Hacker News Reader

Comment by exitreturn123 | Hacker News Reader

I work closely with Apple so need to post anonymously.

I believed everything in this until something that happened in late July this past summer.

In China, their fastest-growing market, China demanded all secure messaging and VPN apps be removed from the App Store and Apple complied.[1]

So privacy matters, unless it's in your fastest-growing market.

I intend to discuss with Tim next time I see him.

1: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/29/apple-removes-vpn-apps-fro...

View on HN

I see what you're getting at but that decision has little/nothing to do with Apple's stance on privacy.

* iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China.

* iPhones sold in China still utilize Secure Enclave for privacy/encryption.

* Aggregate data still uses differential privacy in China.

The government made a request of them which did not compromise their user's security, and they obliged.

Compare that to when the US government requested backdoor access pass Secure Enclave and they absolutely denied that request.

I agree that it's unfortunate for Chinese users that their government is placing additional limits on the available software in that ecosystem (as well as other ecosystems, I'm sure). But so long as the government is not asking Apple to compromise its users privacy I don't see any strong relation to corroborate the idea: "privacy matters, unless it's in your fastest-growing market".

>* iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China.

Do you think Apple would refuse to swap out the public keys if ordered to by the government? Have you ever wondered why iMessage doesn't allow out-of-band key verification?

This is my fear. Apple nicely shows all devices on my account, but how do I trust there aren't some invisible NSA devices on my account that also get all my iMessages?

This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. A company can refuse to cooperate up to a point, but a government can always force it to either comply or cease doing business.

The Verge's recent technology survey showed that at least its audience believes that Google and Amazon are better protectors of personal privacy than Apple, so their strong stance on encryption and privacy is not yet completely effective in differentiating them from competitors. Hopefully articles like this will enhance the perceived value of privacy, because we need both private and public entities to agree on privacy for it to be effective.

Perhaps The Verge would like to re-run it’s survey now, after yesterday’s rash of users being banned from Google Docs that we’re shared with them.

"it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law"

That is true, but in the US a big problem is that part of the government is breaking the law with its surveillance. In that situation technology can help quite a bit. The constitution states that the government needs a warrant to search ones private papers. Encryption works great against illegal government snooping. When the intelligence agencies and Congress starts talking about requiring back doors, like the Clipper Chip or the Apple request, society can hear about it and push to keep the back doors out. Worked with the Clipper Chip at least.

Yeah I tend to agree with you - if Tim Cook refused China's request and subsequently got all iPhone sales banned in China, the stock would tank and there would be chaos / folks calling for Tim to resign, etc etc.

No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law.

For now. I argue that there will be a technology corporation more powerful than the reach of any nation-state within 50 years.

I agree with you. I'd even bet that in 10-20 years, the primary purpose of nation-states will be technology management, if that isn't already the case. Administration by software seems inevitable, with the main problem being ensuring that the software is acting in our interests. We'll likely encode policies into something like Ethereum contracts once we have more reliable infrastructure.

Ethereum does not have that broad of an application. You are engaging in rather wishful thinking. Nation states exist because people have different traditions, values, language, history, economic and political systems.

Yes, there are important differences, and I don’t think Ethereum will fill the various needs, which is why I said “something like Ethereum.” With all the differences in nation-states, we have come to a kind of equilibrium today where each one has a convertable fiat currency through historical convergence. Each one has a similar hierarchical government claming authority through popular mandate. That’s an amazing consistency considering the different origins.

I’m not wishing for any particular outcome, but considering past convergences and future potential, I’m simply saying it’s likely that some kind of smart contracts operating on distributed computing platforms will eventually become standard processes for law enforcement once computation is more ubiquitous.

You make a/the compelling counter-argument.

I still think there is a market driver (China TAM) that motivates the behavior as much as anything here. I guess we'll see if the slope is slippery or not.

China is indeed a major exception to most tech companies policies. It's either play by their rules or don't do business in that country, and unfortunately it's not just Apple who makes the financial decision over the human rights decision.

It's one of those things we choose not to talk about because it's very uncomfortable to see where our loyalties actually lie.

It has always been clear to me that this privacy stand is maybe 20% Tim Cook and 80% strategy. The privacy card works well as a differentiating feature from Google products. So, we have a situation where the interests of Apple and a chunk of users are temporarily aligned.

We have stay continuously aware that this is probably a temporary situation and laying all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea. When governments of larger economies start forcing their hands with bans, etc., they will follow the money.

In hindsight, I think the popularity of macOS among UNIX fans has been detrimental to the development of open source software and open ecosystems that can provide more long-term privacy, by sucking a lot of manpower/energy out of the Linux/BSD ecosystem. (I am also guilty as charged.)

Quite the contrary, macOS has been a boost to Unix. You are rather naive idf you think all macOS users are potential Linux users. macOS helped make Unix a strong competitor to Windows. It helped demonstrate that a Unix system CAN be user friendly something many people used to think was impossible.

Thanks to the rise of macOS windows has become a second class citizen for many development tools.

The non-gui layer of macOS and Linux can for the most part easily be shared. It means open source developers of non-gui tools have a much bigger usergroup and potential contributors.

What is the correct move? Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely?

How about when Apple removed apps from developers based in Iran because of US sanctions?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/technology/apple-iran.htm...

>Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely?

Your tone of voice seems to indicate you don't think that's actually an option.

You can’t do that. It’s China. It’s one of the largest markets on Earth and Apple is a public company.

Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand.

And no one would be better off. As Cook says at least Apple does the best they can and holds the line on other things like encrypting iMessage.

> You can’t do that. It’s China. It’s one of the largest markets on Earth and Apple is a public company. Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand.

Somehow, that didn't happen when Google effectively withdrew from China.

Apple's business requires physical presence. Google's largely doesn't.

Yes. They also have all manufacturing there. I imagine if Apple did pull out it would be so embarrassing to the Chinese govt they would close the foxconn facilities too.

I hadn’t even thought of the manufacture angle.

If Apple were to pull out, even if the board didn’t fire Cook for that... would they be able to make phones? Is ANYWHERE on Earth capable of that other than China? I suppose you could buy all the parts from China and have them shipped somewhere else to be assembled but what would that do to the cost of the devices?

Would anyone buy an iPhone that starts at $1500 or $2000?

> Would anyone buy an iPhone that starts at $1500 or $2000?

Probably, yeah. It doesn't seem like people mind paying $1000. It would just make it even more of a status symbol.

Are iPhones a Veblen good?

South Korea is capable of that.

I think diversifying production base would all ready be in works.

Google's revenue from China wasn't significant, and Google didn't withdraw because China wanted them to pull a few apps...

How much of Google's revenue came from China?

> Cook would immediately be fired by the board. They’d put someone new in, and that someone new would comply with China’s demand.

That would indeed take courage and principles on Cook's part. If the board had courage & principles they wouldn't fire him. And if they did — they'd demonstrate what sort of men they are.

> And no one would be better off.

Tim Cook would have his self-respect.

I imagine a lot of stock holders would move to replace the board if the board agreed with Cook.

> Tim Cook would have his self-respect.

I agree. And I hope he’d hold the line.

But I think the people of China would be worse off. Stockholders would be worse off. Apple would be worse off, which means as an American buying heir products it might make them slightly worse for me.

What is the correct move? Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely?

Which is what Google pretty much did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-ce...

That way, Chinese people would be worse off security and privacy wise though. Think it through: Apple pulls out of China, the Chinese government makes the use of iPhones illegal, the Chinese people lose access to iPhones and with that to the secure enclave, end-to-end encrypted iMessage, secure boot, etc.

So in the end, Chinese people wouldn't just lose 3rd party VPNs (the first party ones are AFAIK still present in iOS), they would lose all the security features.

Is that still worth the moral stance?

>Refuse to follow the law and withdraw from the market completely?

That's exactly what Google did:

https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...

Wasn’t that a response of one of their Chinese offices being hacked with the intention of corporate espionage?

As far as I’m aware, from a privacy perspective, Google never had moral problems doing business in China. They’re just using it as a convenient excuse that makes them look good.

>These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.

In other words, government censorship and attempts by the government to undermine user privacy were ultimately what led to the move out of China. The straw does appear to have been the hack, but the ultimate goal of the hack appeared to be to steal user data.

>Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

I don't support their decision, but that is a weak argument. All major companies have factories they work with in China. They are already funneling money to the Chinese government via taxes, fees, etc. In the privacy pie, removing the apps is this tiny sliver, the major chunk of the pie is where the Chinese government continues to get revenue to fund their censorship apparatus.

They need to comply with laws in all markets in which they operate. We can disagree with those laws and speak out against them but it is not our place to decide laws for others. But should Apple pull out of the market in protest? I think that iPhones being available is probably better for China than no iPhone as a protest over the law requiring all VPNs to have a valid “license”. Definitely there is a line that can’t be crossed (i.e. if the chinese government forced Apple to enable GPS tracking of all citizens I would expect them to say no) but to me this does not cross that line. People can still compile and install the app on their phone themselves (though it is harder than if it were on the AppStore). What is happening in China is so tragic and I truly hope things change in the near future so they can reach their full potential as a nation.

let’s not forget, in China the government controls the entire internet. If Apple didn’t want to take down the listing, they could easily pull down the entire AppStore (if not all Apple services) with one phone call, just as they did with facebook.

It is unfortunate that the Chinese government made those demands. By no means I am trying to defend the Chinese government. That said, there is a difference here. Apply was trying to comply with the laws in China (I cannot think of a single country where you can operate above the local laws). However, here in the US, it was requested by FBI, not a court order or subpoena. It is not fair to Apple or other companies by forcing them to enforce human rights while doing business. Google pulled out of China not because of human rights but because they were losing to Baidu in China market. It was more a business decision than anything else (Google spins it differently of course).

Never forget people, Apple's emphasis on privacy is only a means to an end, that end being "making money". If Apple needs to relax privacy to help its bottom line, it will, as this example so incisively demonstrates.

It's not that anyone is "forgetting it". Right now Apple's chosen way of making money - charging more than its competitors so it doesn't have to collect and sell users data (Google) or install third party crapware on its devices (almost every OEM) aligns with my interests.

I am not bombarded with ads when I use iMessage on my Mac like I am when I use Skype on my Windows PC.

Apple has built in support for third party ad blockers. Google would never develop a system to allow ad blockers in Chrome for Android.

Tell Tim I say hi and that I want my $5 he owes me!

I fear the grand majority of people and companies prefer economic advantage over what's right at the end of the day.

Please ask tim about the mac pro? iPad mini? Thanks!

Thank you, thank you so much for pointing out this. Really appreciated!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com