
Tim Cook wants ‘well-crafted’ privacy regulations after latest Facebook scandal - domevent
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/24/17159610/apple-ceo-tim-cook-wants-privacy-regulation-facebook-cambridge-analytica
======
DonaldPShimoda
> Cook making these statements in China might raise some eyebrows, as Apple
> recently handed over control of Chinese iCloud accounts to China-based data
> servers to comply with local law. The company’s iPhones continue to offer
> strong encryption in China, but the concern is that iCloud backups could be
> more susceptible to government snooping.

Is there a viable alternative? I don't mean this rhetorically — I'm actually
curious. If Apple didn't comply, they wouldn't be allowed to sell their
products in China. And even if Apple pulled out of China, there are enough
competitors that the gap would be filled by another company that _is_ willing
to comply with the government's request. The citizens simply aren't able to
(legally) obtain products that guarantee them privacy from the government.

Plus, as far as I know, Chinese citizens are aware of these sorts of
requirements that the government puts on their data. So if the citizens _know_
that Apple has complied with these requests — and if any other company would
also have to comply anyway — then are they really any worse off? Apple isn't
going to be able to convince the Chinese government to suddenly acknowledge
that true privacy is worthwhile.

Disclaimer: I am not super knowledgeable about the issue at hand. These are
just my thoughts based on what little I do know. I'd be happy to learn
additional info/alternative viewpoints!

~~~
sidibe
That's not really a good reason to cooperate.

One thing that's also concerning about the situation is now Apple really
depends on China for growth so who knows what kind of additional things they
can wring out of Apple if they wanted to. If they decide they want data about
Chinese expats for example is Apple willing to lose access to the market
that's 30% of it's sales to protect them?

~~~
jeffbax
Unfortunately its the law of the land there, so yes -- it is enough to comply.
There's an argument of not participating to make a statement like Google
tried, but in the end China is more than happy to replace any western company
with a home-grown alternative (which is going to have far deeper roots to the
Chinese government). So long as Apple is not beholden to those laws elsewhere,
I think it's probably a net good that they are present in that country than
not.

Second, much of Apple's strength comes from its supply and manufacturing
advantage which -- depends on China not just as a customer marketplace but
that it's the only place with the skills to turn on a dime and produce the
products at scale.

Third, look at VTI - Vanguard Total Stock market index. Apple is 2.83% of the
entire damn thing. Microsoft next at 2.5% followed by Google, Amazon, and FB.
Probably a big deal, particularly for Apple given they're the one actually
building physical objects in China, to suddenly be the political football
between two nations. It's probably hard enough, and maybe at some point better
automation will bring manufacturing back to the US but it's also very likely
China will be better in that regard for some time.

Things are more complicated than "just don't cooperate", as much as I
philosophically would cheer on such behavior I don't think in the net it would
end up good.

Additionally, even for Chinese consumers iPhones are likely the most secure by
a lot (though intercepted cloud services are a big unknown now) -- so I'd
rather they have access to the devices.

Maybe some of them pay attention to where Apple stands on things, and over the
long run Chinese citizens might push local laws in a more liberal direction
(though not an easy thing to do, obviously) but it's not going to happen if
western companies don't participate at all.

Or, consider users all over the world. How good is it for everyone's privacy
if iPhones now start at $1500 because they can't be built in China anymore.
Probably would mean a lot less people on secure iPhones vs. less supported/out
of date Android phones.

------
nolok
Well no surprises there.

First, of course all the big co. are saying yes now even Zuckerberg now
pretends he "isn't opposed to the idea", the growing outcry is getting too big
to push away and if they say no they won't be invited to the table where the
deal is made, so if you can't stop it at least make sure it's kept under
control.

Second, Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will
directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much. I'm not talking about
the cost to adhere to the regulation, but the ability to sell a product that
has just been truncated. So I fully expect the CEO of Apple to push for it,
because he really wouldn't be doing his job otherwise.

Third, of course, Tim Cook is probably as a human being for it too, although
I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO.

I really don't think we need to talk about all the big corp and CEO who will
one after another say "oh yeah I'm totally for it", "this is a good idea, we
can find a solution together", ... Let's keep focused and make sure the end
result is fitting. They all saw what happened here in the EU and I doubt they
want to see that spread to such an extent to the US.

~~~
IAmEveryone
There is a reason why Apple is less exposed to such regulation now: they
decided, a while back, not to make targeted ads and private data a core
component of their business.

Part of what them allowed to make that call was obviously their strength in
hardware. But I think there are some actions by Apple that go beyond the level
required for a superficial PR campaign.

They popularized[0] differential privacy, allowing machine learning to learn
from properly anonymised data. The concept is pretty complicated, making me
doubt that a PR agency would consider it a good vehicle for improving the
brand's image.

Their refusal to budge to the FBI and about half of the political
establishment in the case of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone was also
rather gutsy: opposing law enforcement in their investigation of an actual
islamic terrorist is at least a high-stakes gamble, if not outright stupid for
marketing purposes. Even if you think the left will glorify you, you really
really don't want to wade into culture wars territory and risk losing half
your potential customers, at least not at Apple's scale.

There are quite a few other areas where Apple has been rather proactive in
doing the right thing. They have always supported LGBTQ rights, possibly
starting from their original rainbow coloured bitten apple being a reference
to the injustice committed against Alan Turing[0]. They have invested in areas
such as labor conditions, diversity, and environmental protection, often
before the specific issues came under scrutiny from outside groups. Their
recently announced initiative for fairly sourced coltan, for example, was the
first I had ever heard of the element.

[0]: Edit: changed from "invented" to "popularised". Thx to grzm for
correcting me below (he's right, I was wrong, and I have no idea why they are
being downvoted)

[1]: Not 100% sure if truth of myth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~
grzm
I don't believe Apple invented differential privacy, though they have applied
it and helped popularize the term.

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

------
gressquel
Comes from a guy bending over for communist regimes to protect the revenue. I
have 0 respect for people who sell their core principles for money.

~~~
mercer
Good point. I'm an Apple fan in some ways, but all the 'good' stuff kind of
rings hollow in light of what you pointed out.

Can anyone give me a reason to understand why Apple would do this that isn't
just about the 'bottom-line'?

~~~
wmf
Apple is providing some end-to-end encrypted tools to people in China. If they
pulled out completely, people would no longer have those.

------
secfirstmd
So the GDPR then...

