Lawmakers Slam Apple for 'Censorship' of Apps at China's Behest (bloomberg.com) 55
U.S. lawmakers from both parties slammed Apple and Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook last week for "censorship of apps" at the "behest of the Chinese government." From a report: Senators Ted Cruz, Ron Wyden, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mike Gallagher and Tom Malinowski expressed concern about the removal of an app that let Hong Kong protesters track police movement in the city. "Apple's decisions last week to accommodate the Chinese government by taking down HKmaps is deeply concerning," they wrote in a letter to Cook, urging Apple to "reverse course, to demonstrate that Apple puts values above market access, and to stand with the brave men and women fighting for basic rights and dignity in Hong Kong." Apple didn't respond to a request for comment on Friday.
Apple removed the HKmap.live app from the App Store in China and Hong Hong earlier this month, saying it violated local laws. The company also said it received "credible information" from Hong Kong authorities indicating the software was being used "maliciously" to attack police. The decision, and the reasoning, was questioned widely. Cook, in a recent memo to Apple employees, said that "national and international debates will outlive us all, and, while important, they do not govern the facts."
Apple removed the HKmap.live app from the App Store in China and Hong Hong earlier this month, saying it violated local laws. The company also said it received "credible information" from Hong Kong authorities indicating the software was being used "maliciously" to attack police. The decision, and the reasoning, was questioned widely. Cook, in a recent memo to Apple employees, said that "national and international debates will outlive us all, and, while important, they do not govern the facts."
The police are armed, the people aren't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Yes, I'm sure that's it. The police are afraid of being attacked. When a lot of money is at stake, Tim Cook and LeBron James seem quite willing to prostitute themselves to keep their 1% lifestyles.
What's certain is that Apple is complying to the laws of the country in which they do business.
Companies foreign to the US, doing business in the US, comply with US laws.
Re:The police are armed, the people aren't (Score:5, Interesting)
China is a bipartisan boogie man.
The right doesn't like a US Company bowing to political pressure from a foreign government. The left doesn't like a US Company supporting rules that hinder human rights.
The issue is actually complex.
1. China pressing on the fly rules to the like of Apple without formal laws, with a transition period. Makes a bad precedence for operating in that country, especially as smaller companies than Apple, may not have the resource to adapt to china whims so easily.
2. Human rights are a big issue we really cannot allow US companies to be part of global human rights violations, just because it brings in money.
Re: (Score:1)
China is a bipartisan boogie man.
The right doesn't like a US Company bowing to political pressure from a foreign government. The left doesn't like a US Company supporting rules that hinder human rights.
The issue is actually complex.
1. China pressing on the fly rules to the like of Apple without formal laws, with a transition period. Makes a bad precedence for operating in that country, especially as smaller companies than Apple, may not have the resource to adapt to china whims so easily.
2. Human rights are a big issue we really cannot allow US companies to be part of global human rights violations, just because it brings in money.
Human rights in this context are American-centric.
The US has concentrations camps holding children in captivity where a few have even died from lack of proper medical treatment.
Playing the human rights card is risking the Streisand Effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China pressing on the fly rules to the like of Apple without formal laws, with a transition period. Makes a bad precedence for operating in that country, especially as smaller companies than Apple, may not have the resource to adapt to china whims so easily.
Usually companies do not like to operate in lawless environments because that leads to business uncertainty. Yet, the lure of money in China is sufficiently enticing to overcome that fear of lawlessness. Yes, the China have laws, but just as Apple and the NBA have learned, unwritten laws transcend paper laws in China. There is no judicial appeal in China, and the interpretation and execution of Chinese laws can change based on hurt feelings and an insufficient adherence to self-censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Good but can someone explain (Score:2)
Good but can someone explain on what legal basis they are suing? I mean how do they establish standing and losses? On what basis would the court decide that Apple was "guilty" of censorship?
Re:Good but can someone explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Good but can someone explain on what legal basis they are suing? I mean how do they establish standing and losses? On what basis would the court decide that Apple was "guilty" of censorship?
No one is suing anyone. US legislators, outside of their legislative duties, are using tough words and finger wagging against Apple for being a tool of the Chinese government. They do this for the cameras and the media, so that we think they are accomplishing something. In actuality, it accomplishes the same thng as a drunk, gassy moran posting on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah sorry, I misread the headline as "sue" instead of "slam". Time to increase the font size by 1 again.
"In actuality, it accomplishes the same thng as a drunk, gassy moran posting on the Internet."
That's not a very nice way to describe all the Slashdot posters who slammed Apple's censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
"In actuality, it accomplishes the same thng as a drunk, gassy moran posting on the Internet."
That's not a very nice way to describe all the Slashdot posters who slammed Apple's censorship.
Check user name of GP.
Re: (Score:2)
"In actuality, it accomplishes the same thng as a drunk, gassy moran posting on the Internet."
That's not a very nice way to describe all the Slashdot posters who slammed Apple's censorship.
"Whoosh! Only talking about one poster here." -- BeerFartMoron
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with bad eye sight(retina detachment in one eye), I use the old tried and true. Hold the ctrl button down and hit the plus sign till I can read the shit. Sucks to have shit eye sight.
Re: (Score:2)
What it does is gets public involvement in the issue, which if they have enough support it moves towards laws and additional regulation. The Left Likes Regulations and the Right doesn't like Apple. So everyone is happy.
Re: (Score:2)
In actuality, it accomplishes the same thng as a drunk, gassy moran posting on the Internet.
. . . and the big joke is, at the end of their letter, it said:
"Sent from my iPhone"
Re: (Score:1)
Good but can someone explain on what legal basis they are suing? I mean how do they establish standing and losses? On what basis would the court decide that Apple was "guilty" of censorship?
No one is suing anyone. US legislators, outside of their legislative duties, are using tough words and finger wagging against Apple for being a tool of the Chinese government. They do this for the cameras and the media, so that we think they are accomplishing something. In actuality, it accomplishes the same thng as a drunk, gassy moran posting on the Internet.
Fascinating that the same "Legislators" that said that Apple was "Aiding the Terrorists" for not weakening their encryption so that "Law Enforcement" could snoop on any iOS Device, now say that Apple is "Bowing to pressure from the Chinese Government" in removing the App in question.
BTW, I have read on other Forums that the very same information as in the HKMap App is available on a website, completely unaffected by Apple's pulling the App.
And also, those "Legislators" need to know that, even though Apple p
Re: Good but can someone explain (Score:2)
Anyone who believes the bullshit PR that law enforcers can't snoop iPhones needs to hand in their Slashdot card...
Re: (Score:2)
Good but can someone explain on what legal basis they are suing?
What suit? I see no mention of a lawsuit in TFA, nor would I expect one from legislators chiding a tech company. I would expect a bill.
Apple's anti-trust violations (Score:2)
Lawmakers should do more than slam apple. They should demand Apple stop jealously guarding execution and limiting distribution of software to a single store owned and operated exclusively by Apple.
After recent Apple v Pepper decision if this behavior isn't a clear anti-trust violation then literally nothing is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but since Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones, they can be as much of a proprietary anti-competitive dick as they want!
We'll see about that. Those behind Apple v Pepper are not going away after their supreme court win.
Re: (Score:1)
Lawmakers should do more than slam apple. They should demand Apple stop jealously guarding execution and limiting distribution of software to a single store owned and operated exclusively by Apple.
After recent Apple v Pepper decision if this behavior isn't a clear anti-trust violation then literally nothing is.
Bzzt! Reading is FUNdamental...
You act like Apple lost the "Case in Chief" (that being, that Apple somehow has violated Sherman Anti-Trust statutes by having a "monopoly" on where iPhone Apps can be purchased, or some such nonsense).
They didn't.
The Complainants in Pepper only won the right to sue.
In other words, Apple v. Pepper, at least at this point, is only about the Complainants' "Standing" as "Direct Purchasers" under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720.
The decision below has absolutely not
That's nice. Are they going to do anything? (Score:3)
That's nice, but do they plan on actually doing anything about it? Beyond writing a letter, that is.
Google "censoring" things from their store is no big deal because you can always install another store or sideload apps. No such option from Apple.
If the lawmakers want to make it clear they're serious, and not just interested in campaign donations, they should introduce legislation legally obligating Apple to allow sideloading and installing third party app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice, but do they plan on actually doing anything about it? Beyond writing a letter, that is.
Google "censoring" things from their store is no big deal because you can always install another store or sideload apps. No such option from Apple.
If the lawmakers want to make it clear they're serious, and not just interested in campaign donations, they should introduce legislation legally obligating Apple to allow sideloading and installing third party app stores.
Will this include apps that reveal where young children are gathered in places where they are nude? How about apps that allow us to track the positions of police cruisers? Will we have apps that show us which convenient stores have non-working surveillance cameras?
The US is in no position to tell China what to do. If these political hacks can force China to allow police-tracking in Hong Kong, would it not be logical and legal, on the same grounds, for China to legislate that all civilians must get rid of th
Re: (Score:2)
The US is in no position to tell China what to do. If these political hacks can force China to allow police-tracking in Hong Kong, would it not be logical and legal, on the same grounds, for China to legislate that all civilians must get rid of their guns?
You love [slashdot.org] this [slashdot.org] argument [slashdot.org], don't you?
It's not any stronger than the other times you've used it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not any stronger than the other times you've used it.
The argument is intrinsically sound and its strength is not time-dependent.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is an argument to some other debate, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. In fact, whether or not Apple is right to do what it did has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
My point is fairly simple: the politicians writing this letter aren't going to do anything about it. They wrote a letter, they got their press time, that's all they're doing.
Is what they're condemning Apple over valid? It doesn't matter. Even if we assume Apple was 100% justified, that doesn't change the fact that th
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you completely.
Re: That's nice. Are they going to do anything? (Score:2)
Great job, Comrade Dork! You have forcefully defended the righteous regime of Emperor Pooh against the decadent populist American dogs and their imperialist demands for "freedom". Your Social Credit Score has increased by 0.03 points. Keep up the good work!
Bridges the great divide (Score:2)
Re: Bridges the great divide (Score:2)
Chilling Effect (Score:2)
This is something that's unthinkable in the current USA, but China seems to be writing the rule book on how to control people with power. If the people can't have fully functional iPhones, only the controllers will have iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
This is something that's unthinkable in the current USA, but China seems to be writing the rule book on how to control people with power. If the people can't have fully functional iPhones, only the controllers will have iPhones.
I have very little sympathy for the way things are in China (John Denver).
Let China be China. If the people in China don't like what they see, let them throw some goddam tea in a harbour.
Worked for us. I hope it works for Hong Kong.
Re: (Score:1)
YAY! This means we in America ... (Score:2)
... can have apps that track police.
When is the iOS version going to be available?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: YAY! This means we in America ... (Score:1)
The gestapo pays well...
"Slam"? (Score:2)
All I see here is some finger waggling and a "Bad, Apple. Bad, bad Apple!" chorus.
If I was a dog I wouldn't be impressed. Let alone if I was a corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel about boycotts if you were a corporation?
Here in HK, we think Apple is selling us out. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is also sending our our safe browsing hits are sent to Tencent to tell us what is "safe"
Only if you have your iPhone locale set to "Mainland China". We've already been over this about a week ago:
https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Do try to keep up!
Re: (Score:1)
how DARE they obey the law! (Score:3)
Just how many times are we going to rehash this?
If Alibaba rolled in here and started breaking US laws we'd be in the streets with pitchforks.
It's the Golden Rule, remember? If you don't want it done to you, then don't do it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how many times are we going to rehash this?
If Alibaba rolled in here and started breaking US laws we'd be in the streets with pitchforks.
It's the Golden Rule, remember? If you don't want it done to you, then don't do it to them.
Great example. If Alibaba breaks US laws with actions in the US, then Alibaba should be punished according to those laws. But what if the US punished Alibaba for breaking laws proscribing what the company did in China? Then the Chinese would be outraged for American interference in their sacrosanct "internal affairs". The Chinese are hypocrites in this matter.
Where was AOC when Apple banned Gab? (Score:3)
If she didn't stand up for free speech then, she has no right to demand it now. The problem with these left wing fascists is that they're all for censorship, banning and deplatforming when they agree with it, then they scream injustice when censorship gets used against them.
We consistently hear the left saying, "I support free speech, but there must be limits." No! You can't selectively support free speech when it's convenient to you. You either support free speech or you don't. If you support censorship and deplatforming, you have no right to complain when you become the target of censorship. And when there's nobody left to speak for you, you'll only have yourself to blame.
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. lawmakers from both parties slammed Apple and Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook last week for "censorship of apps" at the "behest of the Chinese government."
Well, then U.S. lawmakers from both parties can get together and revoke China's status as a 'Most-Favored-Nation' trade partner. Why the hell are you expecting companies to stand up to China when you spineless wimps won't do it?
Who Cares? (Score:2)
Android (Score:3)