Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Jul 2017 20:56 UTC
Apple

China appears to have received help on Saturday from an unlikely source in its fight against tools that help users evade its Great Firewall of internet censorship: Apple.

Software made by foreign companies to help users skirt the country's system of internet filters has vanished from Apple's app store on the mainland.

Profit over people is entirely normal for large corporations like Apple. They rarely choose the other way around.

Thread beginning with comment 647341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Censorship
by mistersoft on Mon 31st Jul 2017 17:39 UTC in reply to "Censorship"
mistersoft
Member since:
2011-01-05

very well put

makes me think - in the U.S. at least, could these walled garden-jails ultimately risk treading on 1st Amendment/Freedom of speech rights if they go too far ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Censorship
by WorknMan on Mon 31st Jul 2017 19:00 in reply to "RE: Censorship"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

makes me think - in the U.S. at least, could these walled garden-jails ultimately risk treading on 1st Amendment/Freedom of speech rights if they go too far ?


Not unless there's a gun to your head, forcing you to use one. Personally, I like the walled gardens... not for myself, but for my tech-illiterate family and friends. It DRASTICALLY cuts down on the number of tech support calls I receive ;)

Edited 2017-07-31 19:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Censorship
by Alfman on Mon 31st Jul 2017 20:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Censorship"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

Not unless there's a gun to your head, forcing you to use one. Personally, I like the walled gardens... not for myself, but for my tech-illiterate family and friends. It DRASTICALLY cuts down on the number of tech support calls I receive ;)


Sideloaded apps have the exact same security model as store apps. Secondly just because people have a choice to sideload doesn't mean anyone has to or will. Whenever this comes up we hear also that sideloading is not important because very few will know how to and can do it...but so what? Just leave it optional. It's not a reason to justify striping away this right.

I will defend your right to make your own app store choice, but why should I be confined to your choice? It's fine that you choose the apple store for yourself, but it is not fine that others have to be shackled to it too!

WorknMan, I realize you don't have the same appreciation for such freedom, but can I get you to agree that apple would be able to serve both our interests with a "gated garden plus optional access to the rest of the world"? In other words, would you admit that giving me this freedom takes nothing away from you?

Edited 2017-07-31 20:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Censorship
by Alfman on Mon 31st Jul 2017 19:19 in reply to "RE: Censorship"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

mistersoft,

makes me think - in the U.S. at least, could these walled garden-jails ultimately risk treading on 1st Amendment/Freedom of speech rights if they go too far ?


I don't know. Historically governments use fear and hysteria to overturn individual liberties. If you think back to the san bernardino shootings, apple came out as a defender of our rights. I will give them credit for that, however their motivation in that particular case was defending their right to engineer crypto the way they see fit - they kind of used the public as ammunition against the FBI.

It's not really clear how actively apple would pick a fight with the government on our behalf when it doesn't have a horse in the race and the government's agenda for control is more aligned with apples.


There were members of congress working on a crypto bill last year.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/14/474113249/...

While nothing got passed, a bill conceivably could pass and then it wouldn't be all that far fetched for the US to exert control over walled gardens: "Apple removes apps that help americans protect their privacy". Apple fighting for our right to install applications would only serve to implicate apple for it's own role in taking them away. This conflict of interest did not exist in the san bernardino case and probably means they'll be much less vocal on the issue of freedom from walled gardens.

Edited 2017-07-31 19:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Censorship
by mistersoft on Thu 3rd Aug 2017 15:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Censorship"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

Unfortunately I agree with most of that.

Regarding Governments and their interests though.. (they are a more interesting player than the corporations) as different branches and institutions within governments can have enormously different agendas and motives. e.g. antitrust regulators, homeland security, the high/supreme courts, and possibly least importantly politicians

I think computer and comms device ubiquity is only just becoming great enough for all the different forces and agendas (to begin) to equilibrate.

Just as traffic laws, stop signals and speed signs regulate traffic flow and our driving behaviour, and some folk buy light aircraft, microlights, drones and more and bypass some of the above -- so sideloading, tor, adhoc wifi mesh networks, linux, bsd, and free will will allow those who wish to "speed" or flyover or around some of more silly restrictions. Will be interesting to watch the coming digital evolutions

Reply Parent Score: 2