Tim Cook wants ‘well-crafted’ privacy regulations after latest Facebook scandal(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Tim Cook wants ‘well-crafted’ privacy regulations after latest Facebook scandal
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/24/17159610/apple-ceo-tim-cook-wants-privacy-regulation-facebook-cambridge-analytica
22 comments
[deleted]
That's not really a good reason to cooperate.
One thing that's also concerning about the situation is now Apple really depends on China for growth so who knows what kind of additional things they can wring out of Apple if they wanted to. If they decide they want data about Chinese expats for example is Apple willing to lose access to the market that's 30% of it's sales to protect them?
One thing that's also concerning about the situation is now Apple really depends on China for growth so who knows what kind of additional things they can wring out of Apple if they wanted to. If they decide they want data about Chinese expats for example is Apple willing to lose access to the market that's 30% of it's sales to protect them?
Unfortunately its the law of the land there, so yes -- it is enough to comply. There's an argument of not participating to make a statement like Google tried, but in the end China is more than happy to replace any western company with a home-grown alternative (which is going to have far deeper roots to the Chinese government). So long as Apple is not beholden to those laws elsewhere, I think it's probably a net good that they are present in that country than not.
Second, much of Apple's strength comes from its supply and manufacturing advantage which -- depends on China not just as a customer marketplace but that it's the only place with the skills to turn on a dime and produce the products at scale.
Third, look at VTI - Vanguard Total Stock market index. Apple is 2.83% of the entire damn thing. Microsoft next at 2.5% followed by Google, Amazon, and FB. Probably a big deal, particularly for Apple given they're the one actually building physical objects in China, to suddenly be the political football between two nations. It's probably hard enough, and maybe at some point better automation will bring manufacturing back to the US but it's also very likely China will be better in that regard for some time.
Things are more complicated than "just don't cooperate", as much as I philosophically would cheer on such behavior I don't think in the net it would end up good.
Additionally, even for Chinese consumers iPhones are likely the most secure by a lot (though intercepted cloud services are a big unknown now) -- so I'd rather they have access to the devices.
Maybe some of them pay attention to where Apple stands on things, and over the long run Chinese citizens might push local laws in a more liberal direction (though not an easy thing to do, obviously) but it's not going to happen if western companies don't participate at all.
Or, consider users all over the world. How good is it for everyone's privacy if iPhones now start at $1500 because they can't be built in China anymore. Probably would mean a lot less people on secure iPhones vs. less supported/out of date Android phones.
Second, much of Apple's strength comes from its supply and manufacturing advantage which -- depends on China not just as a customer marketplace but that it's the only place with the skills to turn on a dime and produce the products at scale.
Third, look at VTI - Vanguard Total Stock market index. Apple is 2.83% of the entire damn thing. Microsoft next at 2.5% followed by Google, Amazon, and FB. Probably a big deal, particularly for Apple given they're the one actually building physical objects in China, to suddenly be the political football between two nations. It's probably hard enough, and maybe at some point better automation will bring manufacturing back to the US but it's also very likely China will be better in that regard for some time.
Things are more complicated than "just don't cooperate", as much as I philosophically would cheer on such behavior I don't think in the net it would end up good.
Additionally, even for Chinese consumers iPhones are likely the most secure by a lot (though intercepted cloud services are a big unknown now) -- so I'd rather they have access to the devices.
Maybe some of them pay attention to where Apple stands on things, and over the long run Chinese citizens might push local laws in a more liberal direction (though not an easy thing to do, obviously) but it's not going to happen if western companies don't participate at all.
Or, consider users all over the world. How good is it for everyone's privacy if iPhones now start at $1500 because they can't be built in China anymore. Probably would mean a lot less people on secure iPhones vs. less supported/out of date Android phones.
Well no surprises there.
First, of course all the big co. are saying yes now even Zuckerberg now pretends he "isn't opposed to the idea", the growing outcry is getting too big to push away and if they say no they won't be invited to the table where the deal is made, so if you can't stop it at least make sure it's kept under control.
Second, Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much. I'm not talking about the cost to adhere to the regulation, but the ability to sell a product that has just been truncated. So I fully expect the CEO of Apple to push for it, because he really wouldn't be doing his job otherwise.
Third, of course, Tim Cook is probably as a human being for it too, although I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO.
I really don't think we need to talk about all the big corp and CEO who will one after another say "oh yeah I'm totally for it", "this is a good idea, we can find a solution together", ... Let's keep focused and make sure the end result is fitting. They all saw what happened here in the EU and I doubt they want to see that spread to such an extent to the US.
First, of course all the big co. are saying yes now even Zuckerberg now pretends he "isn't opposed to the idea", the growing outcry is getting too big to push away and if they say no they won't be invited to the table where the deal is made, so if you can't stop it at least make sure it's kept under control.
Second, Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much. I'm not talking about the cost to adhere to the regulation, but the ability to sell a product that has just been truncated. So I fully expect the CEO of Apple to push for it, because he really wouldn't be doing his job otherwise.
Third, of course, Tim Cook is probably as a human being for it too, although I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO.
I really don't think we need to talk about all the big corp and CEO who will one after another say "oh yeah I'm totally for it", "this is a good idea, we can find a solution together", ... Let's keep focused and make sure the end result is fitting. They all saw what happened here in the EU and I doubt they want to see that spread to such an extent to the US.
There is a reason why Apple is less exposed to such regulation now: they decided, a while back, not to make targeted ads and private data a core component of their business.
Part of what them allowed to make that call was obviously their strength in hardware. But I think there are some actions by Apple that go beyond the level required for a superficial PR campaign.
They popularized[0] differential privacy, allowing machine learning to learn from properly anonymised data. The concept is pretty complicated, making me doubt that a PR agency would consider it a good vehicle for improving the brand's image.
Their refusal to budge to the FBI and about half of the political establishment in the case of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone was also rather gutsy: opposing law enforcement in their investigation of an actual islamic terrorist is at least a high-stakes gamble, if not outright stupid for marketing purposes. Even if you think the left will glorify you, you really really don't want to wade into culture wars territory and risk losing half your potential customers, at least not at Apple's scale.
There are quite a few other areas where Apple has been rather proactive in doing the right thing. They have always supported LGBTQ rights, possibly starting from their original rainbow coloured bitten apple being a reference to the injustice committed against Alan Turing[0]. They have invested in areas such as labor conditions, diversity, and environmental protection, often before the specific issues came under scrutiny from outside groups. Their recently announced initiative for fairly sourced coltan, for example, was the first I had ever heard of the element.
[0]: Edit: changed from "invented" to "popularised". Thx to grzm for correcting me below (he's right, I was wrong, and I have no idea why they are being downvoted)
[1]: Not 100% sure if truth of myth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Part of what them allowed to make that call was obviously their strength in hardware. But I think there are some actions by Apple that go beyond the level required for a superficial PR campaign.
They popularized[0] differential privacy, allowing machine learning to learn from properly anonymised data. The concept is pretty complicated, making me doubt that a PR agency would consider it a good vehicle for improving the brand's image.
Their refusal to budge to the FBI and about half of the political establishment in the case of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone was also rather gutsy: opposing law enforcement in their investigation of an actual islamic terrorist is at least a high-stakes gamble, if not outright stupid for marketing purposes. Even if you think the left will glorify you, you really really don't want to wade into culture wars territory and risk losing half your potential customers, at least not at Apple's scale.
There are quite a few other areas where Apple has been rather proactive in doing the right thing. They have always supported LGBTQ rights, possibly starting from their original rainbow coloured bitten apple being a reference to the injustice committed against Alan Turing[0]. They have invested in areas such as labor conditions, diversity, and environmental protection, often before the specific issues came under scrutiny from outside groups. Their recently announced initiative for fairly sourced coltan, for example, was the first I had ever heard of the element.
[0]: Edit: changed from "invented" to "popularised". Thx to grzm for correcting me below (he's right, I was wrong, and I have no idea why they are being downvoted)
[1]: Not 100% sure if truth of myth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't believe Apple invented differential privacy, though they have applied it and helped popularize the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
Just to make myself clearer if need be, I was not aiming at Apple specifically, they're merely the one in this particular article. As far as companies goes, Apple is not one I consider "bad" in regards to privacy.
Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line?
Statements like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much" and "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO" imply that the first doesn't matter and that the second is expected. Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also?
I struggle with the cynical view these statements imply. Yeah, there are bad actors, and they should be held accountable. But I don't think that means that everyone is in all the things they do. Just as I hope that I can and try to do good in both my personal and professional lives, I hope that others do to.
Statements like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this, while they won't be too much" and "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO" imply that the first doesn't matter and that the second is expected. Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also?
I struggle with the cynical view these statements imply. Yeah, there are bad actors, and they should be held accountable. But I don't think that means that everyone is in all the things they do. Just as I hope that I can and try to do good in both my personal and professional lives, I hope that others do to.
I think you misread my statement or intentions.
> Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals?
Absolutely. I'm not sure when I implied otherwise ?
> Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line?
For 99% of employee no. For CEO, or other employee who speak in the name and are identified as such, no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line (when answering press question for PR, but admittedly pretty much anytime they speak for a CEO).
There is a difference between surrendering your morals, and aknowledging that when acting as a representant of the company you are to act in accordance to the company's rules.
To expand on my position, and hopefully make you understand me better, I'm also against doctors who refuses to carry abortion for moral belief where it is legal, and I was against the proposition in french law which would have allowed mayors to refuses to marry homosexual couples for personnal belief reasons. They are free to have the belief they want, but when acting on behalf on someone else (a company, or in my other ex. a state) you are expected to act according to the will of the entity you represent and keep your opinion to your own time.
If you can't do that (eg because the view you have to defend goes too far against your personnal belief), then you should change job.
> the first [that Apple's is for such regulation] doesn't matter
That's not what I think I said, nor what I meant. What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising.
> the second is expected
I don't understand your statement here ?
> Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also?
That, if I say "I will represent [entity]'s views in front of X", I then do so, or refuse the task if I can't (eg if it goes against my belief) ? Absolutely. I have no intention to say that I talk in the name of some entity, only to say the contrary of what that entity believes.
> Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals?
Absolutely. I'm not sure when I implied otherwise ?
> Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line?
For 99% of employee no. For CEO, or other employee who speak in the name and are identified as such, no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line (when answering press question for PR, but admittedly pretty much anytime they speak for a CEO).
There is a difference between surrendering your morals, and aknowledging that when acting as a representant of the company you are to act in accordance to the company's rules.
To expand on my position, and hopefully make you understand me better, I'm also against doctors who refuses to carry abortion for moral belief where it is legal, and I was against the proposition in french law which would have allowed mayors to refuses to marry homosexual couples for personnal belief reasons. They are free to have the belief they want, but when acting on behalf on someone else (a company, or in my other ex. a state) you are expected to act according to the will of the entity you represent and keep your opinion to your own time.
If you can't do that (eg because the view you have to defend goes too far against your personnal belief), then you should change job.
> the first [that Apple's is for such regulation] doesn't matter
That's not what I think I said, nor what I meant. What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising.
> the second is expected
I don't understand your statement here ?
> Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also?
That, if I say "I will represent [entity]'s views in front of X", I then do so, or refuse the task if I can't (eg if it goes against my belief) ? Absolutely. I have no intention to say that I talk in the name of some entity, only to say the contrary of what that entity believes.
I don't see a distinction between a CEO putting the company before their own personal morals and any other employee. If they're doing so, they probably should quit. In the case of the CEO, it's arguably even more important that they either quit or change the direction (rules) of the company, as they're uniquely able to do so. As you point out, if they can't do that, they should change jobs.
I can see there is a bit of misunderstanding with respect to "the first doesn't matter", and I apologize for not being clearer. The "first" I'm referring to is my first, regarding whether a person's morals and values can/should align with a company's goals. That's a direct response to your "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO." Same with the second, the idea that a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals to the company's bottom line. You seem to confirm that in your response here ("no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line"). We do have some common ground as you acknowledge that there are circumstances where one should change jobs. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with these other statements, however.
Tim Cook isn't refusing the task of representing Apple. I argue he's saying the things because he believes them and they're part of Apple's values, rather than in spite of his beliefs and Apple's only doing so because it gives them a competitive advantage. Hard to prove a counterfactual, but I'd think it'd be likely that Apple would do so even if the competition were doing so as well. When you make comments like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this" and "What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising", I read that as saying Apple is doing this (and Tim Cook saying this) purely for competitive reasons rather than because they believe it's the right thing to do. To me, that's cynical.
It's not my intent to misread you or build a straw man, so please do correct me and expand on what you mean.
Edit to add: I think I can summarize this long-winded comment as: “Apple holds these values and that guides the design of their products, and that also gives them a competitive advantage”; as opposed to “Apple says they have these values because it gives them a competitive advantage and that drives their design.” I read you as saying the latter, rather than the former.
I can see there is a bit of misunderstanding with respect to "the first doesn't matter", and I apologize for not being clearer. The "first" I'm referring to is my first, regarding whether a person's morals and values can/should align with a company's goals. That's a direct response to your "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO." Same with the second, the idea that a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals to the company's bottom line. You seem to confirm that in your response here ("no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line"). We do have some common ground as you acknowledge that there are circumstances where one should change jobs. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with these other statements, however.
Tim Cook isn't refusing the task of representing Apple. I argue he's saying the things because he believes them and they're part of Apple's values, rather than in spite of his beliefs and Apple's only doing so because it gives them a competitive advantage. Hard to prove a counterfactual, but I'd think it'd be likely that Apple would do so even if the competition were doing so as well. When you make comments like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this" and "What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising", I read that as saying Apple is doing this (and Tim Cook saying this) purely for competitive reasons rather than because they believe it's the right thing to do. To me, that's cynical.
It's not my intent to misread you or build a straw man, so please do correct me and expand on what you mean.
Edit to add: I think I can summarize this long-winded comment as: “Apple holds these values and that guides the design of their products, and that also gives them a competitive advantage”; as opposed to “Apple says they have these values because it gives them a competitive advantage and that drives their design.” I read you as saying the latter, rather than the former.
Comes from a guy bending over for communist regimes to protect the revenue.
I have 0 respect for people who sell their core principles for money.
I’m sure you’re aware of the logical fallacy there, but I’d also like to point of that being the CEO of a public company only allows you so much leeway to inject your own morality. Respecting the laws of countries you do business with is part of the job.
Do you also have issues with Apple providing hardware to the US Military knowing it will be used in combat that leads to civilian deaths or engagement in wars you don’t agree with?
That said, his argument for regulation in the United States where this might be a possibility is a good one and something you completely ignored in favor of arguing against the messenger.
Do you also have issues with Apple providing hardware to the US Military knowing it will be used in combat that leads to civilian deaths or engagement in wars you don’t agree with?
That said, his argument for regulation in the United States where this might be a possibility is a good one and something you completely ignored in favor of arguing against the messenger.
Good point. I'm an Apple fan in some ways, but all the 'good' stuff kind of rings hollow in light of what you pointed out.
Can anyone give me a reason to understand why Apple would do this that isn't just about the 'bottom-line'?
Can anyone give me a reason to understand why Apple would do this that isn't just about the 'bottom-line'?
Apple is providing some end-to-end encrypted tools to people in China. If they pulled out completely, people would no longer have those.
At least indirectly about their bottom line: Apple can't control fb. They need fb to exist on their phone or their phone is broken for a lot of users. They can look at things like fb tracking every phone call you make and sms you send [1] and be really unhappy about what is happening and yet lack much practical ability to do anything about it.
Also, how long before every lying cop with a 2-bit circuit judge who signs every thing in front of him figure out they can get this data out of FB rather than Apple?
It's also possible to be offended by the fact that I'd bet 99.99999% of users had absolutely zero idea this was going on. The US needs something like the GDPR where uses of personal data collected need to be simply and clearly disclosed instead of buried in 40 pages of bullshit that I can't possibly be seriously expected to read and understand.
[1] https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
Also, how long before every lying cop with a 2-bit circuit judge who signs every thing in front of him figure out they can get this data out of FB rather than Apple?
It's also possible to be offended by the fact that I'd bet 99.99999% of users had absolutely zero idea this was going on. The US needs something like the GDPR where uses of personal data collected need to be simply and clearly disclosed instead of buried in 40 pages of bullshit that I can't possibly be seriously expected to read and understand.
[1] https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
He is CEO of a for profit company. What else you expec?
He's saying those things to hit their rival, Google of course. Don't assume those guys care about anything except maximizing their profit
He's saying those things to hit their rival, Google of course. Don't assume those guys care about anything except maximizing their profit
What are Tim Cook's core principles? What are Apple's core principles?
Quite right. For about a year now, I have been toying with the idea of building my own personal heavily-encrypted infrastructure (email, storage, etc.) using someone like Digital Ocean. E2E encryption, encryption at rest, getting a domain and giving my friends email accounts that are encryted by default. None of my friends trust or use Facebook, Google, and some others because of not just recent happenings, but also because we see the writing on the wall.
Another thing I want to do on the server(s) is create a proxy "pass-through" that we can point all of our devices to that acts like a Pi-hole, stripping out ads, beacons, trackers, etc. I also want to create a remote desktop from which I can work that is heavily encrypted and all files are backed up not only locally, but remotely in a similar fully encrypted setup.
Another thing I want to do on the server(s) is create a proxy "pass-through" that we can point all of our devices to that acts like a Pi-hole, stripping out ads, beacons, trackers, etc. I also want to create a remote desktop from which I can work that is heavily encrypted and all files are backed up not only locally, but remotely in a similar fully encrypted setup.
So the GDPR then...
Is there a viable alternative? I don't mean this rhetorically — I'm actually curious. If Apple didn't comply, they wouldn't be allowed to sell their products in China. And even if Apple pulled out of China, there are enough competitors that the gap would be filled by another company that is willing to comply with the government's request. The citizens simply aren't able to (legally) obtain products that guarantee them privacy from the government.
Plus, as far as I know, Chinese citizens are aware of these sorts of requirements that the government puts on their data. So if the citizens know that Apple has complied with these requests — and if any other company would also have to comply anyway — then are they really any worse off? Apple isn't going to be able to convince the Chinese government to suddenly acknowledge that true privacy is worthwhile.
Disclaimer: I am not super knowledgeable about the issue at hand. These are just my thoughts based on what little I do know. I'd be happy to learn additional info/alternative viewpoints!