> Because Tim Cook, as a homosexual, has teared up when speaking about human rights abuses of homosexual under repressive regimes

...but is also more than happy to meet and shake hands with the leaders of those repressive regimes? Like the UAE, which criminalizes sodomy and deports those who identify as LGBT?

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/abu-dhabi-crown-pr...

Is it possible Apple, like Tim Cook, has the occasional double standard?

There's another way to look at it - Tim Cook has managed to get these leaders of repressive regimes to shake hands and do business with an openly gay man who is widely admired.

Tim Cook can only change what he has control over.

He can't change the government of the UAE.

He can change Apple's security and privacy priorities.

Right, shaking hands is literally an endorsement of everything the country does.

This must blow your mind: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fnyoobserv...

Shake hands or resign and let another person lead Apple.

Homosexuals don't have some special monopoly on honesty, nor are they immune to using emotional string pulling when they try to get you to believe what they are saying.

The reply would have been better without the first paragraph.

Regardless, Apple do collect lot of personal data. And even if they don't sell it or use it for marketing now, they could still potentially lose control of it, or change their policies down the road.

The safest approach from a privacy perspective is not to collect the data in the first place.

> Homosexuals don't have some special monopoly on honesty, nor are they immune to using emotional string pulling when they try to get you to believe what they are saying. The reply would have been better without the first paragraph.

I believe the point was that he was advocating for a cause which doesn't benefit him or directly affect him. I think it's a valid point: it's easy to fight for things that benefit you. It's like you'd be less skeptical if a rich person fights for higher taxes on the rich than when a poor person does.

I'm an attorney and have worked with several financial institutions drafting policies/statements/investor disclosures about privacy and user data. For most financial institutions user privacy is good for the bottom line but expensive so they tend to do the bare minimum. The bare minimum is not a lot but it's quite a bit more than nothing, which is what most non-medical/non-financial institutions have to do. I've never worked with a tech company on privacy matters but I would expect any company that depends on collecting and monetizing user data to be much more aggressive than the typical financial institution. That said, comparing Apple's privacy policies to those of a financial institution they are truly above and beyond any minimum regulatory standard.

I know most people don't pay them any attention but I'm really not sure you could find a more customer-focused privacy policy. I've yet to find one and I would guess I've read at least 10x as many privacy policies as the average person. Everything from what their disclosures say to how they've structured them to be easily read, easily understood, and (dare I say) engaging is indicative of just how much they prioritize user-privacy.

edit: meant non medical

Thought it was a bit funny, because 10*0=0, most people has probably never read a privacy policy.

Still, good point!

This is the same Tim Cook that praised a conference to promote China's "cyber-sovereignty" vision as "developing a a digital economy for openness". Don't forget that Apple is very good at marketing, and will change their message to fit the market.

"Homosexual" is not strictly offensive, but does mark you as potentially holding regressive views. It's easy enough to see from context that you're probably okay, but you can't always count on context.

You can just say gay.

-- Signed, The Gays

I just assumed it was the PC version, like African American. No offense meant

-- Signed, totally a friend of the Gays

we're getting super off topic here, but my understanding is that 'black' is actually becoming more PC and acceptable largely because many black people are neither African nor American

To those of us who are, it sounds excessively clinical, most of us dont like thinking of our sexuality in a clinical way. Also the poster is not wrong, talking about homosexuality, is cool and okay, calling someone a homosexual is often a language flag that they may be less than open minded.

This might all be true, but is there ever going to be a point where we assume positive intent? We shouldn’t be inferring deep-seeded psychological attributes in every day communication. It’s super likely that nothing at all was meant by using the clinical term.

I didnt see a lack of good faith in the discussion, it was more of a "hey, you might wanna know, that using that particular word associates you with this group you might not want association with" - which if anything is an assertion that requires good faith to make.

For sure, TIL! Thanks random hn gay person!

I can't reply to your other one because of HN max-thread rules, but yeah. My wife has a masters in social work, or as we like to joke, is a professional social justice warrior. Keep fighting the good fight.

Speaking on behalf of all gays? Even if you’re gay, I’d be pretty sure you’re mostly just capable of speaking for yourself. Either way it’s a bummer you were offended.

So how should he have said it?