5 ms·

Pakistan's laws are clearly wrong, but Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws.

matthewaveryusa 6y ago
Indeed, you cannot solve political problems with technical solutions -- It goes both ways though
- ethbr0 6y ago
  I don't think FAANGM having control is a technical solution -- it's a political solution too, albeit with a (semi-) public company in the position of power.
kop316 6y ago
So may I ask your opinion of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
- 542458 6y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what the correct set of actions for Apple is in the Pakistan case, but I don't feel these two are all that similar. In that case Apple broke no laws. The FBI very likely did not have the legal power to compel Apple to break the phone’s encryption. The FBI issued orders to Apple, Apple legally disputed the orders. Apple's actions in disputing unjust orders is allowed under US law. Versus this case where the Pakistani government does, unfortunately, have full authority to pass and enforce this law as harshly as it wants.
- tdaltonc 6y ago
  In the US, the law is not whatever the FBI says it is.
- edrxty 6y ago
  Providing tools (strong encryption) isn't really the same as managing a whole market and dictating who can and cannot participate based on random whims. If they were giving the FBI backdoors but not the UK or Pakistan, then it would be a different story.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Apple disputed an order in court and won lawfully? Seems consistent.
II2II 6y ago
Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their course of action be? The course of action they followed implicitly supports human rights violations, in order to continue operating within a given country. Note that I am not saying the action itself is a human rights violation. They certainly have the right to choose what to publish and they are limiting the scope of their actions to the laws of the country question. The decision is entirely reasonable if the context of those laws is ignored. The decision is also entirely reasonable when you consider that Apple and Google are large enough entities that not operating within that country or doing so in violation of their laws could rightfully be considered as exerting political pressure. I doubt that there is actually a good answer to the question. There is only a lesser-of-evils answer, where they probably made the right choice even though I find their profiting from that choice disgusting.
- FlownScepter 6y ago
  > Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their course of action be? To comply with the law. No, I don't like it either, but I also don't like the idea of corporations having the ability to flout the laws of sovereign nations because they disagree with them. > The course of action they followed implicitly supports human rights violations This is not a "course of action" anymore than not committing a crime is a public service. Enforcing human rights laws is not Apple or Google's job, full stop. They are corporations who's goal is to make money, and that's it. Enforcing human rights is what Governments are for. Instead of asking "why aren't Apple and Google helping activists in Pakistan?" ask "why is Pakistan allowed to abuse it's citizenry in 2021?"
  - II2II 6y ago
    The main issue is how Apple and Google are able to profit from the decision. The only way I can see the situation being avoided is by not entering the particular market in the first place, or by not allowing corporations to get so large that their actions can be construed as political interference (whether it is intentional or not). Either way, the current decision is the consequence of earlier ones.
username90 6y ago
Easy solution is to not have monolithic gatekeepers like Apple or Google that can be pressured into doing stuff like this. A website is way harder to shut down than an appstore app, so normalizing appstores is a huge problem.
ozborn 6y ago
A country's law can be bypassed by not doing business there, an option that Google is already familiar from its 2010 decision regarding China. Pakistan is a large country, but I don't think it is a big market for Google - certainly much smaller than China. Also, I found it disingenuous that Google plays "it's the law card" when it spends millions of dollars a year lobbying in the United States to get laws changed. Now, it may be much harder to get the Pakistan government to change its mind around the inclusion of "Muslim" for online content for this group - but I doubt Google has bothered to try... There is more than a country's law to consider, there is international law and war crimes tribunals. Nothing maybe for Google to worry about yet, but what if Pakistan passes a law is passed that requires Google to give up all search data on this minority population in order that the government can monitor, imprison or kill them? I'd like to see how Google's legal team would respond to that. I'm guessing comply and cover-up, but I'd like to be wrong. Note it doesn't even have to be an international law, it can be a better, future Pakistan, perhaps one with an Ahmadiyya leader - as inconceivable as that seems now. Germany for example, is charging an old lady with aiding and abetting murder (10,000 times!) for her secretarial work as a minor in a concentration camp. Pakistan is bigger than Germany and Google is good at doing things at scale... so let's hope Google leadership leads.
- chickenpotpie 6y ago
  That’s literally the opposite of what bypassing means
vharuck 6y ago
I would argue that Google, Apple, and any other group or individual should have the choice to ignore laws. When immoral laws are flaunted to promote the common good, it's called civil disobedience. Likewise, governments are free to investigate and punish those people. Also likewise, the population is free to form their own opinions about the "criminals" and government. That's society. We shouldn't throw our hands in the air and blindly follow all laws just because there's no objective truth.
swiley 6y ago
No. but the citizens should be able to bypass unjust laws and Apple and Google have no business preventing that.
alacombe 6y ago
> Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws They do every day when it's in their interest...

matthewaveryusa 6y ago

Indeed, you cannot solve political problems with technical solutions -- It goes both ways though

ethbr0 6y ago
I don't think FAANGM having control is a technical solution -- it's a political solution too, albeit with a (semi-) public company in the position of power.

kop316 6y ago

So may I ask your opinion of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

542458 6y ago
I'm not sure exactly what the correct set of actions for Apple is in the Pakistan case, but I don't feel these two are all that similar. In that case Apple broke no laws. The FBI very likely did not have the legal power to compel Apple to break the phone’s encryption. The FBI issued orders to Apple, Apple legally disputed the orders. Apple's actions in disputing unjust orders is allowed under US law. Versus this case where the Pakistani government does, unfortunately, have full authority to pass and enforce this law as harshly as it wants.
tdaltonc 6y ago
In the US, the law is not whatever the FBI says it is.
edrxty 6y ago
Providing tools (strong encryption) isn't really the same as managing a whole market and dictating who can and cannot participate based on random whims. If they were giving the FBI backdoors but not the UK or Pakistan, then it would be a different story.
triceratops 6y ago
Apple disputed an order in court and won lawfully? Seems consistent.

II2II 6y ago

Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their course of action be? The course of action they followed implicitly supports human rights violations, in order to continue operating within a given country. Note that I am not saying the action itself is a human rights violation. They certainly have the right to choose what to publish and they are limiting the scope of their actions to the laws of the country question. The decision is entirely reasonable if the context of those laws is ignored. The decision is also entirely reasonable when you consider that Apple and Google are large enough entities that not operating within that country or doing so in violation of their laws could rightfully be considered as exerting political pressure. I doubt that there is actually a good answer to the question. There is only a lesser-of-evils answer, where they probably made the right choice even though I find their profiting from that choice disgusting.

FlownScepter 6y ago
> Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their course of action be? To comply with the law. No, I don't like it either, but I also don't like the idea of corporations having the ability to flout the laws of sovereign nations because they disagree with them. > The course of action they followed implicitly supports human rights violations This is not a "course of action" anymore than not committing a crime is a public service. Enforcing human rights laws is not Apple or Google's job, full stop. They are corporations who's goal is to make money, and that's it. Enforcing human rights is what Governments are for. Instead of asking "why aren't Apple and Google helping activists in Pakistan?" ask "why is Pakistan allowed to abuse it's citizenry in 2021?"
- II2II 6y ago
  The main issue is how Apple and Google are able to profit from the decision. The only way I can see the situation being avoided is by not entering the particular market in the first place, or by not allowing corporations to get so large that their actions can be construed as political interference (whether it is intentional or not). Either way, the current decision is the consequence of earlier ones.

username90 6y ago

Easy solution is to not have monolithic gatekeepers like Apple or Google that can be pressured into doing stuff like this. A website is way harder to shut down than an appstore app, so normalizing appstores is a huge problem.

ozborn 6y ago

A country's law can be bypassed by not doing business there, an option that Google is already familiar from its 2010 decision regarding China. Pakistan is a large country, but I don't think it is a big market for Google - certainly much smaller than China. Also, I found it disingenuous that Google plays "it's the law card" when it spends millions of dollars a year lobbying in the United States to get laws changed. Now, it may be much harder to get the Pakistan government to change its mind around the inclusion of "Muslim" for online content for this group - but I doubt Google has bothered to try... There is more than a country's law to consider, there is international law and war crimes tribunals. Nothing maybe for Google to worry about yet, but what if Pakistan passes a law is passed that requires Google to give up all search data on this minority population in order that the government can monitor, imprison or kill them? I'd like to see how Google's legal team would respond to that. I'm guessing comply and cover-up, but I'd like to be wrong. Note it doesn't even have to be an international law, it can be a better, future Pakistan, perhaps one with an Ahmadiyya leader - as inconceivable as that seems now. Germany for example, is charging an old lady with aiding and abetting murder (10,000 times!) for her secretarial work as a minor in a concentration camp. Pakistan is bigger than Germany and Google is good at doing things at scale... so let's hope Google leadership leads.

chickenpotpie 6y ago
That’s literally the opposite of what bypassing means

vharuck 6y ago

I would argue that Google, Apple, and any other group or individual should have the choice to ignore laws. When immoral laws are flaunted to promote the common good, it's called civil disobedience. Likewise, governments are free to investigate and punish those people. Also likewise, the population is free to form their own opinions about the "criminals" and government. That's society. We shouldn't throw our hands in the air and blindly follow all laws just because there's no objective truth.

swiley 6y ago

No. but the citizens should be able to bypass unjust laws and Apple and Google have no business preventing that.

alacombe 6y ago

> Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws They do every day when it's in their interest...