Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksk | Hacker News Reader

That is a poor argument. "Selling" a product is not a principle or a virtue that one is required to comply with. Protecting the privacy of users is. Being non-discriminatory is. What if they had to do business in a country that forbids gay people from working? Using your logic - "Oh well they had to fire all their gay employees to just follow the law".

Its hypocritical of Apple to suggest they truly care about privacy other than as a means to simply differentiate themselves to sell some more shiny objects - which might well be a common cutthroat business tactic.

View on HN

Your logic is bonkers. Not every principle or virtue is a hill that every inch is worth dying over. The US and EU (and pretty much every other country) also have many laws and regulations that are not privacy friendly. You claim this means they should close up shop (or only sell to seasteaders) if they are a true privacyman? It's a recycled version of the 'Al Gore has a big house' joke, guess he's doesn't really care about the environment. Heyo!

If people simply admitted that Apple (like many others) will compromise on their privacy principles in exchange for commercial gain - we would never have been having a conversation on this topic. People want to hold Apple to a higher standard.. maybe thats also part of the problem.

Is it really that simple? Put yourself in the execs' shoes for a few minutes. You can obey the laws of China and do business in China... or you can take a stand on principle and leave the market, giving up not only the revenue, but the small amount of positive influence you might have on their society as a whole.

How is that necessarily any better for humanity than simply obeying the local laws, going along to get along, while making it clear to your Chinese customers that their counterparts in more enlightened countries enjoy more privacy, more features, and an overall better experience?

I spoke with some people at a certain well-known company working on satellite Internet service a while back, and I asked them the same question. "What are you going to do when the Chinese try to shut you down for providing uncensored Internet service?" It was hard to argue with their response. They feel it is possible to make money and be a positive influence in various closed totalitarian societies including China. I think that's basically Apple's take on it as well.

Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale. It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.

Well, I'm saying that we should probably ignore Apple when they say[1] stuff like "At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right." My cynical reading would be "At Apple, we're going to compromise on what we believe to be a fundamental human right, to make a few bucks, and if in the process we happen to have a positive impact on some dictatorial regimes, that would be cool too".

>Overt disobedience to the regime is rarely a good option for companies operating at global scale.

To be sure, it is never a good option. People have tried to sue the Chinese government, unsuccessfully so far. Nobody is denying that the chinese government has a horrible human rights record too.

>It will get your employees declared criminals in large areas of the planet, and it can literally get your customers killed.

Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal..

[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/

Are we still talking about Apple in China? I don't know which customer was killed, or which employee was declared a criminal..

No, I switched contexts to the satellite Internet service developer I mentioned. They are on track to deploy a significant LEO constellation over the next few years. If they succeed, they will effectively be the Internet for a large chunk of the world. So if they don't make arrangements to accommodate various countries' censorship regulations, then citizens of places like China, Iran or North Korea who are caught with their receivers will be in a great deal of trouble, and the company's executives will not be able to travel to those regions without fearing arrest.

There is another option. Just abandon any principle of data privacy and continue to sell their products (although GDPR in EU is an issue).

It is also hypocritical for privacy advocates to purchase products from China.

Their purchases directly fund a regime opposed to their moral positions, either through taxes and duties or payments to the many thousands of firms (like COSCO) that are controlled wholly or in part by the Chinese government or military.

The hypocritical-ness doesn’t go away because corporations are larger than individuals, the transaction is in a different direction, or because the moral position is privately-held.

>It is also hypocritical for privacy advocates to purchase products from China.

If you take Apple out of the argument for a second, thats quite a complex case. I think you can have two positions "we don't compromise on privacy" and "were trying to improve the situation the best way we know how". Under #2, you could make the argument that buying a general purpose tool such as a computer made in china, and using it to promote privacy is a net benefit, than not having the tool to promote your cause.

If it’s possible to buy the computer elsewhere and choose not to, it’s hypocritical.

Well. In that case you get to skip most of Intel. Minor parts like capacitors and resistors are also almost completely made in China fabs.

You will have to be extremely particular and thorough to get rid of all chibese products.

Exactly, it’s not a reasonable position to take.

> "Selling" a product is not a principle or a virtue that one is required to comply with. Protecting the privacy of users is.

A foreign country has passed laws disagreeing with your value judgement. In any case, Apple is a business. As a consumer, I care first and foremost about my privacy and the privacy of those in my country. That is not impinged upon by China forcing Apple's hand in their own country. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Any good act by a corporation can be explained away as a business strategy. Just as any good act by an individual can be explained away as a means to garner status, or because the individual derives personal satisfaction from either the act or the effects of good behavior.

Are you arguing that one must always impute manipulative motives to a corporation? (And should therefore not reward consequentially better behavior, because it must be based on invalid motives?)

Or is your point that Apple is uniquely hypocritical? If so, on what evidence about Apple in particular?

>Any good act by a corporation can be explained away as a business strategy. Just as any good act by an individual can be explained away as a means to garner status, or because the individual derives personal satisfaction from either the act or the effects of good behavior.

Sure, I would agree that if the outcome is good, then the intention is not relevant. Apple might have a positive effect in China despite compromising on privacy.

>Are you arguing that one must always impute manipulative motives to a corporation? (And should therefore not reward consequentially better behavior, because it must be based on invalid motives?)

I'm saying recognize the hypocrisy instead of constructing weird arguments to justify it.

>Or is your point that Apple is uniquely hypocritical? (And if so, on what evidence?

Certainly not. I said its a common business tactic.

> I'm saying recognize the hypocrisy instead of constructing weird arguments to justify it.

People with different priors on whether Apple's managers (or managers in general, or managers of large corporations in general) are likely to be hypocrites, will probably have opposite judgements about which explanation is a “weird argument”. So I don't think framing it in these terms will resolve any disagreement, unless there's some non-circular criterion (maybe you have one and I haven't seen it or am not understanding it) for judging an argument “weird”.

I use the same criterion that people use when they use it in their day-to-day conversations. Lets not get into the definition of words. In any case its not my goal to resolve disagreement or to convince someone of something. I don't view conversations in such narrow ways. I'm only interested in having interesting conversations with reasonable folks.

And what, US law just magically happens to be properly balanced, unlike the legal systems elsewhere?

Following your logic, every single company in the US is either ethically aligned with US law or horrible, awful hypocrites. Apparently there are no other possibilities.

If every single company said stuff like "At Apple, we believe privacy is a fundamental human right." then yes.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/

If we are comparing it to Chinese law, then most definitely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com