Apple moves to store iCloud keys in China, raising human rights fears | Hacker News Reader

Apple moves to store iCloud keys in China, raising human rights fears

reuters.com

88 pointsiron001347 comments

Headline is somewhat misleading - this applies to Chinese iCloud accounts, not all iCloud accounts.

The headline is not misleading at all, they are doing exactly what I expected

The headline is ambiguous.

Ambiguous != misleading - the latter implies intent

That’s a common connotation, sure. But it’s not part of its meaning, I frequently see the word “misleading” used without any notion of intent.

No, it doesn’t.

Ambiguous and Misleading is an effect or consequence of a statement. Neither indicate any intent behind the statement. In other words, a statement can be misleading despite of benevolent intention.

> The headline is not misleading at all, they are doing exactly what I expected

“They” being the submitter, it’s click bait, no date and misleading headline

And it doesn't move anything you don't store on iCloud. So don't store things on iCloud and there's nothing they can access. For example iMessage messages aren't on iCloud in clear text unless you enable that feature.

How do they determine if your iCloud account is Chinese. If you use a Chinese SIM card? Access from a Chinese IP? Neither? Both?

Depending on that it could still affect someone from the US for example, if they took a business trip to China. Or if something maliciously routed your internet traffic through China.

iCloud accounts are region specific, it’s a pretty involved process to change it. You have to have a local payment source like a credit card.

Okay, this makes me a little more comfortable - does Apple state this as being how they determine data residency?

Small correction: the credit card is not needed if you go through specific steps like a free app. Then you can select “none” as the payment method in every country I’ve tested so far.

From the article:

> The change only affects users who set China as their country on Apple devices and doesn’t affect users who select Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan.

This is from a year ago, headline should say 2018

My first (knee jerk) thought is “I guess this is what happens when you’re under pressure to perform better in China”; but I think there is more to the story than we know.

I would be surprised Apple if caved on this without having a mitigation strategy in place.

I am afraid any attempts to implement mitigations against Chinese law would result in outlawing these mitigations.

It is not like US at all.

This. Friends from China tell me that China is less "rule of law" than "rule of people".

The "more to the story" is that this is required by Chinese law, as explained by the article:

> In a statement, Apple said it had to comply with recently introduced Chinese laws that require cloud services offered to Chinese citizens be operated by Chinese companies and that the data be stored in China. It said that while the company’s values don’t change in different parts of the world, it is subject to each country’s laws.

Replace the word "China" with "Sweden" and it starts sounding like reasonable policy.

No it does not. Sweden probably is less likely to horribly abuse the data to incarcerate and execute citizens for disagreeing with the government, but the goal of the policy would be the same - to make all data about the person subject to the state's control. Swedish government might not be abusing this control right now, but nobody can guarantee it won't in 15 years.

> ...the goal of the policy would be the same - to make all data about the person subject to the state's control.

That's one-sided thinking. The goal may well be to make the data not subject to the (lack of) control of a foreign state, namely the United States in this case, but any foreign state in the general case.

In fact the EU already mandates similar restrictions for data of EU citizens and special provisions for EU-US data transfers:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data...

> That's one-sided thinking.

Yes, one side I am interested in is my side. If I want to store my data in a different jurisdiction, because it is currently less interested in abusing my rights than the one my body physically resides in, I should have that option.

> In fact the EU already mandates similar restrictions for data of EU citizens

That's exactly my point. EU government might be currently less interested in explicit human rights violations than Chinese government, but their pattern of behavior is the same - "we own everything about our subjects, and won't let anybody - including subjects themselves - do anything to escape our control".

> the goal of the policy would be the same - to make all data about the person subject to the state's control.

The real goal is just as likely to be economic - a way to protect local businesses without actually calling it protectionism.

It's probably both. But experience shows control is much more important to the state than the well-being of any businesses.

Indeed, this article also could have been titled "Apple obeys the law of countries that it does business in", but it wouldn't have been as attention getting.

I wish for an AirPort iOS Time Capsule. One with a 2.5" 1TB HDD, with a Sub $199 pricing.

For $3 Dollar a month, you get 200GB iCloud, Most people don't need that, As your iOS, Apps, Music, doesn't need to be backed up. Those takes up in between 15GB+. So if you have an 64GB iPhone, that chances are 55GB iCloud ( 50 + 5GB Free ) is enough. That is $0.99 / month, $12 a Year, $24 for two years.

Surely a $199 iOS Time Capsule makes a much better business case than $12 a year backup plan?

Those who don't want their government spying on them, could have use this instead.

Will the user experience be degraded if the user sets their region to Hong Kong or Macau?

There is no cloud but other people's computers. Don't store personal data on other people's computers.

The question is, by pulling out of China as some sort of business virtue signal, is the outcome an improvement? China doesn't need Apple and not complying with China without pulling out isn't an option.

Let's say some major Chinese company pulled out of the U.S. market because of the Iraq War, would the reaction of U.S. citizens, even those opposing the war, be positive? Wouldn't politicians use it as an instrument?

Make no mistake, scary stuff is going on in China, but the solution has to come from within China. In fact, by explicitly supporting the opposition in China, any accusation of "evil foreign influence" is substantiated.

One more reason to dump Apple.

And go to who?

About 1000 other phone models not manufactured by Apple? Is it some kind of trick question that assumes Apple holds monopoly in the business of mobile/cloud and we're not aware of it? Or there's some other point here?

Everybody who operates cloud services in China is subject to these same laws. If you dump Apple over this, every other choice you have is guaranteed to be no better (and likely a hell of a lot worse) on the privacy front.

Maybe the point is to choose provider that operates cloud services outside of China?

If all that matters is the phone model, then Apple is just as good since you don't need to use iCloud. If you are going to use cloud services, do you really think Google/Android is going to be better from a privacy perspective?

However other brands in China also obey the same law, that means you have to choose some brands that never have business in China, which excludes (Samsung, LG, Moto, ....)

If it increases the share price, sales, maximizes shareholder value, without backlash in home market, it's okay. /s

> they fear the authorities

authorities <- its their country not yours not ours. Do bad things happen there? Yeah probably, but so do bad things happen in whatever country people are reading this post from.

Clearly countries have come about because people have different ways of thinking of how things should or should not be done. Because of this I always find it weird when people from one country are very concerned about another countries citizens.

We(you) anybody can't be the police of the world. If you want to operate in another country then you should probably follow their local laws. Any attempt to do so will probably result in the hero (those who wish to police) to turn in to a tyrant much worse than that we have today.

> I always find it weird when people from one country are very concerned about another countries citizens.

I find it strange when people from one country aren’t concerned with other countries’ citizens. That may or may not justify “intervention”, but we’re all human beings on the same planet here.

Well put, and I do long for a day we are all simply just "human". But there is enough bad in this world that the only sane way to combat it is based of locality.

Just as I am not concerned so much with what is happening in a home one street over, I am also not concerned about neighboring cities, states and then finally countries. Each of these groups surly has their own set of problems to solve before chasing after the problems of the next. So I chose to start with my self first, then my family and move out from there.

I'm very tempted towards being snarky. This also is a logical fallacy. You can work on your families problems and opt not to support companies caving to evil dictatorships as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Based on this fallacy we should never ever address any problem larger than what to have for dinner tonight because piddling issues are ever present.

I can't agree that what I stated is a false dilemma. I am simply stating for sake of efficiency locality matters.

I am also arguing that they are their own people. And while not all of them agree to be governed in this manner, some large percent probably does. It is silly to medal in the affairs of such.

This is very similar to a lot of the "appeasement" rhetoric going around just before WWII.

That's easy to say from a comfortable office chair in a Western country. Is there no line a country can cross before foreign citizens are justified in condemning another country's behavior?

For instance, take China's current oppression of their Uighur population: https://www.vox.com/2018/10/24/18018282/china-reeducation-ca...

Yeah, maybe I do have it easy in my office chair, but somebody before me did the ground work to make it so what we have here is possible.

If the people of China want change I am sure they can have it, but it will obviously come at a huge cost.

In the meantime we can at least make their life a little better by giving them access to western technology. The alternative is that apple pulls out and has no ability to make it harder -- at all -- for the technologies that are used in replacement.

Don't forget the same people who are concerned about human rights were probably the same people who praised other sovereign nations that implemented the same sort of polices.

Remember this is a nation, it has other reasons why it might want its citizens data stored within the confines of the nation. To think this was simply a move to root out those who don't agree with the government would be foolish -- even if this move results in such abuse.

If apple pulled out it at least it wouldn't be contributing to its nations efforts further people may already have incriminating data on their icloud which when the chinese authorities gain access to will lead to their detention, torture, and death.

Further having inherited your relatively easy position in your chair perhaps you ought properly to feel obligated to use said privileges position to help pull others up instead of shrugging your shoulders.

Sounds like Apple sent a warning, presumably giving people time to delete accounts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com