FWIW, everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety" -- despite how that obviously and repeatedly makes them become patsies for governments all over the world to enforce their censorship regimes -- are complicit in this stuff (in addition, of course, to the people who build it at Apple...).
This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions.
Being complicit means to be knowingly involved in or facilitating an illegal or wrongdoing act. In my books, it requires a level of participation that I don’t think your characterization meets.
You're dismissing the parent argument merely based on a narrow interpretation of the word complicity. The way they use it is common and correct in English language. All it needs is to aid the wrongdoing in some manner. That's exactly what you do when you choose to support and lend credence to Apple's flawed arguments on safety and thus blunt the opposition to their hostile practices. This is significant because Apple has been forced on occasions to backtrack on bad decisions in the face of public backlash. (Anybody remember their plan to scan all photos in the phone for CSAM?)
Now even if you want to go the pedantic or legal route, the meaning of complicity changes according to jurisdictions. Many legal jurisdictions consider interference in the opposition to a crime or even silence in the face of a crime to be complicity if you had sufficient knowledge about wrongdoer's intent. In this particular case, people had been warning for decades of this exact outcome, down to the details of the headline.
You could argue that this is policing of thought and opinion. Obviously, we're talking about moral responsibility here, which is just another opinion too as far as consequences are considered. (Except in cases of astroturfing and sock puppeting where the complicity is more direct. But we will ignore that possibility for now.)
I don't know about this line of thinking. If you truly believe this, then you could point to just about anyone on earth and state they're complicit in some atrocity or oppression.
I would concede there are degrees of proximity, but this particular example, that if you are in any way contributing to Apple's success (not matter the size) that you are complicit, and by implication be held responsible, for fasicm is truly whacky in my books.
> If you truly believe this, then you could point to just about anyone on earth and state they're complicit in some atrocity or oppression.
Ah! I see where it's going now. You can't reinterpret and dismiss others' statements to your liking. If you choose to vocally support an activity that you know to be harmful in some way, then you're actively complicit in it. That's a choice. And not one that everyone takes to end up fighting with their own conscience. And even those who do, weigh their actions against a moral boundary they maintain.
> I would concede there are degrees of proximity, but this particular example, that if you are in any way contributing to Apple's success (not matter the size) that you are complicit, and by implication be held responsible, for fasicm is truly whacky in my books.
Misinformation peddlers actively frustrate and defeat the efforts of those who try to raise awareness and alarm about the problem. That's plenty enough for them to be held morally responsible for the results.
>> everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety"
This is an action. If you go around defending Apple or advocating for their position then yes, you are complicit. You are not just a bystander, you are actively participating in their propaganda. This is especially true on HN where we expect the average user to be fairly technically literate. Everyone here should know how phones are not unique computers that need extra central authority control to make them safe when compared to your desktops and laptops.
Sure, Apple probably wants to have control over that too, but are we really going to let them destroy the very thing that made these systems magic? Computers are "magic" because we can program them. Because they are environments. You cannot make a product for everybody. But you can make an environment in which everyone can adapt to their individual needs and use cases. That's what makes the computer magical and so special. A smart phone is nothing without its apps.
Okay. So your point was not really: "I disagree on moral philosophy, responsibility and the attribution of guilt", it was: "I support Apple's centralized control on all apps you can run, but I don't want to be criticized for the moral implications of state control, censorship and authoritarianism, nor do I want to defend my position on the merits". That's cheap.
I don't know if that's necessarily a charitable interpretation of the comment, keeping in mind the HN commenting guidelines. Despite differences in opinion we should give everyone the chance to state their view, no matter what it is, as long as it generates "curious" discussion.
It's more like: "I support Apple's centralized control on all apps you can run, as long as that monopoly is only used to squeeze out competition and not for censorship."
Of course government censorship becomes a lot easier if you only need to put pressure on one company.
Bud Tribble was shaming Apple cronies in 1981 when he put "reality distortion effect" in circulation. You can feel however you want, but everyone can see the truth for what it is. Been that way for a while now.
If you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this. I don't know who you are and I don't care, I am just saying this is the basic cause and effect.
Things cannot improve unless stakeholders use their levers to change or abandon the company.
I do 2/3 of those things and have no problem with what Apple is doing. There is no universal right side in this. This being a top comment here doesn't make it true.
FWIW, if you have no problem with what Apple is doing--and a lot of people might not: they might even actively cheer Apple on if they went out of their way to help ICE... not my jam, but a lot of people want to simultaneously be anti-ICE or anti-Trump and pro-Apple--then I don't think my comment becomes "untrue": the point simply would have no serious effect on you, as I guess you are simply OK being "complicit"... today <- which is key, as it isn't like this is the first or last time Apple has become a patsy to governments around the world, restricting access or removing content and software that challenge authoritarian control. I gave an entire talk in 2017 at the Mozilla Privacy Lab on how this happens to centralized systems all the time called "That's How You Get a Dystopia", though Apple is only one segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms.
The thing is these are all your opinions and you have a right to them... but you are choosing these words (my guess is they are chosen for you based on your source material) words like "complicit", "patsy", "authoritarian control". Using these words doesn't make them true.
I give you credit for speaking up for what you believe in publicly.
My opinion is that it is pretty self evident that a large or small company would remove an app at the request of the US Government that actively tracks federal agents that are attempting to enforce the law.
Ah, OK, so, that isn't actually the issue I am pointing at directly, which might be the confusion! I am not saying that--if you believe that such apps being pulled is, itself, a bad thing (and, a lot of people do, as they want to claim they are anti-ICE or anti/Trump), the reason that happens at all is not because Apple didn't fight back hard enough today (somehow): it is because Apple didn't make the correct choices years ago, and now they have no choice. Apple is only in a position to do this at all and be asked to remove stuff due to the government's wishes because they set themselves up to have no choice in the matter.
In fact, it is because of just how obviously "self evident" it is that the point can even be made in the first place: if you construct a giant centralized bottleneck on the distribution of software and information, you will end up being asked to use that bottleneck to filter content by governments... not just in the United States, but around the world. If that is truly "self evident" to you, you do not build the centralized bottleneck unless you like the idea of the eventual possible results of such.
And, in that analysis, if you like the result, then you can argue with the tone of the wording, but I don't think the point is "untrue". Apple doesn't really have any choice in the matter, so they are a patsy here. And if you argued to help Apple obtain their centralized position, you are complicit in said result. You might be proud to be complicit, or you might be happy that Apple is a patsy, but that doesn't change the truth of the situation.
So like, great: you say that is self-evident... did you like what happened today? If not, do you like it when Apple does the same thing for counties all over the world--when I said "authoritarian control" it was me talking about other countries, such as China, where I think you would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise--and pulls apps like VPNs and protest coordination tools? If so, again, very not my jam... but it certainly makes sense for you to be happy Apple has no choice and proud of any prior involvement you have with such...
...but, if you ever think Apple is doing stuff that makes your stomach lurch because they have no choice but to follow the edict of a government, the question is: what does that imply for moral product development in this world? Do you build--and then advocate for, or defend on forums--a centralized App Store and deny the ability for third-party software? Or do you, as a principled stance... not do that?
To refrain one more time: we are in intense and powerful agreement that "it is pretty self evident that a large or small company would remove an app at the request of the US Government that actively tracks federal agents that are attempting to enforce the law". That isn't only "your" opinion: that is "our"
opinion! ;P
As the moment of agency then happens well before this moment today, we then can't shy away from the real question: do you like Trump and how he's running ICE, and the result it has on families? If you do, again: not my jam ;P, but I totally get why you'd be happy about the result today or confused as to why you should feel differently about it.
However, it isn't obvious to me you do, as you want to hide behind the action today being "self evident", as if that obviates the need to even verify someone's (I want to say "yours" but you might technically be arguing on behalf of an anonymous third party, and I don't want to leave opening to pivot the discussion into whether or not you personally ever advocated for Apple) opinion on ICE: in fact, that is why that political opinion matters so very very much!
In a world where we decide one company has a bottleneck on information and freedom strong enough to quickly remove access to content and tools from a large percentage of the population, suddenly we must care deeply about how that tool will get used. If you don't like how that tool gets used, you really have to be advocating for that tool to not exist.
> If you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this.
I don't know that saying to someone: "hey, you're complicit in fascism because you bought an iPhone" is a reasonable stance.
Imagine you're a factory worker who builds a component for Apple products. Is it fair to shout to that person you're enabling the US government's clampdown on peaceful resistance?
Do you think it makes sense to say to the tens of millions of Americans (and foreign investors) who hold positions in S&P 500 that they are complicity in fascism because Apple decided to remove apps?
I can appreciate your passion and conviction, but I don't know that the world is that black and white.
Everyone in this forum seems to be obsessed with personal guilt and blame because the idea that they are responsible for their actions hurts their feelings. I am just talking about the cause and effect here.
The cause is that you are supporting a company that thinks it has the right to control what its users do on their devices, and the effect is that this relationship is easily hijacked by the government. It actually is very straightforward.
If you want to stop the company, you have to convince the stakeholders to change/abandon the company or disempower the stakeholders themselves directly. This is why I make the case here: I can either convince you or oppose you directly.
>I don't know that saying to someone: "hey, you're complicit in fascism because you bought an iPhone" is a reasonable stance.
Don't worry, I do know that it is a reasonable stance. There are a ton of phones on the market that don't enable this type of control, and they are more affordable and useful than iphones. The barrier to entry is slight inconvenience.
>Imagine you're a factory worker who builds a component for Apple products. Is it fair to shout to that person you're enabling the US government's clampdown on peaceful resistance?
Factory workers are probably living in some third world country where they have very little leverage in negotiating the terms of the company, and they are probably too poor to afford iphones and don't care about US politics, but they still have some leverage. So you could shout that to the factory worker but they probably wouldn't care. It would be futile
>Do you think it makes sense to say to the tens of millions of Americans (and foreign investors) who hold positions in S&P 500 that they are complicity in fascism because Apple decided to remove apps?
I don't use this language of fascism because it has because been overused by the left. But my answer is simply yes. Shareholders are responsible for the actions of their companies.
You are just playing this game of deferring responsibility to some non-existent person. The consumer defers blame onto the company. The worker defers blame onto the management. Management defers blame onto the shareholders. The shareholders can pass the blame onto management. At the end of the game we can all shrug and say "well there was nothing I could have done".
The reality is that all stakeholders are to blame. Everyone has some leverage over the company, and many stakeholders have pivotal positions.
If you can buy individual stocks, then you absolutely do have access to the Dow in the form of a myriad of ETFs [1][2][3]. There are also numerous standard mutual funds which consist of all the companies in the DJIA. This is what I thought you were referring to when you said you'd invest in the Dow, hence my comment.
Whatever the word is, the cause and effect is this:
1. Apple users tolerate the status quo through inaction, which is the centralized distribution of software.
2. Governments take advantage of this status quo to control apple users.
If it was the case that the OS was open, then the US Gov. would have no leverage to prevent the distribution of the software mentioned in the article. However apple's stakeholders enable and justify the centralized software distribution as a feature rather than a bug.
Developers are in on it too: the locked-down ecosystem is more lucrative for them because there are higher entry costs to producing software, and thus reduced competition. It prevents piracy for example, at the cost of preventing the distribution of pretty much all open source software.
There's a difference between having a view and spreading apologia for public consumption.
For example, surely anti-abolitionists' apologia made them more complicit in the continued institution of slavery than those who chose not to make excuses for it did, even if they themselves did not own or facilitate the sale of people.
We don't seem to have a problem with assigning some responsibility for abolition with abolitionists' own apologia, some of it still read in schools today.
They knowingly created the systems they built around having centralized control, everyone told them the consequences of doing that, they did it anyway, this is the result, they are responsible.
It’s happened many times before, and people heard about it and aren’t that stupid or forgetful. They just want to believe something incompatible, so they permit themselves a little internal dishonesty: maybe it’s a separate issue that somebody else will surely figure out, or there’s a better solution (that we won’t pursue), or everybody always exaggerates (but we won’t verify that), or they find a way to hate and dismiss everybody who talks about it. Declaring your own shamelessness is more of the same: you’re reframing the problem from the consequences of your actions to your feelings about those consequences, then addressing only your feelings. It’s the same sort of behavior as heroin addicts, who find a route to happiness that doesn’t push them through the good things that the pursuit of happiness was meant to.
> This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions.
Having a point of view and then using that point of view to make public claims, often counter-claims in face of precisely this type of criticism, is an action. Examples are easily found on this forum.
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.
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.
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.
May be not complicit, but I think people need to be reminded that the context that Apple claims privacy is a fundamental human right and they are the defender of it. Both PR and in court.
And this centralised censorship regimes isn't new. It is exactly the same during Hong Kong protest in 2019.
Okay, but that's not what's being asked now is it? What's being asked is the explanation. They aren't telling saying to the public "we love the taste of boots" even if it is true.
Okay, but you haven't answered the question either.
Do you not think I'm not aware that Apple is bending the knee? I'm pretty confident JumpCrissCross knows that too.
The question isn't about what's underneath the mask. The question is about what the mask is. What they're pretending the actual reason is. No one here is asking for the real reason because we're already aware. We're indicating it in the comments too. So by trying to tell us what's beneath the mask you're just creating more noise and making it harder to identify the mask
Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for:
> In an email to ICEBlock creator Joshua Aaron, Apple wrote that “upon re-evaluation,” the app does not comply with its app store guidelines around “objectionable” and “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content,” according to a copy of the message viewed by CNN.
> Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for
The reason I made the first comment was not because I was unable to find the answer myself but because I wanted to push back against this type of commenting. To respond to what people are actually asking. Pressure to help push the culture of our community to be more productive.
It seems to me that the best way to "help push the culture of our community to be more productive" is to be more productive yourself, instead of engaging in meta-discussion about the community not being productive enough for your tastes. In other words, you could have just actually posted the answer to the question instead of scolding two other commenters for not doing so.
I have no hope that the solution can be solved through lawfare. The ability of one company to control what the vast majority of people can do with their phones is unacceptable, regardless of what happens with this one app.
The vast majority of the people on this planet have never touched an iphone. Android dominates basically everywhere outside north america and, interestingly, the DPRK.
I lost--not on the facts, or even on the relevant law, and not even in the district court where we were being heard, but in appeals on a narrow technicality of statute of limitations that we bet our case on (I am explicit about this as Apple didn't "win", so much as "we failed"; I even feel like our case just wasn't argued very well once we got to that level, which hurts)--over a year and a half ago... so, never :(.
Sorry to hear it, that's the justice system for you.
IMO, you're in a unique position where you can make your case to the public, not only is it intensely relevant now, but people will listen to you. Your name/brand carries good will for many.
Even a blog post that can be shared would be valuable. If that's something you'd be interested in, of course.
It’s a shame too, because Apple has the money and brand wherewithal to fight the government. See the FBI vs Apple stuff that happened years ago. That actually won them some real converts.
Capitulating over this is Apple showing their supposed core values have significantly hollowed
Isn’t Apple mostly interested in making more money, though, instead of spending money?
The way I see it of all the top tech giants, Apple has the most to lose with all the tariff shenanigans, so it’s in their [shareholders] interest to stay friends with the current administration.
Apple has never had moral values other than earning money by making great products.
And I say this as someone who is deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem.
Part of the brand after the FBI fiasco was about being a privacy forward company that didn’t simply capitulate to government demands on a whim. They demonstrated in smaller tests they were willing to put up a fight for those principles.
That of course was now almost a decade ago. They seem to have changed their entire messaging and with it, seemingly their interest in being more than a ROI machine.
It’s a regression not a step forward. Apple was never a paragon but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt, but alas, I suspect in today’s culture I am increasingly in the minority position
> but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt
I'll steelman against this, but only because I really enjoy entertaining the idea. Even back then, it was a branding farce. The San Bernadino event was in 2015, pretty close proximity to the Snowden leaks which disclosed Apple's 2012 cooperation with PRISM. Best-case scenario, it was an extremely lucky press junket; worst case scenario it was a false-flag operation designed to manufacture trust from the ground-up. In the aftermath, Apple cooperated with local police and federal authorities perfectly well, and the passcode to the shooter's phone did eventually come out. Apple continued providing device access in situations where warrants were issued. They even dropped their eventual charges against NSO Group.
If your tinfoil hat isn't tight enough yet, we're talking about events that happened over a decade after the Halloween documents. Apple's executives (and the three-letter spooks) know that Open Source can ship attestable and secure software that trounces their best paid UNIX or Windows Server subscription on the open market. If the goal is to expand surveillance and you've got a coalition of sycophantic tech executives (somehow, imagine that haha), then it would almost be trivial to program endless RCEs into the client-side with "secure" binary blobs. All the "E2EE" traffic can get copied onto tapes and sent to a warehouse in Langley. Would be like taking candy from a baby.
And the number of shares you personally own is irrelevant. The only public companies that ever take long term bets are those that are still founder led.
> Cook, clearly trying to remain calm, shot back: “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI [return on investment]. When I think about doing the right thing, I don’t think about an ROI.”
> Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.”
Making devices accessible cost pennies compared to their revenue and didn’t take any real courage. Come back to me when they stand by their convictions when it can cost them billions in tariffs
The thing is no one really stand by conviction against overwhelming force. Apple take billions in loss, cut supply globally resulting in hundred of thousands laid off at vendor or Apple locations.
These grandstanding activists will move on but real people will suffer due to Apple's action.
Tim Cook is a very shareholder-friendly CEO. One of the first things he did after he became CEO, which jobs always refused, was to start stock buybacks.
I have a hard time believing Apple getting in legal fights with the current administration is something that shareholders will appreciate, even if it’s better in the long term.
Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.
> “Steve Jobs created a loyalty with users that is unparalleled in the consumer technology world. What Tim Cook has done, he’s built a loyalty with shareholders,” Sculley said on “Squawk on the Street.”
> Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.
FWIW, while I keep wondering just how different the entire world would have ended up if Scott Forstall had ended up in charge of Apple instead of Tim Cook, I believe he was also one of the big reasons the App Store ended up as evil as it was (not Steve) :(. Is there anyone whom we could take seriously as having been in serious contention who actually would have done a better job?
> Cook's aim since becoming CEO has been reported to be building a culture of harmony, which meant "weeding out people with disagreeable personalities—people Jobs tolerated and even held close, like Forstall," although Apple Senior Director of Engineering Michael Lopp "believes that Apple's ability to innovate came from tension and disagreement." Steve Jobs was referred to as the "decider" who had the final say on products and features while he was CEO, reportedly keeping the "strong personalities at Apple in check by always casting the winning vote or by having the last word", so after Jobs' death many of these executive conflicts became public.
The tragedy of Apple, and perhaps Steve's biggest oversight, was his own irreplaceability. He failed to procure a suitable successor. Or perhaps there was not enough time. People are Culture. And Steve was a big part of it. The hopes of Apple living on without him are just that, hopes. He built Apple like an orchestra with himself as the conductor; when he left, the music didn’t fall apart immediately, but the score became safer, flatter, more repetitive.
I'm also a shareholder and I'd say I'm pretty happy with Apple not needlessly getting involved in fights. The most important thing is not getting tariffed.
Their reputation will be fine, no one but the terminally online are going to stop buying an iPhone because of this.
Pretty sure most of their shareholders feel similarly.
I agree that most people will not hear about this app being removed. (Though note that it's being reported here in "normal people" news, not tech news.)
But it's far from the only way Cook has aligned himself with Trump in just the last few months. The dumb gold-glass plaque and the UK royal visit are two much more visible examples.
> Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book.
And from above:
> The most important thing is not getting tariffed.
I am curious where your personal line is. Surely you have one. If the only way Cook could avoid tariffs were to go on live TV and swear his allegiance to the KKK, would you still support that? What if the only way were for him to pursue direct legal action against you and your family until you’re bankrupt? Eating live puppies? What exactly would you consider to be “too much”?
Exactly this, we are not talking the normal cycle of 4 years and then they are out, we are talking a possible "forever" fascism in the US so sticking to points of "I'm happy as long as my sticks are fine" is completey sticking your head in the sand hopping this all goes away soon.
the only time apple fights the government is when they want to keep illegally firing people and then the NLRB just goes, well sorry they just have too much money to stop them. They use bribe money for everything else.
Steve was never tested like this was he? Everyone’s about values until they are put into a fucked up situation like Tim Cook. The man had to literally deliver a Roman tribute to this president personally.
And that shouldn't have happened either. Apple doesn't need the US government, and Tim is himself a billionaire— he sure as hell doesn't personally need them either.
FWIW, you are legally required to pay your taxes, and there are going to be serious consequences to your life and your family's life if you don't; the moral decisions in that situation are much more difficult. However, Apple obviously is not and never was legally required to build a centralized App Store... hell: it isn't even clear that that it is legal that they did it, and these arguments are still playing out in court!
And, certainly, no one is legally required to put copious effort into defending the thing Apple did which directly and predictably leads to these results (which are not new or surprising). Even if Apple is, now, legally required to remove this app (and I don't know if they even are: many companies are just cowing to political, not legal, pressure), they carefully and intentionally set themselves up to be in that position.
FWIW, this much should at least be pretty obvious: if you go far far far out of your way to do something that no one required you to do to defend something that pretty clearly leads to a specific result, you are certainly MORE complicit in the results of that action than if you take an action that you are required to do at gunpoint and which only very indirectly and at very low impact causes the result (to the point where I don't even think the analogy of the Nurenberg Defense applies... but, I guess you aren't claiming to understand it well).
Like, I dunno... it just feels like such an ingenuous argument to try to claim that paying taxes -- of which only a very small percentage could possibly be claimed to cause this specific problem, particularly so as this exact same issue happens with iPhones in other countries (such as China, where Apple has become a very clear patsy to the regime and "complicit" barely scratches the surface of their involvement anymore) -- is somehow similar to actively defending the existence of a bottleneck on information and access to software that has time and again been used for censorship and authoritarian control.
Well to start with no one requires anyone to get a job and pay taxes. You could just as well live off food banks and take as much money from government. Knowing that the government does this, one need not give them any money any longer. You could spend down your balance and start eating from the food bank.
It's a pretty active act to go earn money that you then fully know (completely ahead of time) that you are giving to an immoral government. Especially when you know you can draw out of that government instead.
I think what is pretty obvious is that everyone has a story where they're somehow not villains but the guy epsilon more involved in the subject is 100% the villain.
Well, I'm only taking the notion of complicity to its logical conclusion. I disagree with the premise and a valid way to argue that is to show it reaches absurdity.
It's obvious what's actually happening. It's not so surprising that Apple-haters believe that Apple is complicit in everything. They'd say that about anything Apple. The fact that the argument concludes in 'bottom' is evidence.
Most people have their taxes withheld directly from their pay by their employer, and don't get the option to not pay their taxes, because the government gets the money before they do.
Because I have no interest in attracting the apocalyptic ire that is the Internal Revenue Service. You don't fuck with the organization that took down Al Capone or that even the _Joker_ is deathly afraid of.
It’s simply not that easy to do, nor is it the best approach per se, as it’s wrought with foot guns everywhere. Frankly it’s a big risk from a number of angles, one of the most obvious is such a movement being co-opted by special interests
Unironically it's because liberals actually like paying taxes. Every state and local school board tax increase passes where I live because it's a bunch of pot smoking hippies who unironically believe in wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.
Well, it's a wealth distribution from adults in a community to kids in the community, but a very good one that almost always benefits the whole community.
I do get what you're saying, but at the risk of being overly pedantic, this doesn't really make sense as written.
Usually "wealth redistribution" implies actual money or other liquid or semi-liquid assets being transferred from one group to another, and the kids in the community aren't receiving any of the money being put into school taxes.
I suppose one could argue that school taxes are wealth redistribution from the community to the _teachers and staff_. As someone who counts quite a few teachers among my friends and family, I wholeheartedly support this redistribution of wealth.
The governments will always have the power, that's pretty much built into the definition of government.
Not the definition of our government. Our founding documents state that "Congress shall make no law" along the lines of what Apple is being pressured to do here.
And the executive branch isn't supposed to be making laws at all, even though that's what they're doing.
As the GP says: the problem is the power. But when some of us argue that maybe the government shouldn't have this kind of power, we get shouted down with "HURR DURR MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN," and worse.
It isn't just our government: Apple sells these devices around the world and they pull the same shit in every jurisdiction, and so the Chinese government has been granted by them an extremely powerful axe to just ban software they dislike, a tool they use quite often, forcing Apple to pull apps for VPNs and other P2P tools used by protesters to coordinate in a world where the Internet is locked down. If you are going to create a device and sell it in this world, you have to understand how this world works, and in this world, if you create and defend a centralized bottleneck, you WILL become a patsy.
> Not the definition of our government. Our founding documents state that "Congress shall make no law" along the lines of what Apple is being pressured to do here.
I suggest read up on NSLs.
Sure, that should not be legal if the constitution meant anything, but there it is.
> the problem is the power
Tell me about a single government ever in history that has not abused its power at least sometimes?
While you're right, we should strive for that, we also need to strive for not building centralization that can be abused. Because it will always be abused.
The government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices. Or encryption. Or VPNs. Etc.
But that isn't how this has worked, even in places like China where the regime would seem to have that level of power: while they absolutely require Apple--who went out of their way to create a bottleneck on software and information that is just too juicy not to assert external control over--to remove various apps from their store, it is not actually illegal to own or use unlocked devices.
> The government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices.
That is a very binary view of the world, but the world is nothing but shades of gray.
At the very extreme of the most totalitarian government, you're right. Such a government can ban one thing or ban everything.
But in nearly every country, it's vastly easier to go choke a single neck (Apple) and tell them to shut something down, than to chase after tens of millions of individual people with individual devices, if all of them can run whatever they want from wherever they want.
It's both. Apple very intentionaly designs their phones so that they can immediately cut off their user's access to various apps with the flip of a switch and no recourse. It's obvious that this has and will continue to be abused.
At the same time the government of an ostensibly free country that values free speech should absolutely not be making these demands.
At this point I expect such behavior from this administration, they aren't pretending to be anything other than incompetent and corrupt.
Shame on Apple for helping these scumbags, now and in the future.
> I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law.
Right, so the fundamental problem is having a device where the software that runs on it is controlled by a single company. It creates the attractive nuisance of being able to choke off anything the government doesn't like because, as you said, that single point of contact can't avoid obeying the government.
Computing needs to be open and controlled only by each individual owner of each device, so anyone can run whatever they like sourced from wherever they like.
> That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that.
A platform that's just about to take it away with user registrations. And that isn't just a 'belief' - that's what a lot of people do with their phones.
But the problem here isn't about an alternative. Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes. And when that happens, millions of people find their devices useless or outright hostile towards them, due to lack of user-controlled escape hatches.
> The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily.
Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Regimes go rogue unpredictably all the time. That's why people argue against this sort of device lock down all the time! It's meaningless to shift the entire blame on to the regime after Apple failed to take precautions in the face these warnings.
> Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago?
Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation.
> Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes.
Agreed, if for nothing else than its size alone. It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"
> Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation.
That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited.
> It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"
Apple has been consistent in their messaging. You have to give up your freedom over your devices to ensure security. Not make it hard or explicit to override safety measures. Not make it safe through careful design. But you have to give up your freedom. And there is no limit to the steps they took in this direction.
People had already pointed out that all those measures were for profit squeezing, disguised as security measures. The most important observation though, was that it's a very flawed argument. Security by centralized control is a vulnerability in itself, as evidenced by this incident.
Apple and its supporters fought this argument in a consistent manner too. With shallow dismissals of the concerns, accompanied by the contemptuous implication that the detractors are overreacting. As if the critics should be ashamed for even bringing them up. They never really address the concern directly. You can see this in action in interviews where their top management justify such decisions. I don't see that having changed much.
But, Apple or any other company doesn't deserve to be let off the hook for incidents like this. There is no reason to consider all their decisions as enlightened, especially when corporate profit seeking is involved.
The point is that if you could install the app by side loading it, or from a third party app store, then a Government order to remove an app doesn't make it impossible to use that app. But Apples actions, ostensibly to protect its users, but in reality to protect its profits, has put it in a situation where it is a much more effective tool for government censorship.
So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands, and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about?
It's always funny when people are willing to toss the first amendment completely under the bus because of made-up risks but god help you if you suggest putting guardrails on the scope of the second amendment because of actual risks.
> So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified
I have no idea how you got there but if you brought a case with a team of lawyers to get the apps re-instated based on the 1st amendment, I'd be happy about it. It would be interesting precedent too.
However, my point is nothing about that. What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?
Some people crave authoritarianism, and the feeling of safety it provides them (at the expense of others), and will repeat any words that make them feel better about doing so, even if the words are lies obvious even to themselves.
If that opinion had legal weight, then it could have been laundered through a legal instrument like a court order. It is complete nonsense legally. People who have wanted to find ICE agents to attack have succeeded in finding their headquarters and attacking them there. The more obvious purpose of the app is to identify ICE agents in order to avoid being victimized by them. Regardless of the actual purpose of the app, simply identifying a person's location does not legally constitute a threat, and is protected by the first amendment.
There's a irony here. Google recently was stuck in front of congress and had to apologize for censoring people at the behest of the previous presidential administration despite not being legally required to. Now we have the current administration pressuring companies to censor their users, and those companies readily complying. Nothing has changed except for the political orientation.
Agreed. However, the weight of the DOJ and DOD (aka: DOW) are enough to make even Apple flinch, unsurprisingly.
> There's a[n] irony here
There are so many ironies and strange twists. If I remember the previous apologies, it was because conspiracy theories were being suppressed along with bad vaccine information. It was predominantly Republican lines of questioning during these hearings even though it was "under Biden."
The current administration wants to now censure in the opposite direction, weaponizing the very thing Republicans fought against in order to push current agendas. Nothing has really changed, it has just progressed.
The idea of "rule of law" is a shorthand for the set of norms and practices understood by everyone under a single regime, including both specific laws and authorities and more general principles. One of those, notably, is "the government shouldn't force private companies to censor their app stores".[1]
The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction.
[1] Or "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", if you swing that way.
