
Apple, Google criticised for Saudi Absher app that tracks women - tonyztan
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-google-criticised-for-saudi-government-app-activists-say-fuel-discrimination-2019-2
======
xyzzy123
I am surprised that no-one has brought up a neutrality argument yet.

The app is legal within Saudi Arabia and in fact published by their
government.

Are we to take down any app which violates anyone’s morals? Or just the morals
of particular countries? If an app is blasphemous by the standards of say
Mormonism or Islam, should we take it down? After everyone is done, how many
apps will be left?

If we enforce some morals and not others in our app stores, who exactly do we
choose as the arbiters of morality? U.S. public opinion? Chinese public
opinion? Maybe the U.N?

Just to be clear I’d prefer this app not exist, and I would not be unhappy if
it gets “unpublished”. I also think it would be cool if the major platforms
just came out and made an unambiguous statement on what they will and won’t
stand for.

~~~
stickfigure
Serious question: Would you be willing to make this same argument for a
(hypothetical) Apartheid-era app that enabled whites to manage blacks?

I think it's pretty reasonable for the court of modern political opinion to
pass judgement on the more egregious examples of injustice in the world. Yes,
morality is relative, but there's a strong majority opinion on this -
especially in the countries that build the technology platforms we're talking
about.

Apple & Google should yank the apps, and we should hold their feet to the fire
until they do.

~~~
wongarsu
> Would you be willing to make this same argument for a (hypothetical)
> Apartheid-era app that enabled whites to manage blacks?

Yes (but only begrudgingly). Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation. That means
within their borders they can do as they please, even if we don't like what
they do.

We fought one of the most devastating wars in history (the 30 years war [1])
trying to control what other people think, and at the end everyone agreed that
sovereignty is a great concept [2][3].

Using our influence over Apple and Google to project power against Saudi
Arabia and try to force them to agree to different moral norms is in stark
contrast to the idea of sovereignty and signals to everyone else that that
kind of behaviour is ok. That's how you get cold and hot wars.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia)

3:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty)

~~~
glangdale
I like the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow is endangered by Apple or
Google deciding to make business decisions that pertain to Saudi Arabia. I'm
also enjoying your Total Commitment to this principle, extending to guarded
support for the hypothetical "Apartheid Black Management App".

The fact that you're talking in hushed tones of reverence about the glorious
principle of sovereignty in a discussion of _Saudi Arabia_ is really just the
icing on the cake.

~~~
wongarsu
You didn't provide any actual arguments, instead just dismissing what I said
out of hand (in a needlessly snarky way).

------
femto
This topic (and the associated app) has been getting a lot of press in
Australia recently, due to recent cases of Australian customs refusing to
acknowledge asylum claims from Saudi women who have made it to Australia and
sending them back to an uncertain fate in Saudi Arabia. Also tactics like
Australian officials intercepting fleeing women at transit points (such as
Hong Kong) and turning them over to Saudi authorities. See the first link
below.

Background on the methods used to control women in Saudi Arabia:

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-04/escape-from-saudi-
the...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-04/escape-from-saudi-the-women-
who-made-it-and-the-ones-who-dont/10763324)

"Escape From Saudi", a 4corners report on the same:

[https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/escape-from-
saudi/10778838](https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/escape-from-saudi/10778838)

------
unethical_ban
thatoneyouthrow got flagged for commenting on the hypocrisy of the tech Elite
for their support of a government in Saudi Arabia that kills journalists and
oppresses females with no apologies - that funds radical Islam throughout the
world - in the comments of an article discussing Apple and Google distributing
government oppression apps on their stores.

It is odd. The keep from being too meta, I pose this question (since it seems
like a controversial stance): Should Google and Apple formally decline to host
applications in their stores that actively assist governments in oppressing
their population? This isn't a philosophical discussion about how we are
already tracked by phones, or how Facebook knows everything. This app
literally is built by the government to check women in, so they do not have
freedom of travel.

~~~
justaguyhere
In an ideal world, it would be nice if we (governments, individuals,
businesses etc) didn't support oppressive regimes and other bad actors. But
would we though? Take Amazon - we know that they are almost as bad as Walmart
on a host of issues, but how many of us would give up the convenience of one
click shopping? It would be inconvenient, sure, but it is much easier for an
individual to stop shopping at Amazon than for companies to give up billions
of dollars in profit and answer their shareholders (to whom nothing matters
but profit).

I am not saying Google/Apple is right - just pointing out that _almost_ all of
us are hypocrites at some level, some more than others.

~~~
_bxg1
Be the change you wish to see in the world. Smartphones are now essential, so
you can't completely avoid doing business with at least Google xor Apple, but
you can absolutely give up one-click shopping. I've never used it. I've never
had Amazon Prime. It's been multiple years since I last bought anything at all
on Amazon. I've used Uber less than five times (and Lyft none), and the last
time was over three years ago.

Don't act like these services are essentials. They're nothing but tiny
conveniences. And while your individual boycott won't have an impact on their
bottom lines, their entire existence depends on hundreds of millions of people
in your exact situation, giving in to defeatism or not even caring in the
first place.

~~~
Santosh83
Exactly. We seem to forget that our parents lived just fine and even happily
without most of these instant-gratification and convenience services. It is
possible, if we try.

~~~
_bxg1
There are people who often apply this logic to smartphones and even internet
access, which is wrong. Those things are now as necessary as cars for
participation in society. But there are plenty of other modern products and
services that are very much just conveniences, many of which come from the
companies with the most scandalous headlines.

------
rgbrenner
They let you download the app... but they do NOT host the service. That's run
by the Ministry of Interior.

EDIT: I had a paragraph below this saying the laws were really the problem and
would still exist without the app.. but I forgot one key point: how easy it
was to subvert the system before the app existed. I've removed that section. I
fully support removing the app from the app stores and forcing SA to go back
to the old system.

~~~
sriram_malhar
I agree, but I don't see why we shouldn't do both. We should press both Google
and Apple to remove the app, as it helps out a horrible practice. What next, a
database on female genital mutilation? Both Google and Apple have removed apps
for far more trivial reasons.

------
S_A_P
I don’t agree with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s stances, but I also feel like
keeping a list of each state that violates human rights is not in Tim Cook’s
or Sundar Pichai’s job description. If we are just being honest with ourselves
the list of countries in which you can do business approaches 0 if we call out
the violators. Secondly, the last time I checked a company’s mandate is to
abide by the laws of the country in which it conducts business and to make a
profit for shareholders. I’m all for exceeding this goal, but it should not be
incumbent upon a company to follow the geopolitical climate and react.

~~~
asdff
You don't need to follow geopolitics very closely to see the piss poor optics
of having any association with Saudi Arabia.

~~~
artificial
As long as people enjoy the products well enough in practice they'll agree
(enough). Diamonds, Chocolate, borderline slave labor with no environmental
laws providing cheap electronics to name a few.

------
jumelles
Saudi Arabia needs to be shunned by the rest of the world for all its barbaric
practices. Truly an awful government with repugnant laws.

~~~
rgbrenner
Yes. We should all support a green revolution. De-fund middle eastern
dictators that abuse people.

------
50656E6973
Its alarming how these increasingly powerful and consolidated silicon valley
groups preach progressive morality but practice regressive totalitarianism.

~~~
watwut
So basically, you are saying that radical feminist activists are right?

~~~
krapp
Why "radical feminist activists" as opposed to just "feminists?"

Objecting to companies only embracing progressive or feminist ideals publicly
for the sake of PR or marketing while not actually taking any risks within
their own culture isn't exactly radical.

~~~
watwut
Because radical feminists activists are subset of feminists. Feminism itself
has many different strands and it make sense to specify which one you mean. I
wanted to be quite specific in which argument exactly I mean.

------
the8472
Is this qualitatively different from providing wiretapping interfaces to law
enforcement in countries which have laws we find morally objectionable?

------
buboard
The service is run by KSA. If google removes the app, they can still offer it
through a website , or SMS. I don't see why they wouldn't ban it , considering
they have banned far more innocuous stuff.

~~~
Zecar
Didn't they ban Infowars?

Conspiracy theories: not ok Treating women as property: ok

------
rayj
Here is the Saudi abasher web-app hosted on the interior ministry.
[https://www.moi.gov.sa/wps/portal/Home/Home/!ut/p/z1/04_iUlD...](https://www.moi.gov.sa/wps/portal/Home/Home/!ut/p/z1/04_iUlDgAgP9CCATyEEmKOboR-
UllmWmJ5Zk5ucl5uhH6EdGmcVbBro7e3iYGHm7GzqaGTh6mhv5G3iaGrp7Gul76UfhVxCcmqdfkB2oCABPX762/)

Feel free to hack this website. Because this kind of behavior is not
acceptable, this is a literal totalitarian nightmare.

~~~
alacombe
Retaliatory unprovoked attacks are not acceptable either.

~~~
SauciestGNU
>unprovoked

I think you could argue the existence of a platform for managing women as
chattel is provocation enough.

~~~
alacombe
I'm pretty sure you can find a group seeing the existence of a platform for
managing X (replace with something you disagree with) the same provocation.
Does that give them an licence to retaliate ?

How far do you go through the rabbit-hole of so called "provocation" before
it's deemed "too much" ?

------
gerash
Yes, the app is ridiculous. No, tech companies don't need to become morality
police for the world. Perhaps removing scams and malware should remain the bar
for policing apps.

------
cobbzilla
I've heard of women escaping SA by getting ahold of their guardian's phone,
approving travel, then getting through the airport with that approval.

If this app is banned, we'd be closing off at least one escape route that has
been known to work.

------
jammygit
Its hard for Google to point to some TOS violation when roughly half the app
ecosystem revolves around tracking people in order to manipulate their
behaviour (ads, gambling, etc). Their app is doing what most mobile apps are
designed to do. Its just more successful than usual since the creator is a
nation state.

------
romwell
There's a lot of discussion here, but I don't see the important question being
asked:

How (and whether) the removal of this app will help the women in Saudi Arabia:

1)In the short term

2)In the long term

I.e. if the alternative to using the tracking app is not being able to travel
(in the realities of that horrible state), then removal will make life of many
women _worse_ in the short term.

Calls for bans and removals are the easiest form of moralizing without
addressing the actual problem in any way.

The same kind of logic brought us FOSTA/SESTA, which few people here are happy
about. Let's not fall into the same trap.

~~~
int_19h
The logic here is very, very simple:

You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion.

If they still do it without your help, that's unfortunate; and yes, you should
probably do something to stop it. But if they do it with your help, then you
are directly responsible for it, and the rest of us have a moral obligation to
hold you responsible.

~~~
romwell
>The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things.
Period. End of discussion.

Yes, that's the logic behind Zero Tolerance everything, and also FOSTA/SESTA.

It makes one look/feel good to say it. The downside? _It doesn 't help address
the problem_.

Again, _effect of the ban on women_ is missing from your answer.

~~~
int_19h
The effect of the ban on women will be nearly nil, since the system was in
place before apps existed. If there is any difference, it'll be positive,
because the "guardians" won't bother setting the notifications up.

And comparing this to FOSTA/SESTA doesn't make any sense. Those laws didn't
ban something that is unambiguously evil - they banned a whole bunch of random
stuff _under the guise_ of targeting sex trafficking. The equivalent here
would be if I was demanding that Google and Apple ban all tracking apps in
general, on the basis that they're used by "guardians".

~~~
romwell
If the effect on women will be nearly nil, then does it all become a PR
question?

In that case, couldn't it be useful to keep the app if only to keep track of
how many people this policy affects?

I drew analogies to FOSTA because even FOSTA's intended effect (as stated) was
_negative_. Yes, it actually made it a bit more difficult to do sex
trafficking online (along with adversely affecting tons of other people). As a
result, traffickers are harder to catch.

The "don't deal with the bad guys" approach sounds great, but even an embargo
doesn't often work: see what years of sanctions got us with Cuba, NK, and Iran
(in terms of improving the lives of people in those countries).

~~~
int_19h
Because it matters for assigning responsibility. Same reason why we jail crime
accomplices, even if they can prove that the crime would have happened if not
for their participation.

What you propose is basically assisting in oppression on the basis that it
would have been even worse otherwise. That is a recurring theme in
apologetics, especially so in WW2. They don't sound at all convincing, and I'm
not aware of anybody getting off the hook with such claims.

------
snambi
Disgusting... Take down the app right away.

------
hopler
What happens if a woman goes to passport control without the app? Is she
allowed to pass through?

~~~
Crosseye_Jack
It’s basically up to the person running passport control that day but first of
all they also need their other travel documents like their passport if they
are flying internationally.

They are often not allowed access to them (Not denied access in any legal
sense, but their families will “look after” the documents making it hard to
gain access to such documents). But if it’s the case of a foreign national
returning home their home country can provide emergency travel documentation
and help see the person thought passport control.

But if they are not a foreign national, they have little options. They will
often (but not always) try and contact the legal guardian of the woman (if
they are not already present, but as you said without the app. I presume they
are also travelling without their “legal guardian”) and return the women to
their family if they are instructed to do so by them.

~~~
pault
Holy shit, I can't believe this is happening in the 21st century.

~~~
not_a_cop
Technology only gives you gadgetry, not morals. Hasn't anyone in Silicon
Valley realized this yet? They're building a huge technological cage to
control the masses.

~~~
klyrs
A coworker literally said this in response to me raising objections over Saudi
investment: "I believe Chomsky remarked that socially responsible investing is
a contradiction in terms." And I must say, the logic is impeccable: money is
incompatible with morals, therefore morals are worthless.

------
NoblePublius
I can’t believe that Lyft doesn’t cover the Bay Area with billboards that say
“Saudi Arabia beats women and owns 10% of Uber.”

“Saudi Arabia murders gay people and owns 10% of Uber.”

“Saudi Arabia crucified two people last year and owns 10% of Uber.”

~~~
rgbrenner
They can't because Saudi Arabia also owns part of Lyft (2.3%):

[https://www.reuters.com/article/lyft-kingdom-holding-
ma/saud...](https://www.reuters.com/article/lyft-kingdom-holding-ma/saudis-
kingdom-holding-among-group-investing-247-7-mln-in-lyft-idUSL8N14D09I20151224)

~~~
m-p-3
So if they're not happy they'll sell their parts? Win-win.

~~~
darkpuma
Or they'd buy more and put a stop to advertising campaign.

------
908087
What the fuck is going on in this thread? It seems that either numerous pro-SA
trolls are hard at work, or SV liberals are suddenly just fine with women
being kept on digital leashes and treated as property?

------
clubm8
"Apple and Google accused of hosting Saudi gov't app that tracks women " is a
weird phrasing. It's absolutely, 100% verifiably true they host it, as the
article plainly states:

> _Both Google Play and iTunes host Absher, a government web service that
> allows men to specify when and how women can cross Saudi borders, and to get
> close to real-time SMS updates when they travel._

~~~
rdiddly
Kind of beside the point, too. The bigger news and greater surprise is that
the Saudis have an app to track & apprehend women who try to leave! Like "What
an outrage _that Google hosts this_ " isn't quiiite what I was thinking...

~~~
sandworm101
In saudi arabia, women are property. This is no different than an app to track
a stolen car or lost pet. Compared to all the stuff men are allowed to do
to/with _their_ women... this app is probably the least outrageous wrong. We
need to get mad at the countries who support the real physical harms, those
that enable abuse or at least do very little to prevent it.

~~~
int_19h
> We need to get mad at the countries who support the real physical harms

So, Saudi Arabia?

~~~
sandworm101
And the UK. They have turned a blind eye several times when saudi women have
asked for help while traveling in the uk. And all those countries who refuse
saudi women refugee status.

------
gammateam
I'm loosing touch here, why is this not a manufactured controversy and instead
an actual complaint that has any merit?

Why aren't we "accusing" ISPs from routing to the website?

"Accusing" wayback machine of caching it?

"Accusing" CDNs of not null-routing it?

so this article gets to masquerade Apple and Google's power consolidation as a
good thing and you guys eat it up? I'm going to call my publicist and start my
own word games if this is so effective.

~~~
JetSpiegel
The web is an open platform. Apple and Google have a walled garden, they are
responsible for what they provide.

~~~
gammateam
The only reason they would take down this app is because its more like a web
page inside of an executable wrapper, which does violate their quality policy.

They arent responsible to anybody here, and the faux protest will only gives
the options of switching to one of thoss two services or becoming a luddite.

This is funny to me.

------
m0dest
A pragmatic view:

70% of the mobile devices in Saudi Arabia run Android.

Outcome 1- Apple bans Absher but Google does not. Absher usage continues.
Android gains market share over time.

Outcome 2- Apple and Google both ban Absher. Android users install it via
sideload from the government website. Carriers preload the sideloaded Absher
app onto new phones. Absher usage continues. Android market share grows over
time.

I don't see a victory here other than taking a moral stance.

~~~
m-p-3
Outcome 3- Google ban Absher and automatically remove it from device using
Google Play Protect on the basis that it's a spyware.

~~~
walrus01
Outcome 4 - Saudi mobile phone carriers partner with Chinese device
manufacturer to deploy custom built versions of Android with 'play protect'
ripped out, and Absher app as a non-removable default install.

Basically think of what you could do if OnePlus went fully evil and built an
'evil' version of OxygenOS, their custom android variant.

~~~
halfjoking
Outcome 5 - After the custom evil Android is a success, Saudi men decide that
the default government app isn't enough. They decide to have all their wives
chipped/tagged when they take them in for their vaccinations.

A Saudi startup that basically is the 'Google Nest of oppression' becomes a
unicorn company by plugging into the GPS from the chip which enables new forms
of tracking. They'll get live video feeds, sentiment analysis and child
rearing effectiveness scores all rolled into one app. Multiple wives? No
problem - you can compare and contrast all of them in the app.

So glad everyone got Google to remove the original app, instead of thinking of
ways to combat the root cause of the problem. At least there's another unicorn
startup because of it. /s

------
amanzi
The precedent has already been set (e.g. Infowars) that hosting an app on your
platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app.

~~~
el_dev_hell
> hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the
> publisher of the app

What's the context behind this claim?

~~~
bduerst
There isn't any. Infowars and company were banned from various content
platforms for violating platform policies.

i.e. There's flat earth content on Youtube, that doesn't mean Youtube endorses
flat earth conspiracies.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no?

How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?

~~~
bduerst
It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the
platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.

------
atomical
It's interestinghow comments like this are downvoted. But then, YCombinator
has an interest in keeping Saudi Arabia happy.

~~~
dang
The comment was in fact heavily upvoted. It takes time for the vote totals on
a comment to work themselves out.

I'm personally responsible for HN and can tell you that "keeping Saudi Arabia
happy" has never entered my awareness until you brought it up.

We just banned your throwaway account for trolling. If you continue to use HN
for flamewars, trolling, or personal attacks, we will ban your main account as
well.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
atomical
I don't use a throwaway account. Please post proof before attacking me.

~~~
dang
I assumed that
[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=thatoneyouthrow](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=thatoneyouthrow)
was you because the comments were so similar.

If it wasn't you, that was my mistake and I'm sorry. The main point, though,
is please don't do any more flamewar, trolling, or flamebait on HN.

