Apple Reverses Ban On App That Allowed Hong Kong Protestors to Track Police Movements (boingboing.net) 295
UPDATE (10/4/2019): "Apple has reportedly reversed its decision to ban the app HKmap.live," reports BoingBoing.
Apple had banned the app, which allows Hong Kong protesters to track protests and police movements in the city state, despite increasing international condemnation against the violence used by the authorities, MacRumors had reported: According to The Register, Apple has told the makers of the HKmap Live app that it can't be allowed in the App Store because it helps protestors to evade the police. "Your app contains content - or facilitates, enables, and encourages an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement," the American tech giant told makers of the HKmap Live on Tuesday before pulling it. Opposition to the Chinese state and the Hong Kong authorities has grown louder, driven by an escalation in violence against protesters over the past week. On Wednesday, thousands of people took to the streets of Hong Kong to denounce the shooting of an unarmed teenage student by police. Tsang Chi-kin was shot in the chest at point-blank range on Tuesday. He remains in hospital in stable but critical condition after surgery to remove the bullet, which narrowly missed his heart.
Apple had banned the app, which allows Hong Kong protesters to track protests and police movements in the city state, despite increasing international condemnation against the violence used by the authorities, MacRumors had reported: According to The Register, Apple has told the makers of the HKmap Live app that it can't be allowed in the App Store because it helps protestors to evade the police. "Your app contains content - or facilitates, enables, and encourages an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement," the American tech giant told makers of the HKmap Live on Tuesday before pulling it. Opposition to the Chinese state and the Hong Kong authorities has grown louder, driven by an escalation in violence against protesters over the past week. On Wednesday, thousands of people took to the streets of Hong Kong to denounce the shooting of an unarmed teenage student by police. Tsang Chi-kin was shot in the chest at point-blank range on Tuesday. He remains in hospital in stable but critical condition after surgery to remove the bullet, which narrowly missed his heart.
Too bad.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It might help even out the citizens against an oppressive government.....
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The PLA wouldn't have any problem mowing down armed demonstrators.
Re: (Score:3)
The PLA wouldn't have any problem mowing down armed demonstrators.
I have no doubt of that. Just how long could the PLA keep putting cannon fodder into this before running out of conscripts? This is a very large nation against a much smaller city so they could keep sending soldiers in to cut people down if they wanted, again I have no doubt of that.
Here's the problem though, these soldiers don't want to get killed. While the leadership may have little hesitation in sending in armed soldiers to put down an armed rebellion the soldiers are not unthinking and unfeeling rob
Re:Too bad.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...that they don't have a 2nd amendment in Hong Kong.
It might help even out the citizens against an oppressive government.....
If HK had a Second Amendment all that would have happened is that HK police would have been authorized to use live ammunition much sooner, have more than 1 person shot, and have PLA troops marching in the streets of HK.
Here's an interesting comparison: in 3 days of protesting in Iraq at least 20 people have been shot and killed by police. In over 6 months of protests in Hong Kong, 1 person has been shot, and none killed, by police. Guess which of the 2 has an armed population?
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Interesting)
A country torn apart by years of war compared to a wealthy city whose ownership transferred 20 years ago.
Wow such a compelling comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
"whose ownership"
That is literally what they are fighting for now. Just as surely as the slaves fought for their independence. Just because it's at least 20 years behind schedule means very little.
Tell us oh wise one... how would you defend yourself against someone willing to pick up a gun and oppress you with it? Remember... that someone with a gun is the Chinese State right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I understand that and support an armed populace. The point of my comment is that the peaceful transfer of Hong Kong and lead up to current demonstrations is not comparable to a country that has been torn apart by war.
Re: (Score:3)
A country torn apart by years of war compared to a wealthy city whose ownership transferred 20 years ago.
Wow such a compelling comparison.
Oh, so it's ok to shoot protesters as long as you've been at war for a few years. Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I mean the troubles and circumstances that lead to both protests, the current state of affairs of each government, and the zeitgeist of the people of each locality are not comparable.
Everything is different aside from a superficial "protest" perspective. Can you explain why they are comparable?
Re: (Score:3)
...that they don't have a 2nd amendment in Hong Kong.
It might help even out the citizens against an oppressive government.....
If HK had a Second Amendment all that would have happened is that HK police would have been authorized to use live ammunition much sooner, have more than 1 person shot, and have PLA troops marching in the streets of HK.
Here's an interesting comparison: in 3 days of protesting in Iraq at least 20 people have been shot and killed by police. In over 6 months of protests in Hong Kong, 1 person has been shot, and none killed, by police. Guess which of the 2 has an armed population?
Guess which of the 2 movements is going to succeed. (Hint: It's the people with guns in Iraq.)
Re: (Score:3)
Guess which of the 2 movements is going to succeed.
Neither of them. The problems behind both protests are too systemic and entrenched for a protest to change. The one in Iraq will just have more kids die in the process than those in Hong Kong will. At best both will get lip service and token gestures.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno...you may be too young to remember,but it technically wasn't THAT long ago, that the current regime came into power and knocked off the last one exactly as the OP posted earlier....armned local citizen uprising.
It could happen again and is much easier
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno...you may be too young to remember,but it technically wasn't THAT long ago, that the current regime came into power and knocked off the last one exactly as the OP posted earlier....armned local citizen uprising.
It could happen again and is much easier if the populace is armed.
You would have to enlighten me. Hong Kong's last power transition was a handover and Iraq's seemed to have more to do with American tanks rolling down the streets of Baghdad than the population rising against Hussein (although I do remember watching the statue being pulled down on the news). So...I guess you're referring to the civil war between the Communists and Nationalists in China? But if you actually remember that as a contemporary then I would expect you to have a much lower UID.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking bout IRAN, not Iraq.....
Re: Too bad.... (Score:2)
Because Hong Kong and Iraq are otherwise identical in every way except for their armed population - what a brilliant comparison!
Re: (Score:2)
...that they don't have a 2nd amendment in Hong Kong.
It might help even out the citizens against an oppressive government.....
Yes, because protests go so much better when people start shooting each other, that will definitely bring about prosperity and lasting change. Just look at the Civil Rights Movement, they failed because they didn't kill as many cops as possible. Better yet, look at Afghanistan that through use of violence managed to bring about lasting change that made everyone happy.
Sometimes I fear for your sanity.
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For every "Civil Rights Movement" there's a Tibet or Holocaust.
The reality is that SOMETIMES peaceful protest works. Sometimes it fails. SOMETIMES armed revolt works. Sometimes it fails.
What the second amendment does is ensure that if protest fails, there is another option. Without it, if peaceful protest doesn't work you basically can only admit defeat and go on doing what the government with guns tell you to do.
Violence should be a last resort, but it NEEDS to be a resort on the table.
The Chinese army is 1.3 million men strong. The total population is 1.4 billion. If even 5% of the population rose up with arms they'd have an army more than 50 times that of the government. Better equipment and training can't make up that difference. Without arms though, even with 50x the people - they'd all be mowed down.
Re:Too bad.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The reality is that SOMETIMES peaceful protest works."
Nope, it has never worked. It does delay the inevitable but it never works. Now a protest with a "threat" of some kind... yea that works, as long as the "threat" is real! But just standing around saying you don't like this is pointless. Until China has something to fear, that is another country supporting the protestors or the protestors willing to cause enough damage or death to make Hong Kong unappealing to China, China just is not going to back down.
Why should China fear the Honk Kong protestors? They don't, but China does still fear public opinion enough to hold short of mass murdering the protestors because like it or not... they still hate hearing about Tienanmen Square and they were taught the lesson that just murdering folks has a price. Which is sadly the only victory the protesters in Tienanmen Square won that day, and is definitely not enough.
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Informative)
Though it defies consensus, between 1900 and 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts. Attracting impressive support from citizens that helps separate regimes from their main sources of power, these campaigns have produced remarkable results, even in the contexts of Iran, the Palestinian Territories, the Philippines, and Burma.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world [bbc.com]
Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Peaceful protest worked well for India in getting the Brits out. However when it works it's usually because the government is sensitive to public opinion so that shaming the government is an effective strategy (bad for democratic elections for sure). With the UK this is what happened, as they couldn't just sending more and more soldiers and create lots of atrocities. But with China, it's clear that the government may be quite willing to weather bad public opinion. Hong Kong local government is a bit iffy
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, it has never worked. ...
Yes it has
East Germany
Poland - basically everywhere in the former eastern pact
India
Portugal
South Africa
This are just a few springing into my mind instantly.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The reality is that SOMETIMES peaceful protest works.
Not once has it ever worked. There is always a threat of violence behind any form of protest that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...what about the recent example in Indonesia? The president was like hmm yes let's make sex outside of marriage actually illegal since our religion says it's a bad thing. Sees some people protesting. Then he's like ok ok ok. You don't like it. Let's try something else. I admit this is pretty rare though. Usually it doesn't work. I cannot think of any examples in first world countries when protesting in the streets has been effective. It's only when the other side is doubtful about its own policies I th
Re:Too bad.... (Score:4, Insightful)
>Just look at the Civil Rights Movement,
Yes. Lets. [sacbee.com]
“The Black Panther party for self-defense calls upon the American people in general and the black people in particular to take careful note of the racist California Legislature which is considering legislation aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror, brutality, murder and repression of black people.”
The CA legislature (headed by Reagan) was trying to implement gun control targeted at blacks because the police were not enforcing law in their communities and in some cases actively terrorizing them. So those communities took up arms to enforce the laws and protect themselves from hostilities. Can't have uppity negroes trying to protect themselves when the police are antagonistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on.
I have always said the way to get conservatives to support gun control is to give a black man a gun.
Sadly, the black folks agree with disarming themselves regardless of who has any guns.
I would rather face a racist angry armed black ex-con than a tyrannical government any day!
Re: (Score:3)
Spot on.
I have always said the way to get conservatives to support gun control is to give a black man a gun.
Then you have always been wrong. People who support the second amendment support everyone owning guns, and generally want more people to own guns. They also generally support the constitution, believe everyone should be treated equally, etc.
Your own racism and bigotry is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
People who support the second amendment *today* you mean. Actually at the time of the Black Panthers the second amendment was one of those often overlooked amendments that didn't seem controversial or worth debating, and the NRA didn't become highly politicized until much later. At the time, there were many people in the US would have have instantly assumed that gun ownership rights did not apply to minorities.
Re: (Score:2)
> conservatives to support gun control is to give a black man a gun.
Not really. That is a democratic position and has always been a democratic position. I should have clarified by mentioning Reagan (mostly to acknowledge his involvement of state politics at the time), he was the governor. The CA legislature was, I think, controlled by the Democrats in 1967. Most I get from a simple search is the CA Senate being 21D and 19R.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, that was still peaceful protest and it was effective by shining a spotlight on those communities.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Civil Rights Movement succeeded because blacks had enough conviction to assemble and carry AKs in the streets, and they had an actual goal and direction, so they didn't just turn into an angry mob.
The "I Have A Dream" speech (which was mostly plagiarized) was not effective at creating change. But they don't want you to know that an armed populace can get what they want, so they gin up a narrative about peaceful protest (see also refusing to sit in the back of the bus). Nope. That's not how you get
Re: (Score:2)
Tea Party stumbled after a good early start because of a distinct lack of focus such that it mostly got taken over by far right conservatives and stopped being a movement with wider appeal like it was in the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is not a good thing.
However, the police have fired the first shot already.
So, you say the citizens should just take it and go home and say their freedoms and way of life is a lost cause and just accept their fate?
One thing that helps keep one side from starting a shooting battle...is that both sides are armed and would incur great injury and loss.
If
Re: (Score:2)
So,you think it better they (or any peoples in this situation) should just protest and continue to allow themselves to be shot by armed authorities and die?
That's your answer?
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, look. Go to a dark room, take a few deep breaths, and hug your gun close until you feel better. Nobody's coming to take her away from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Read a history book you moron.
No more guns, but you can keep your old ones.
You can keep your old guns, you just have to register them.
Arrest all the registered gun owners.
Track all the adult men and force them to join you or die.
Round up the disarmed, unprotected populace.
Lock them in a barn.
Set it on fire.
Standard fucking procedure in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody's coming to take her away from you."
Beto has already let the cat out of the bag on that one fella.
got any other more convincing lies for us?
Yeah, and Trump was really going to "lock her up". Both were about as likely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol... you think I am a Trump supporter?
I guess you guys really cannot think past your down fucking party memberships.
Did I ever say that? All I'm saying is politicians say a lot of shit that people get worked up over but never actually happens. Sadly when politicians do this they cause almost as much trouble as if they actually did go through with their claims.
Bottom line is gun confiscations are very unlikely to happen in the US. Arguing about it from both sides prevents any meaningful, useful gun control discussions from happening.
Re:Too bad.... (Score:4)
It would sure end those protests really quickly. It would finally give the Chinese a good enough excuse to just mow down protesters.
Do you REALLY think your guns defend your freedom? Against a potential adversary that not only has more of them with better trained personnel but that also has near unlimited funds? Why do you think that they have no problem leaving you your precious second when they basically trample all over the rest of the amendment rights?
Hint: Why bother with something that has no real impact anyway?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"It would sure end those protests really quickly. It would finally give the Chinese a good enough excuse to just mow down protesters."
You might be correct, but it will make for undeniable proof that China would rather murder them if they refuse their ruler-ship. That is a big statement and one that does not just affect Hong Kong. China wants to take over the world they know that slow and steady wins the race. The protesters will run out of steam and they are counting on that.
"Do you REALLY think your gun
Re:Too bad.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Do you REALLY think your guns defend your freedom?"
And you think they don't? Your statement only shows how childish you are about this. Guns DO defend freedom, it is literally what governments use to protect you, right? Or are you saying that every government can lay their guns down and keep the peace?
The guns the government uses to protect your freedom, and that they would turn around and use on you if they ever had a desire to do so, are much bigger than the ones you have. Guns might defend freedom, but yours won't.
The Second Amendment was written in a time when the government had the exact same guns as everyone else. Times have changed, and so has technology.
Oh, and the Second Amendment was also written in the expectation that those guns owned by the population would be used alongside the government, not against it. With a small standing army it was expected local militias would supplement government troops in local engagements. If things get so bad the modern US Army is riding through neighborhoods asking for help with the battle the next town over we've got bigger issues to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
"Guns might defend freedom, but yours won't."
yes they will, you don't get to decide what guns defend, the dun owners do.
You might be one of the intellectually challenged humans that equates a failure of defense as being the same as no defense at all. but that is not sane thinking. success or failure is not the correct way to define if something was a defense or not.
Otherwise you logic would dictate that when 9/11 happened that the USA does not defend itself and that the police does not defend shit because
Re: (Score:3)
"Guns might defend freedom, but yours won't."
yes they will, you don't get to decide what guns defend, the dun owners do.
Oh good then, because I am one. I'm just not part of the quasi-religious 2nd Amendment worshippers that think I'm going to hold off a company of mounted infantry with armor and air support with my AR-15 (which I have one). I don't expect my guns to ever fire at anything more than paper or metal targets-I even sold off my deer rifle. What guns I do have I keep for sentimental, historical, or entertainment (range shooting) value. I probably would have even sold off my AR-15 if they weren't essentially wor
Re: (Score:2)
An armed population is much harder to terrorize and bully and enslave than a helpless unarmed one. Nothing you have said changes that basic obvious fact. If you were a king trying to subjugate and enslave a group of people would you want every single man, woman, and child to have a tricked out AR-15 and a hundred thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo? If you had the choice to enslave a different group of people whose most advanced weapons were paring knives wouldn't you go after them instead? That, along w
Re: (Score:2)
If you were a king trying to subjugate and enslave a group of people would you want every single man, woman, and child to have a tricked out AR-15 and a hundred thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo?
Sure. Easier to demonize them and paint them as the enemy to the population I do control. Especially considering they are likely not to be trained and therefore ineffective fighters. They might shoot off a lot of rounds but they probably won't hit anything. Also easier to claim the moral high ground when you are fighting an enemy employing child soldiers.
If everyone is armed it also means you don't have to worry about collateral damage. Can treat everyone as hostile meaning you can fire, bomb, shell,
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed...and the intention behind the 2A was that the citizenry would BE always armed on the same level as the govt.
Thngs like the NFA should never have been passed in the first place.
Well, to an extent.
It was also there for the citizenry t
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is also supposed to be there for a DEAD LAST RESORT. If the shit hit the fan that bad, I can assure you many of the US military are not going to turn arms on their brothers, sisters and neighbors and likely as such, if it was last resort and that bad, would take up their arms with their fellow citizens.
But again LAST RESORT. It is a horrible choice, but it is one that should still be on the table, otherwise, there is no choice and the people lose.
As you say, a good number of the military will not turn against the people of the US. It's impossible to say how many, but it's definitely a non-zero number (but also almost certainly not 100%-history can confirm that).
So, in a case such as that, you will have government troops on one side fighting government troops and civilians on the other. In that scenario, privately owned firearms are still a negligible factor. The bulk of the effective fighting would still be done by the defecting (ie friendly to y
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it.
Most gun control people are saying that the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are "just the same" as the Military arms that are full auto select.
I posit they are not, BUT...they are close enough, and if SHTF really bad, then the populace would likely start converting existing semi-auto rif
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it.
Most gun control people are saying that the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are "just the same" as the Military arms that are full auto select.
I posit they are not, BUT...they are close enough, and if SHTF really bad, then the populace would likely start converting existing semi-auto rifles (any of them, not just the AR platform, because there are MUCH more powerful rounds out there in civilian hands too).
They're wrong, but also right. In a non-combat situation (school shootings, etc) they are, as you say, close enough. In modern combat, I would say not so much, since a lot of modern combat involves putting as many bullets in the air as possible. While a semi-auto rifle is dangerous in the hands of a skilled, disciplined shooter let's be honest, in a combat situation most civilians will not be disciplined shooters and will not be taking steady aim. As for converting them to full auto, sure, I guess? Are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liar. The average person didn't own cannons and naval guns. The British sure the fuck did and the rebels killed them anyway. The colonists killed so many of them that they surrendered and then left.
Cannon were accessible to anyone with the means to purchase them. Colonial forces had been stockpiling and caching weapons, including artillery, for a while before the outbreak of hostilities. During the Battle of Lexington and Concord the British even stopped to look for and found buried cannon. And the Brown Bess musket used by the British was commonly used by the colonials as well, and you could even argue the militia were even better armed than their regular counterparts if you consider the capabilit
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, during civil rights era there were federal troops sent in to protect the rights of citizens (ie, Little Rock high school students) despite armed opposition from the local bigots, klan, etc. Ya, the south was on the wrong side for sure in this case and it was a good thing that the feds had the stronger arms but the point is there. Also many of the same people opposed to the federal government then also strongly pushed the "guns protect us from government" idea that is common in some circles t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Against a potential adversary that not only has more of them with better trained personnel but that also has near unlimited funds?
Like the British compared to the colonists? Yeah.. You're right, that would never work... Idiot....
It works when everyone on each side has the same guns and tactics involve nothing more than standing in long lines 50 yards from each other. Modern military technology and tactics is far removed from the Revolutionary War where militia using privately owned weapons could be expected (well, considering how well militia tended to perform hoped might be a better term) to have a meaningful impact on the outcome of an engagement.
Re: (Score:2)
Even out?
On one side, 7 million people in Hong-Kong, no army.
On the other side, 1386 million people, the largest army in the world, with modern equipment.
If protesters started shooting people, China would quickly "restore democracy" in Hong-Kong like the US did in Irak.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea when private citizens start shooting at a trained military or police with top notch equipment they won’t get killed off.
Re: (Score:2)
...that they don't have a 2nd amendment in Hong Kong.
It might help even out the citizens against an oppressive government.....
Um, you do know that Red Dawn was just a movie, right? Not reality.
I have now lost count of how many Americans, which you surely are, honestly believe that a plucky band of rebels armed with handguns can defeat a modern high tech army. If you put up your handgun vs. my atomic bomb, I'm thinking that you're going to lose.
Re: (Score:3)
For Communist China (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple's Investors Are International (Score:2)
Translation Time (Score:2)
"Your app contains content - or facilitates, enables, and encourages an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement,"
TRANSLATION: "Your app might threaten our profit model"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When legal and moral are opposites, it's time to get a better government that reflects better what people consider moral.
Out of curiosity... (Score:3)
How would such an app even work? Couldn't the HK authorities just block whatever server it's downloading data from, or is Internet in HK not firewalled? Or are protesters using a VPN.
Also, there's still a mobile site that works (at least from outside of HK) at https://hkmap.live./ [hkmap.live.]
Re:Scanner Apps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt that this application is doing any such thing, but it should be technologically possible to setup a mesh network so that the devices are relying data to the closest device and passing it on to the next device. Sort of like a swarm of tiny, mobile pirate radio stations.
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
"Your app contains content - or facilitates, enables, and encourages an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement,"
And yet Waze, which allows users to note the location of police, is the #2 rated navigation app on the Apple App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
The ChiComs don't object to Waze.
No shit, Apple hates humans, especially poor ones. (Score:2)
1942 Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose if Apple and iPhones existed in 1942 they would similarly ban an app warning Jews, minorities, and other targets of the Nazi government about movement of those "legal" authorities too?
How about banning Waze too, which reveals "Police Activity"?
Bad show Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
apparently. and if they sold horses to the colonialists their tos would have banned revere and ludington.
- js.
Re:1942 Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were selling product or had holdings in Nazi territory, probably. That's assuming the Nazis didn't just seize their assets, something which the CCP probably won't do as long as you appease them. Companies are run by people, successful companies are usually run by greedy and largely unethical people. When the average person in Nazi territory wouldn't even stick their neck out for the Jews for fear of retaliation from the Nazis, do you really think a big company like Apple would have? Maybe a small handful of companies would do so (likely at great peril if they were located in mainland Europe) but the vast majority would do their best to appease the government so they can keep selling their product.
I think you're expecting far too much from companies like Apple. They're self-serving first and foremost and if that means doing things that are horrible, cowardly, and shameful, they'll absolutely do that. If it means doing things that make them look good, they'll do that too as long as it doesn't put their profits at risk. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call them horrible, cowardly, and shameful, though; you absolutely should.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IBM sold tabulating machines to the Nazis and even had on site support at the camps.
Henry Ford was also best buds with the Nazis.
I suggest buying/pirating the book "IBM and the Holocaust". A real eye opener.
The true nature of walled gardens and app stores (Score:2)
This is what it looks like when you have centralized content distribution. A return to the model of independently downloading and installing software from individual websites would solve this problem, but Apple can't make money that way so it won't happen.
What the authors of the app should do is host it as an independent, mobile friendly website rather than an app, thus bypassing the gatekeepers. Or duplicate the functions in another popular app. So if you sign up for alerts, it sends you messages via t
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and other companies would like nothing better than to make everyone have "thin clients" (terminal) that is 100% dependent on the "cloud" (mainframe)
Don't forget that around the time the first iPhone was to be released, Apple wanted everybody to use "web apps" instead of native apps on the phone. Who wants to bet on the alternate Earth where this did happen, all "web apps" can only be accessed through apple.com?
Let's be honest, the kid WAS armed w/a metal pipe (Score:4, Insightful)
Having watched a more comprehensive set of videos of this incident, the kid WAS armed with a metal pipe.
The officer had a right to defend himself, as the pipe WAS raised with the intent to hit the officer at the time the officer shot him.
What's miraculous is that more people didn't get shot with the number of protesters wielding all kinds of clubbing-type devices descended on a small number of officers.
I'm all for peaceful demonstrations and proper protests, but trying to publish fake news should NOT be happening on this site.
Re: (Score:3)
Things didn't turn ugly until the Chinese government brought in military divisions from outside Beijing and from rural areas [wikipedia.org]. Those troops saw the protesting students as privileged urbanites who had enjoyed the high life living in the capitol, and had never had to work a hard day in their lives. They were all too glad to mow down the students when the government gave the order.
Unarmed??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even watch the video, it was a metal bar or pipe, not remotely an umbrella
Re: (Score:2)
They are just trying to protect their ... workers (Score:2)
For those already complaining that they do not pay the job experience workers, they are gaining valuable on job training for gainful later employment.
Now please go back to kneeling and praising the omnipotent Lord and savior Apple. It is not your place to question, but to blindly follow like
F_ck Apple (Score:2)
I'll hold them while you sodomize... (Score:2)
I choose my words carefully. You slimey, sack of shit corporation.
The only solution to inevitable panopticons and their abuse by dictators, is to bring the dictators under the same surveillance, but by The People.
It's not an optimal solution, but it may be the only choice.
Where Does One Draw The Line? (Score:2)
All hail global commerce (Score:2)
In some countries using encrypted communications is illegal, yet Apple encrypts the phone, email, and other communications.
In some countries tracking someone else's phone without permission is illegal, yet Apple doesn't confirm consent before allowing the app to do so.
Apple allows users to import their pirated songs and movies thus facilitating distribution of illegal intellectual property.
Etc, etc,
waze (Score:2)
But waze is still ok.
Communist Collaborators (Score:2)
Yet another reason to hate Apple (Score:2)
When Apple supports abuse by ANYONE in the name of going along with law enforcement, that backs up the idea of Apple wanting to be "Big Brother" and control what people do with devices. Since Steve Jobs passed away, Apple has lost anything that looks like innovation, does not work to fix things that are clearly broken(butterfly keyboard being around for as long as it was being evidence), and just waiting for Google and Samsung to come up with new ideas to copy. Apple is slowly working on going down the
The explanation is blatantly obvious (Score:2)
Apple doe$ quite a bit of busine$$ in China.
If you wi$h to continue doing $o, you WILL concede to their demand$.
Regardle$$ of what it might do to your reputation as a whole.
International condemnation (Score:2)
despite increasing international condemnation against the violence used by the authorities
If international media condemn the violence used by the rioters [globaltimes.cn], the violence would not go out control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:apple caves into red china but when the FBI ask (Score:5, Insightful)
They are complaining about "...an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement"?
Well, using their phone as a cell phone might allow users to call each other. That could very well "allow users to evade law enforcement".
Are they going to turn cell phone functionality off on iPhones, too?
Turn off calling? (Score:2)
Re:Turn off calling? (Score:5, Funny)
Using a smartphone for phone calls is like Doctor Who using a Sonic Screwdriver to drive screws.
Re: apple caves into red china but when the FBI as (Score:2)
Apple's own encryption helps people avoid law enforcement, which is the point.
You can be sure they're ready to kick Signal and others off their platform as soon as a government says so. They probably weren't complicit in the Chicom use of iPhones to round up the Uyghers into prison camps but the result was the same, and their response to Project Zero was pathetic to the point of not getting it.
Their iron-fist of control; their walled garden approach - these actually are the biggest potential threats to p
Re: (Score:2)
There are some differences.
1. Apple made their phone to be uncrackable to the best of their abilities. So they may not be able to crack the phone as it may not have a secret password.
2. This is a third party app. So Apple has little skin in the game.
Re: (Score:3)
Waze helps you evade law enforcement, too, but they don't seem to have a problem allowing that. Fortunately...
Re: (Score:2)
Money! China market is huge with a high likelihood of being officially banned from the country. US market is also huge but very low likelihood of having Apple banned due to ignoring FBI requests.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is why computing as a prison is a bad thing ... on other platforms, you don't have to beg permission from the philosopher-kings in Cupertino to be allowed to install software on your own device. As RMS said ... "glad he's gone." (Jobs). Not that Tim Cuck is much better."
I agree. When Apple justified it's lock downs using weasel terms such as "preserving the user experience", they should've been smashed by the populace. Same should happen with politicians who chant "for the children", "this is