypted in a way where Apple doesn’t have access to the decryption key (and hence cannot hand over meaningful data). This was reported by Reuters last year as being due to pressure from the FBI. [1]
There is an argument to be made for convenience (especially for data recovery when a device is lost) as a contrasting factor when we talk about end to end encryption, but Apple doesn’t even give that choice to the user.
66 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadDoes China afford people and companies the same ability to “not work with the FBI” that the United States does?
Because at the end of the day, Apple is following US law by refusing to freely hand things over. That’s what warrants, etc, are for.
In the US we intentionally make it theoretically hard for law enforcement to do their job so they’re theoretically more likely to get the right person if the full flow of law enforcement, all the way through the courts with capable, well-funded and appropriately timed lawyers are allowed to do their jobs.
You are correct that they can’t refuse in China, but they’ve chosen to fight in the US.
For example, Apple complied with U.S. government requests in 90% of cases in 1H'2019.[2]
[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-request... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-go...
That said, the request is beyond the pale and they were right to refuse.
Thought for sure this was an op-ed. But, it helps to know the context was this was back in 2016.
Think about this: if only the snapdragon based devices were as well-designed as the Apple SoCs, the focus back then (and now) wouldn't be on just Apple - it would also be on Qualcomm and device OEMs.
I don't prefer iOS but I really wish Android's security & privacy were as good. It's slowly getting closer. But Apple is raising the bar again - now with anti-tracking features.
China is a sovereign country, and Apple is just playing by the rules in that country, one that is rooted in authoritarianism and surveillance.
In America, although companies could voluntarily work with law enforcement, the cultural norm and historical momentum is rooted in pushing back against big government and the people’s role in checking the government’s power. There are many different viewpoints around this and those ideas constantly changing.
It should be no surprise though, that Apple may have different strategies in different counties.
Would you rather not live in a country where cooperating with the FBI is optional?
[1] "Our legal team reviews requests to ensure that the requests have a valid legal basis. If they do, we comply by providing data responsive to the request." https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-request...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-go...
Apple's design secures millions of US Americans devices and the help the FBI requested would irreparably harm that security.
As they say, a man’s true character comes to light in hardship; and there is nothing difficult about adopting the moral crusade of the day back here in the so-called Free World. What matters is how you act when things are difficult, when you have something to lose.
Not only did we not appreciate the significance of what happened or reward the deed, we have adopted in these peak social media years a style of criticism that blackens every shade of gray. No leadership will ever make Google's mistake again.
"In the end, though, it wasn’t censorship or competition that drove Google out of China. It was a far-reaching hacking attack known as Operation Aurora that targeted everything from Google’s intellectual property to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The attack, which Google said came from within China, pushed company leadership over the edge."
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/12/19/138307/how-googl...
At the time they were the #2 search engine in China, and when they pulled out MS saw it as an opportunity to try to take their place. This came back to mind last week when spoke about their noble willingness to take Google's place in Australia - to do the right thing in support of a just law (/s).
moral consistency is not why jordan avoided activism. he did so because he knew his whole identity as best basketball player in the world (not to mention his fortunes) could be taken away by oligarchal owners if he made any misstep or perceived slight. he was hyper-competitive and didn’t want to play a losing game.
(like so many others, jordan was my basketball idol growing up.)
The odd man out here is Michael Jordan, with his "Republicans buy sneakers too" quip.
At the same time, I understand why people don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, so it can get tricky as a public figure. On one hand, yes I see the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their actions, but I make it a habit to remember that if I were in their shoes, I may not do any 'better', so who am I to judge.
Since we are talking about the NBA, Charles Barkley famously said "I am not a role model" where I'm not sure it's easy to get away with that today.
Instead, he gave an absurd statement about the tweet “hurting people spiritually” purely because he has a lot of financial interests in China. Hence my charge of hypocrisy.
Guess I should start beef again because I don't do anything about the Uyghurs.
If they wanted to lead a movement, the corporate world would follow. But they don’t and instead stick to the no-effort-required causes in the West.
Hence my criticism. As I said, if they wanted to just be a faceless megacorp selling gizmos to all buyers, I would find them far less hypocritical.
It's an interesting theory, but that didn't happen when Google pulled out.
Tell the FBI no, they'll posture, threaten, and sue, but not do anything too extreme that can't be payed off with lobbying and other backdoor political activity.
Apple won't bite the rather large hand that feeds them, or manufactures 100% all of their overpriced gadgets that supply them profits from the rest of the world. China already has all their intellectual property handed over gracefully, they really don't need Apple other than as a brand.
I'd say that alone makes Apple worthwhile to China. I don't think China will be able to make a global brand like Apple in my lifetime.
In my part of Europe (and whenever traveling in Africa), I see more Huawei ads in the street on any given day than Apple ones. Apple is a global brand, but it is also a premium global brand, meaning it is only visible where salaries are high enough for people to afford it. Huawei and Xiaomi, on the other hand, are both global and affordable to even the developing world.
This is interesting. It's the opposite in most of the Americas, and I never saw anything like that in Europe. But I admittedly know very little about Africa and East Asia.
> millions and millions of people have never even seen an Apple device nor any advertising for it, while Chinese products are their world.
I'm not saying Chinese products aren't ubiquitous, I'm saying they can't build a globally dominant brand like Apple. These people also associate this stuff with being cheap, and once they have the means they will want to switch to a more premium product, aka Apple. If anything this sounds like an argument for Android over Apple and I think it's backwards. Android is everywhere but Apple (I realize I'm being a little loose with iOS vs Apple) is still the premium brand.
Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree. Cheers.
Huawei’s range of products and reputation continues to grow. It is no longer seen, as it once was, as a low-end brand in much of Europe (that would be Xiaomi). So, by the time that developing-world populations are able to afford Apple solutions, Huawei would have already covered the higher-end segment and become known for quality.
I strongly encourage you to see Africa and Asia firsthand before making claims about Apple versus other brands.
But you have a point. I have blind spots. I could be wrong. Ultimately this is just my opinion.
Once Hauwei actually builds innovative operating systems and creates new product spaces that aren't ripped off copies of western models, they can start acquiring the reputation of making good products.
NYT needs to sort out the em dash in their headline.
Seems like a lot of posture and innuendo without a substantive argument. I was hoping to read that Apple was cooperating with Chinese security forces but nothing is actually said on this topic. At least it does mention the removal of some apps relating to Tibet; since then Apple has done the same in HK. I don't know if they have done so in other countries (removed apps due to political pressure).
But the Chinese SKUs have the same security mechanisms as the US SKUs and there is no evidence that the FBI faces any greater or less challenges in accessing phone data.
Germany also has a "local data storage" requirement but I guess they aren't scary like China is.
There is an argument to be made for convenience (especially for data recovery when a device is lost) as a contrasting factor when we talk about end to end encryption, but Apple doesn’t even give that choice to the user.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...