Apple secrecy is bitter fruit on Hill | Hacker News Reader

Apple secrecy is bitter fruit on Hill

politico.com

14 pointsjamesbritt26 comments

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.

Extortion, If you play the game of the American country, doing your job and are successful, but you ignore Inside the Beltway, they come looking for you. They are predators, who seek power as their feast.

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.

That's how democracy works, alas.

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...). 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.

> 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.

>that's a scary future for my country.

Don't you mean "a scary past"? There were lots of claims that the real reason Clinton's "justice" department started actually prosecuting Microsoft was that MS wasn't donating enough money to politicians' re-election campaigns. (These claims actually made it into print, since I didn't have an internet connection back then, and I remember reading about it as it was happening.)

I'm sure they want their cut but I think some of the reason for this might be more pathetic:

"“It’s unfortunate because they are a major player in this area, and we are going to continue to have a long, in-depth conversation,” on these topics, said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)"

My first thought was that this is a man whose biggest fear is irrelevancy. Wich fits well with my assumption that politics is full of narcissists.

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).

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

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.)

"Leave the gun. Take the iPad."

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.

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.

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.

I'm not at all hostile objectivism, however, you need to realize (I'm sure you do, but some people will assume you don't) that the foundation of capitalism, private property, is a state enforced right. All schemes to have private property enforced by non state actors in a modern society are, at best, only plausible (but untried). A total separation of state and commercial activity is thus not possible. Furthermore some commercial activities have negative externalities; some of these are hard to measure in monetary terms; wich, in turn, makes a value judgement from the ultimate arbiter (the state) necessary; etc. This shows the difficulty of separating the state and economy even to the degree church and state are separated today. (I said degree for a reason; right to worship is also meaningless without (state) enforcement, without wich some radical muslim would surely sometimes enforce sharia laws on some unlucky apostates from their religion)

See my comment below.

Externalities are not a problem when all property is owned privately and the courts are philosophically equipped to handle the ordinary disputes that arise.

Remember that if you can detect some pollutant or annoyance well enough to write a scientific paper, you can probably convince a court, and there is probably a big enough market that detectors for the chemical or vibration (or whatever) can be sold, making effective, objective litigation (inherently a nonviolent process) much easier. This works for land, sea and air.

Yes, you're not really arguing against me here (I'm only claiming that the monetary value of some externalities are hard to measure.) For example, the problem of overuse of antibiotics leading to an increase in resistant bacterias, how do you solve that one? Even if the judges found a way to make the parties pay for the harm they do to others. How do you measure the harm of an increase in resistant bacteria that leads to a shorter average lifespan the cause of wich also, on average, makes it possible to work more hours (and thus raises lifetime income and consumption)?

Bacterial resistance will happen no matter how antibiotics are used if they are to be useful; indiscriminant use merely decreases the time it takes for resistant strains to become commonplace.

Interestingly, the way to overcome this problem is to develop and use combination therapies. I learned (in a virology class, but the principle applies to anything with a replicating genome) that a very good estimate of the combined resistance rate is simply the product of the separate resistance rates associated with each drug in isolation. I don't think this is commonly done with antibiotics yet, but perhaps someday this will become necessary.

I should also mention that when the selective pressure imposed by an antibiotic is removed, a population of resistant bacteria will invariably revert to a wild-type phenotype because of random drift (or loss of its resistance plasmid where applicable). So old antibiotics do become useful again after enough time passes.

Antibiotic drug development essentially ceased in by the 1980s for a bunch of complex reasons - breaches of capitalism as well as scientific naivety - I think that we'd be just fine right now if the pipeline had not stalled.

The marginal value of more use of antibiotics is not necessarily constant, if a certain antibiotic can be used a certain number of times before it is ineffective, those "turns" can be used more or less effectively (I propose). These turns put together make up a commons, how do you avoid the tragedy of it?

Perhaps you can't, but who cares? If people (and therefore groups of them as corporations) were left free to innovate and produce, there wouldn't be any practical problem regarding antibiotic resistance that you would likely have become aware of in the first place.

More fundamentally, capitalism needs more than just an economic defense (plenty of people and organizations do that today, and while their arguments are essentially true, they are not going to win that way). Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is by definition the only one that is compatible with individual rights. Individual rights are required because only reason allows mankind to maintain the conditions required for his survival. Any other system or "tweak" necessarily requires the initiation or threat of non-retalliatory force upon innocent men, which necessarily stops their minds in a manner proportional to the degree and scope of the threat.

The next step is pretty simple - what is the good? The altruistic idea of the good is not logically sound; if the good is defined as helping others, how is the good defined for the recipients of that help? To tack on another rule to solve the conundrum isn't sensible - to morally bifurcate humanity a priori (in this case, without looking at the specific actions of a particular person that arise from free will) should give you pause. Rand's answer is that every human being exists for their own sake, and that the good is what is in their own long-term rational self-interest. This is a precondition for proper and healthy human relationships; to the extent that people pursue this, they improve their lot and lives.

So to reiterate: from a scientific perspective, this is not a practical problem that doctors would face under true captialism, and morally speaking (which, in Rand's view, is exactly equivalent to the practical), there is nothing that can exist that is better than capitalism.

"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.

"How do you fund the state...?"

The government should sell optional contract insurance, which gives the contractual parties the right to go to court (or perhaps expedited enforcement in court) if the contract is not met. The rate should be capped at some small percentage of the contract's value - say 1%.

But the exact method doesn't really matter; in a society that such as the one I am speaking of, surely there will be many who will see the obvious selfish gain in maintaining a limited government that it totally dedicated to the defense of their individual rights.

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com