
Apple secrecy is bitter fruit on Hill - jamesbritt
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38481.html
======
jamesbritt
Here's something that really caught my eye:

    
    
        When Apple didn’t participate in an April hearing on children’s online privacy, 
        the West Virginia Democrat who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and 
        Transportation Committee, gave voice to his suspicions.
    
        "When people don’t show up when we ask them to ... all it does is increases 
        our interest in what they’re doing and why they didn’t show up," Rockefeller 
        said of Apple and Google, which both declined to testify. "It was a stupid 
        mistake for them not to show up, and I say shame on them."
    
    

Wow. So, when you're, you know, "asked" to appear, you better damn well
appear, or become a target.

~~~
JoelPM
No kidding. When I read Rockefeller's comment I couldn't help but think of a
spoiled child who didn't get his way. I don't think it's hard to figure out
why they didn't show up: they didn't see any value in what was happening.

~~~
barrkel
That's how democracy works, alas.

------
mrshoe
_While Apple’s success has earned rock-star status in Silicon Valley, its low-
wattage approach in Washington is becoming more glaring to policymakers._

This to me sounds like senators saying, "We see that you're making a ton of
money, and we want our cut."

I'm glad Apple doesn't spend much money on lobbying (see
[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-lobbying-
spe...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-lobbying-spending-for-
tech-companies-2010-5)). If the government starts intentionally causing
problems for them with the intent of forcing them to increase their lobbying
budget, well... that's a scary future for my country.

~~~
arohner
> If the government starts intentionally causing problems for them with the
> intent of forcing them to increase their lobbying budget, well... that's a
> scary future for my country.

I think that's already the case. The article demonstrates Sen. Rockafeller
(ironic, isn't it?) already pulled the "if you're innocent, what do you have
to hide" card.

------
hga
How come I have difficultly reading those two comments by Senators as anything
more than a thinly veiled "Nice company you have here, it would be a shame if
anything happened to it."

It would be ironic if D.C. brings Apple down; they may think they're safe with
Gore on their board but I wonder how much juice he has nowadays, with AGW
having at best perception problems (for better or worse, the truth doesn't
matter WRT to how D.C. views and treats things).

~~~
bradleyland
It's like a chapter out of an Ayn Rand novel. I almost can't believe my eyes.

~~~
hga
There's a whole lot of truth in her novels: she was born in 1905 and grew up
and was educated in Russia/the Soviet Union, she saw this all first hand. E.g.
the confiscation of her father's pharmacy, her being purged from her
university just before graduation since she wasn't a Communist (in a Communist
country being a party member is a privilege and they certainly wouldn't have
accepted a class enemy like her, had she been so inclined to try), etc.

(Complaints from visiting foreign scientists allowed a few, including her, to
eventually graduate.)

------
philwelch
The Senate has hearings all the time, largely to magnify their own sense of
self-importance. When people who do real work refuse to show up it punctures
this illusion and pisses them off. This would be a lot more comic if the
Senate didn't have the power to make legislation.

------
tedunangst
_And on Thursday, the FBI launched an investigation of a security breach that
revealed information about some 100,000 iPad users, including those working on
Capitol Hill and in the White House._

A good reporter would have mentioned who the FBI is investigating.

------
maxharris
America needs capitalism, a system it embraced fleetingly in the ninteenth
century. Capitalism requires a complete and total separation of state from
economics, just as we have a separation of state from church. To get there, we
need a moral revolution in which altruism is replaced by long-term rational
self-interest as the moral ideal. Without this moral basis and justification,
the traces of capitalism in our mixed economy will continue to be eroded, and
innovative corporations such as present-day Apple will face ever-increasing
pressure to given in to the politics of pull.

~~~
hga
" _Capitalism requires a complete and total separation of state from
economics_ "

How do you fund the state, which is required for the provision of certain
public goods like the common defense and that in most libertarian schemes
enforces contracts?

Also, modern societies cede a monopoly on the legitimate use of force outside
of self-defense to the state, which prevents revenge cycles (vendetta) and
allows trust beyond families and clans.

The US and Japan are high trust societies and that makes a big difference in
being able to do business (contract enforcement is a last and generally
unsatisfactory resort) and all sorts of things we think as good. I think among
other things that needs a state of more than minimal strength.

~~~
billswift
Actually, I don't think taxes would necessarily violate a separation, if the
taxes were not attempting to manipulate the economy by favoring this or
punishing that. A single-rate income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and the
like could effectively be "economy-neutral", that is neither benefiting some
unfairly nor being an excessive drag. The big problem is with government
regulation.

~~~
hga
Perhaps in theory possible, but it violates the simple "complete and total
separation of state from economics" principle.

And the public choice theory says it's not possible:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory>

------
drivebyacct
I hate what Apple's doing and I'm a HUGE Android fanboy, but this seems way
out of Congress's jurisdiction or list of important things.

