Hacker News Reader

Comment by thisisit | Hacker News Reader

Here's a simple thought experiment.

Would have Apple done the same if it was any another country?

Probably not. They would have courts and the democratic processes to help them resist.

But in face of authoritarian government who can hurt Apple's sales the company always bows. Be it actions in China or now action in US. The motive is simply profit.

The company cannot have a centralized control to make it "safer" and then give that way if the profits are under threat. Companies should be shamed for that.

View on HN

I'm skeptical of this angle. If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, is it really a question of profit and not safety? Does it really take much pressure to want to get out of that position?

Does Apple publish apps designed for reporting locations of immigrants or minority groups? Is that a line of business they want to be in at all?

Please show where these apps have been used to commit targeted violence.

Your second paragraph reads to me like you’re equating the desire to protest and document the atrocities being committed by government agents to physical threats and violence being committed by unhinged private citizens against minority groups. This is a disingenuous argument.

You do not understand. I am equating the desire of unhinged private citizens to commit violence to the desire of other unhinged private citizens to commit violence. Reasonable people aren't the problem.

"An app that gives you real-time updates on the location of people you deeply dislike" is

It's extremely unlikely that there are not more people out there

The point is that If you're in Apple's position it doesn't especially matter who is being targeted and how many people are actually using the app that way. If they don't want to be in the anonymous people-reporting app game on the basis that it may make people unsafe vis a vis said unhinged private citizens, that's not unreasonable or inconsistent, and it doesn't necessarily take an extraordinary government threat to the business for Apple to want to distance themselves from that kind of app.

Fair enough.

However, you said: "If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, ..."

Was this a pure hypothetical? If so, I don't think it needs to be addressed until it actually becomes a real problem. Apple itself ships an app that alerts me when a police officer is nearby (Maps), but I haven't heard about any police being targeted with violence because of that.

If it was not a pure hypothetical, I'd be interested to see a link, as I'm not aware of any violence committed due to the existence of ICE-tracking apps. To my previous point though, I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets with kidnapping and trafficking.

It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.

While it might better satisfy our sense of justice to wait until we can definitely say that a enabled b, the hazard is obvious, and Apple can reasonably determine that they don't want to be party to it.

> I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets ..

Of course. Does Apple host apps whose primary purpose is reporting the location of those groups?

> It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.

Cool, then I stand by what I said previously: it doesn't need to (and actually shouldn't) be addressed now. The app has value for journalists, protesters, people looking to prevent family or friends from being kidnapped, and others. All of those benefits outweigh purely hypothetical concerns around possible violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com