Microsoft's current CEO discusses this in a chapter of his new book "Refresh". Listening to him, I think the big companies are going to fight hard & have popular opinion on their side when it comes to securing data.

I believe Erlang creator Joe Armstrong has proposed some sort of split security. Something along the lines of securing the most important data from everyone & allowing government access to limited data that could help them catch bad guys. He wasn't very convincing in the podcast I listened to but maybe in written form he could provide a better argument.

> Listening to him, I think the big companies are going to fight hard & have popular opinion on their side when it comes to securing data.

I'm glad they are thinking this way. But over the past few years, Silicon Valley companies have also made themselves more hated and less trusted by the general public. This won't bode well for the "final fight" between them and the government, because they may be surprised to find out that people won't show up to support them anymore.

So tech companies, don't be Uber, is basically what I'm saying. Stop being so non-transparent with your data collection and your aggressive and shameless tracking, while also making it very hard for users to either know what you're doing or to disable your tracking.

If all companies would revert back to a "first, do no evil" mantra by default, I think they would find it much easier to have the support of the general public when it comes to big government fights.

I like that idea, Joe Armstrong's split security idea a lot.

Can you link the podcast? I'd like to hear what he said.

I'm a strong believer in privacy, in not trying to legislate backdoors into encryption, but I'm also a proponent of the idea that everything in society is a balancing act between the individual and society (and we see this play out in every aspect of life, so it's not a radical new idea); the question is finding the right balance.

Interesting, very interesting. Please, if you can, link that podcast.

Sorry for the late reply.. Here's the link - https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain/episode-058-actors-and...

It was actually Carl Hewitt & not Joe Armstrong. Though the Joe Armstrong episode after this one is also interesting.

> What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population?

... yes ? that would require putting human rights above profits, though.

I'm partial to the idea that companies should put human decency above profits, for sure. But let's talk specifics.

Making a principled stand is often important, and can make a big difference in the world. That said, I often see an assumption that China would bend if companies would just stand their ground. History suggests that this is not the case at all. China would be perfectly happy for all non-Chinese companies to withdraw and leave WeChat to stand alone. WeChat which happens to give the Chinese government access to any and every message they want. So other companies might be able to feel better about themselves, or not, but we can assume it will have no bearing on China's actions.

So, how does it benefit humans or the cause of human rights for Apple to completely withdraw from China over this? Chinese users would lose access to secure iMessage and a device with a secure enclave, but would gain... what?

...or even just an assessment that the long-term profits are greater in a world where human rights are absolute.

Why do you assume that this is the case? China itself is a great example that absolute human rights are not really a requirement for a great economy, growth, and profits for those involved.

But then they would have to be able to prove that in a court of law.

What people don't understand here is that the principle of fiduciary duty binds the hands of a lot of these companies. If you don't hold the controlling voting interest in the company... you really have very limited room to maneuver legally speaking.

Now if Apple could count on its shareholders not to sue them...

THEN they could operate in the fashion that you postulate.

Ugh, this is most definitely not true at all. Apple has repeatedly refused to bend to shareholder's demands, and has suggested that shareholders unhappy with Apple's focus on environmental conservation (at the expense of greater short-term profits) should buy a different stock.

Tim Cook has shown that Apple has no problem telling people to ditch their shares when the interests truly don't align. [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook...

When is the last time that a jury found for a plaintiff who sued a company for being too friendly to human rights?

What does that achieve? May be it's ethically better, but what does it actually do that is a net positive to the consumer?

I agree. Yes. Perhaps I should have said I have zero expectation that most corporations would say yes. They will decide they just cannot ignore a chunk of the world population that big.

iOS is probably, on the whole, better for human rights than the alternative (Android, especially from a Chinese-native company). Better to compromise than leave them with nothing.

> What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population?

Yes! And go even further: actively assist in aiding dissent and revolution in nations whose disrespect for human rights is so flagrant as to threaten their business model.

I don't understand why the state is held in such regard as to casually gloss over the possibility that private entities, especially those as massive as Apple, might help to smash it.

Apple is an incredibly powerful entity in the world today. There is no reason for them to sit on the sidelines rather than to aid in bringing China down. It's inevitable; the only question is whether it takes 60 years and happens on the backs of the poor and nameless or whether giants like Apple flex their muscle to help.

No offense intended here...

but I think you, at once, overestimate the power of Apple...

and underestimate the power of "nations... [that]... disrespect... human rights". (The US, China etc etc I suppose).

China doesn't need the FBI to get its way in order for China to get its way.

Right. But there is an apparent balance at the moment where because no government has demanded and received back doors, no country mandates it. It's a precarious spot to be sure. But it would be bad for the US to step off the line first.

It's only a matter of time before China feels they can do it. They will, if they haven't yet. Not defending U.S. politicos and bureaucrats who also want it. Just saying that the U.S. asking or not asking for backdoors will soon make no difference.

Perhaps but at that point the US (or whoever) can counter with their own rules/laws. Might lead to manufacturing balkanization but I'd prefer the US not the one to step over the line first in the same way I'd prefer the US not be the first to use nukes (although I guess that's a bit hyperbolic).