Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States Apple Technology

'Technology Needs To Be Regulated': Apple CEO Tim Cook Says No Oversight Has Led To Great Damage To Society (time.com) 117

Posted by BeauHD from the smart-regulation dept.
In an interview at the TIME 100 Summit in New York, Apple CEO Tim Cook said more government regulation on the tech industry is needed in order to protect privacy. "We all have to be intellectually honest, and we have to admit that what we're doing isn't working," said Cook. "Technology needs to be regulated. There are now too many examples where the no rails have resulted in a great damage to society." Time Magazine reports: In the interview, Cook suggested that U.S. regulators could look to Europe's passage of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. "GDPR isn't ideal," said Cook. "But GDPR is a step in the right direction." In light of recent data breaches and foreign election influence through social media, Cook's view is that the tech industry has no other responsible option but to accept more government oversight, a position he outlined in a recent TIME Ideas piece.

"I'm hopeful," Cook said at the Summit. "We are advocating strongly for regulation -- I do not see another path." Cook also explained Apple's stance on transparency and money in politics. "We focus on policies, not politics," Cook said. "Apple doesn't have a PAC...I refuse to have one because it shouldn't exist." [...] "I try not to get wrapped up in a pretzel about who we upset," Cook said. "At the end of the day we'll be judged more on 'did we stand up for what we believed in,' not necessarily, 'do they agree with it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Technology Needs To Be Regulated': Apple CEO Tim Cook Says No Oversight Has Led To Great Damage To Society More

'Technology Needs To Be Regulated': Apple CEO Tim Cook Says No Oversight Has Led To Great Damage To Society

Comments Filter:

  • Hypocrit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by auzy ( 680819 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @07:50PM (#58480444)

    Generally I'd have no problem with this, but this is more targeted at destroying Android. He has no problem accepting billions of dollars from Google each year to be the default search engine, so he's basically profiting off sending their users to another vendor.

    Furthermore, all Apple users basically have to give Apple their details at one time or another. The moment the privacy regulations involved allowing iPhone users to operate their phones without submitting any details to Apple, THEN, he'd object heavily. If the laws didn't allow that, then they really don't accomplish much..

    • If internet regulation is inevitable, picking GDPR as a model for the US makes sense for Tim Cook. It's something he knows Apple can work with.

      While I agree with the Europeans that we should own our own data, I don't believe 'making our online data private' is going to work in a country whose Constitution does not give us a right to any kind of privacy at all.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I wonder what he thinks isn't ideal about GDPR?

        Note that it's not currently being implemented properly by some companies, e.g. the forced "you must agree or you can't see the site" isn't allowed. But that will be fixed in time as the regulators get to it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Baki ( 72515 )

        Probably you could derive privacy rights from more general principles in the US constitution.

    • Generally I'd have no problem with this, but this is more targeted at destroying Android. He has no problem accepting billions of dollars from Google each year to be the default search engine, so he's basically profiting off sending their users to another vendor.

      Furthermore, all Apple users basically have to give Apple their details at one time or another. The moment the privacy regulations involved allowing iPhone users to operate their phones without submitting any details to Apple, THEN, he'd object heavily. If the laws didn't allow that, then they really don't accomplish much..

      1000 times this. Apple just wants to use fed.gov to try and kill off their competition. That's it. This isn't about some push for users privacy or to reign in the data collectors.

  • Tim cook may well make himself the Theodore Vale of the era.

  • Technology Needs to be Banned (Score:3)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @07:58PM (#58480466)
    We should all give up and join the Amish.

  • Freedom of speech (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 )
    is not damage.
    Freedom after speech is not damage.
    Society needs US rights to talk about complex issues at any time for any reason.
    A company should not be the gatekeeper on politics, art, culture, memes, movie reviews, cartoons, music created by users.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @08:12PM (#58480516)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      actually the translation is: more regulations on what users can do with the hardware/software they buy but less on what corporations do to their users

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Translation: Apple and other top dogs are afraid of losing market share to future Silicon Valley startups. They see the solution as throwing more barriers-to-entry via legislation. Meaning, time to pull up the ladder. Sorry, the club is full

      The problem I see Isaac Asimov basically identified in 1980, and that is one of anti-intellectualism. link [aphelis.net]

      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

      It's not really a technological thing. That's just an enabler. We, as a society allow things like Sean Hannity's program to air on a news channel without even a disclaimer about it not being factual. We allow the press secretary to lie repeatedly or even the president, with no consequences. The problem is, the solution of this is not so much laws, but better antibodies (citizens). Maybe oversight

    • Apple and other top dogs are afraid of losing market share to future Silicon Valley startups.

      Hah no. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon simply have to pull out the pocket change and crush *any* company under a billion dollars in market capitalization, before morning tea is over.

      These companies are invunerable to anything that isnt a government (And even then, governments can be brought)

  • _Bad_ Oversight is Worse Problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @08:13PM (#58480522)

    The insistence that governments be able to recover private passwords from escrow, and that robust end-to-end encryption is not permitted at telecoms or as part of basic network devices or telephone technologies has been a much larger bar to privacy. They've been limited in numerous ways, such as the export encryption regulations under which Phil Zimmerman was prosecuted for publishing PGP, the mandated backdoors in Cisco routers, and the ongoing insistence behind closed doors that high end routers _must_ have back doors for federal agency access are ongoing blocks to the most basic of privacy. The encryption regulations are the primary reason that basic email remains unencrypted end-to-end, especially for Outlook and Exchange servers.

  • What a disingenuous ass (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @08:14PM (#58480524)
    What a disingenuous ass. He knows full well that once the government gets to regulate it, the wealthiest players like Apple can afford to lobby the government to act at their behest and keep the small players out. The 800 pound gorillas can afford to put up with the bureaucratic mess and pass the costs along to consumers who have no choice but buy from the limited number of companies that don't try too hard to compete with each other.

    I wonder how excited Cook would be about these regulations if we told him they'd include right to repair laws that Apple seems to fight against. Probably not the kind of regulations you had in mind Mr. Cook.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:What a disingenuous ass (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) <sharper@@@booksunderreview...com> on Wednesday April 24, 2019 @12:32AM (#58481206) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, allow me to translate the quoted remarks:

      "We all have to be intellectually honest, and we have to admit that what we're doing isn't working," said Cook.

      My competitors are doing things which are eating into Apple's profits, and I want them to stop!

      "Technology needs to be regulated. There are now too many examples where the no rails have resulted in a great damage to society."

      I really want them to stop! Besides, I want better press so my wife stops nagging me as much about our public image.

      "GDPR isn't ideal," said Cook. "But GDPR is a step in the right direction."

      Did you see how much Europe fined Google for Android and stuff? It's a good start, but we need to really amp that up!

      In light of recent data breaches and foreign election influence through social media, Cook's view is that the tech industry has no other responsible option but to accept more government oversight...

      What we really need is to make it so we can point at the government if we screw up and don't secure people's data. Then we'll be able to say we were following all the rules and thus it wasn't our fault. We'll get them to add in limiting damages as long as we follow the regulations we'll help them write. The guys in DC love Apple!

      "We are advocating strongly for regulation -- I do not see another path."

      How else are we going to be able to control our competition? What if someone out-innovates us in the future and people no longer want to pay us ridiculous prices for our latest hardware? It's not like we have Steve Jobs around anymore at Apple. The rest of us can't keep up with these new players in the industry, but we sure can regulate those damn foreigners and make sure they never manage to sell anything radically different or new without a bunch of regulations and government approvals.

      Cook also explained Apple's stance on transparency and money in politics.

      We like money, but we're willing to share a little bit with honest politicians, the ones who stay bought. I'm assured lobbying has huge ROIs because of all the power the regulators have.

      "We focus on policies, not politics,"

      We definitely lean leftward as a company, but we give at least some money to powerful politicians on both sides, so that no matter who wins elections they'll listen to us.

    • He knows full well that once the government gets to regulate it, the wealthiest players like Apple can afford to lobby the government to act at their behest and keep the small players out

      You're thinking way too long term. This isn't about lobbying and controlling the direction. This is just a short term suggestion to directly attack the business model of his largest competitors who rely on data as an income stream.

      i.e. No need to lobby for the future if your government just puts Google out of business.

    • I think the thing that dissappoints me most about Cooks move towards playing these sorts of games is that he clearly does not have any innovations in the pipeline anymore. I'm sure they must have worked hard on a lot of things, but it seems nothing has panned out. If he had something big coming (the long hyped augmented reality, or driverless cars for example) then he wouldn't have had to pivot so hard towards becoming a service (rent extraction) company, or pulling up the ladder. Why bother if you are abou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

      It's not complete dis-ingenuousness. Cook is standing at the precipice - with a successful hardware business that's being 'harmed' competitively by ad-funded hardware that's cheaper and 'just as good'. They can either try to make up the difference by selling their users' privacy like their competitors do - or take a stance about the excesses of the ad-funded model, because their business model allows them to.

      As long as we acknowledge that his motivations are self-serving in this way, there's no reason to

  • Of course it is in the interest of a giant like Apple to have a more regulated industry. The big guys can buy regulations that are to their advantage and disadvantage smaller competitors and startups. The tech industry has exploded over the last four decades precisely because it wasn't strongly regulated. And the benefits that technology has brought to society have far, far outweighed the drawbacks. In the area of privacy, for instance, I think individuals should take more responsibility for protecting
  • So let me get this straight, you want to turn regulation of technology over to people who have proven to have zero clue about technology? Not only do they have no clue, but they are swayed by corporate money and giving up things they stand for to get other thing they want passed?

    I would say this was stupid if it weren't completely, and utterly insane!

    Look at how screwed up the DMCA is! I can only describe it as a work of pure evil!

    In Europe you now have the insanity of Chapters 15 and 17.

    Combined wi

  • In the meantime, he's handed the decryption keys to all cloud data on every iDevice user in China. (source: common knowledge)

    > "At the end of the day we'll be judged more on 'did we stand up for what we believed in,' not necessarily, 'do they agree with it.'"

    Consider yourself judged.

  • I agree, and here's where we start (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @08:28PM (#58480588)
    National Right-to-Repair laws so consumers can affordably repair their iPhones. Better consumer protection laws so owners don't have to file class-action suits to get Apple to admit their design defects rather than Apple deflecting and outright lying about them.
    • when he says more regulation what he is actually saying is "I think you should more heavily regulate our competitors increasing our competitive advantage". The moment you mention something that affects apple directly they would be "The industry is perfectly capable of self regulation, we don't need these hurdles and red tape getting in the road of innovation"

  • Regardless of what Mr. Cook feels or says, while Apple is offshoring hundreds of billions of dollars to protect it from US taxes, I don't see that he or Apple as a company has a right to suggest anything to US lawmakers about what a good corporate citizen should be doing.

  • All GDPR did was mandate pop-up hell! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Holy fuck I hate post-GDPR internet. If you don't want fucking cookies, browse incognito. Now we're stuck with more pop-ups than a 1999 warez site. Worst legislation ever.

  • It's abundantly clear that ALL attempts by government to regulate the market create artificial imbalances. People advocating for the controls always believe THEY are part of the favored class who will benefit with the additional rules being put in place. But technology changes quickly, and so does the public's preferences.

    Once laws are enacted, it's a long, slow process to get them repealed.

    Cook praises European legislation like the GDPR, which I have at least a passing familiarity with, as I work for a com

    • Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and OFAC were both just US government mandated job creation programs (and still are).

      Insurance background (years of interaction with both programs).

  • Tim Cook needs to be regulated (Score:3)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @09:26PM (#58480752)

    Regulate him. Hop on, boys!

    • No no no no no no. He's saying to regulate Google. GOOGLE. Look over there. They are invading privacy. Privacy I tells ya!. Forget the fact that we're screwing users out of the ability to repair expensive devices. Forget the fact that we repeatedly sell faulty gear and then charge to get it fixed. Everyone look at GOOGLE, they know what porn you are watching!!!!

  • Hey Tim, neither you nor anybody from Apple showed up at the California capitol to protest the erosion of privacy that went on in a committee hearing today. Have some of your leg-analysts track some of this, and give the EFF and ACLU a hand here...

    It was so stunningly clear that it was a free-for-all for tech companies today.

    So put your money where your mouth is. (since pols respond to money - the more, the merrier)

    Someone else already mentioned right to repair laws... "By their fruits ye shall know the

  • Advocate for regulation while you're at the top of the chain, where you can easily "afford" to steer that regulation, and "suggest" whatever rules will benefit you while crushing or seriously hamper new comers from adhering to said new "regulations".

  • In that case many evil people would be included. Members of terrorist groups would be included.

  • I'm sure it has nothing to do with the newly filed $1 Billion lawsuit that is tied to "unregulated technology" and Apple.
    https://www.cnet.com/news/teen... [cnet.com]

  • Really?

    That's like the Pope saying diddling kiddies is wrong.

  • This coming from Tim Cook, the same person who advocates for massive, unregulated and unsupervised censorship of the whole internet by tech companies.

    Sure I trust him, I'm a good lamb and haven't done anything wrong.

    Here's a bunch of tags, please insert above as appropriate:
    sarcasm /sarcasm

  • Whenever a CEO says regulation is needed, you can bet they are pointing at the wrong thing that needs regulation.

    Apple, Google, Facebook are ADVERTISING and MEDIA companies.

    Branding themselves as technology companies puts the blame on the tools and workers, instead of the owners and choices.

  • Wow, look who's calling the kettle black? I guess if you know the inside of your own business, you realize how much you can mess things up.

  • He can go fuck off and die.

    Sure, some sheeple will follow the Apple model for a "lifestyle".

    But the response from anyone with an actual spine should be "Fuck off. None of your business!"

  • Big businesses prefer regulation, because the burden falls more heavily on smaller firms. If Walmart or Apple has to create and staff a department of 10 or 100 people to comply, that's going to hit them a lot gently than it hits a company of 10 or 100 people, total.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close