Ouch. It must be really fun for Googlers to hear their company is working so hard to repress dissidents trying to reveal its secret project to help China repress dissidents.
Fact of the matter is that there is a Chinese internet and a US internet. Going forward there will be a Chinese internet, that some authoritarian countries will adopt that are a part of the Chinese sphere of influence. American companies, and the American government through them want a foothold on that internet. This is the only way for them to do so.
The idea that this appeasement will make Google a contender in China is blazingly ignorant of Chinese politics. No foreign company will ever be allowed to gain significant market share; it would be seen as a national security threat. The only way for Google would be to forge an equal partnership with a Chinese tech giant---Tencent, Alibaba, Huawei, or maybe one of the two dominant cell carriers.
Ok, they will never be as huge as local companies, but what's the downside to trying? Google being there doesn't make chinese access to internet any worse. If anything, their government would have to pump in more money into the local companies to stop Google from gaining a foothold, which would be a positive for their citizens.
I hope I am not too cynical. I think this type of thinking leads to confusing the symptoms for the underlying problem.
Ask yourself, are we complicit in human rights abuse? We all pay our taxes right? Where do our taxes go? Dictators propped up globally. How many dissidents were tortured and executed with the aid of our intelligence agencies? What about the ongoing Israeli human rights abuses -- illegal occupation and genocide are somehow less than important than Chinese speech moderation?
We are so inconsistent. If we actually care about progress then we wouldn't get distracted by each instance of a problem. These posts, our comments... they are us trying to make ourselves feel better by spinning lies. Attack the underlying problems. Our problems are social problems, legal problems.
Advocate. Spread awareness. Run for office. Volunteer. Tackle the problem.
Regarding iCloud, Apple has made decisions to bring Chinese iCloud in compliance with Chinese regulations. Chinese iCloud accounts, data, and encryption keys are stored with a Chinese firm overseen by the Chinese government.
Yep. Apple moved their keys to be stored locally on state-owned servers, meaning that Apple has given the Chinese government access to Chinese user data. Apple even updated their TOS for it.
>Apple says the joint venture does not mean that China has any kind of “backdoor” into user data and that Apple alone – not its Chinese partner – will control the encryption keys.
China goes so far as to require Android users to install a surveillance app in some provinces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingwang_Weishi) so you think the Chinese government would really allow the sale of unbreakable end to end encryption domestically just because it's Apple?
What would be the point then, as anyone wanting to avoid Chinese surveillance could just buy an iPhone. They wouldn't go through huge, immense trouble rolling out a massive surveillance apparatus on this domestic internet only to allow the world's most popular phone to be sold domestically as a simple circumvention.
No, Apple obviously made a deal as they are totally dependent on China for manufacturing their phone as well, they have no leverage. The difference is, Apple's culture of secrecy seems to prevent their employees from leaking dissent externally, so whatever they did, the details aren't public.
>so you think the Chinese government would really allow the sale of unbreakable end to end encryption domestically just because it's Apple?
Yes. Apple has even said this in court filings during the FBI legal fight [1]:
>Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5.
and Craig Federighi's declaration [2]:
>5. Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world.
>6. Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device.
>7. It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services.
>I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Apple has leverage in China because they indirectly employ millions of people.
>No, Apple obviously made a deal as they are totally dependent on China for manufacturing their phone as well, they have no leverage. The difference is, Apple's culture of secrecy seems to prevent their employees from leaking dissent externally, so whatever they did, the details aren't public.
Lol. I'm sure Federighi perjured himself because the Apple Cult is just that strong.
And even then, the declaration you quote (made in a US Court case referring to the FBI) was made two years before Apple gave the keys over to China.
Apple has deleted VPN apps from the Chinese store at the request of the Chinese government. They also added a clause to their TOS that allows the state-owned data company to access all user data. When they rolled this out and gave the keys to China, they only gave their users the option to delete their account, not opt out.
I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you but Apple is acquiescing with the Chinese government surveillance demands.
Yes, so much leverage that China regularly forces them to censor the App Store, and forced them to give up control of iCloud in China.
Quite different than say, how Apple handled the FBI demands or AT&T?
What concessions did Apple extract from China with respect to freedom or privacy for the Chinese people that you can point to?
Have they ever gotten VPN reinstated? Can you point to a single instance of Apple even petitioning against the government in Chinese courts?
I’ll go one better: can you find an instance on record of Apple executives like Tim Cook criticizing Chinese government policies like they do the US government? Any instance of push back at all?
Apple definitely has leverage because we now know they have not made any "special accommodations" for China in their products and services. And as far as I know, iMessage remains unblocked unlike other encrypted services like WhatsApp.
That doesn't mean that Apple can do whatever they want. They've had to shut down iBooks and iTunes Movies within months of turning it on. They've had to remove VPN apps and the NYT's app from the App Store.
But they haven't had to fundamentally cripple the security of their products and services. And that's a meaningful concession they've obtained, because they're Apple.
>I’ll go one better: can you find an instance on record of Apple executives like Tim Cook criticizing Chinese government policies like they do the US government? Any instance of push back at all?
We know they pushed back on the data localization regulation because they said so in a statement to Reuters.
That was back in February. Since then there's been some shuffling of the companies who own the servers with the keys so that China now has access.
From July 2018:
>Fast forward to today: China Telecom, a government owned telco, is taking over the iCloud data from Guizhou-Cloud Big Data. This essentially means that a state-owned firm now has access to all the iCloud data China-based users store, such as photos, notes, emails, and text messages.
Nobody said that Apple no longer retains control of the keys. The point is that the Chinese government has access to Apple user data and Apple is complicit.
>Nobody said that Apple no longer retains control of the keys. The point is that the Chinese government has access to Apple user data and Apple is complicit.
The Chinese government has the exact same access to Apple user data as before, which is through Apple. Who controls the keys is what matters.
>The Chinese government has the exact same access to Apple user data as before, which is through Apple.
No, the Chinese government now owns the servers with the key storage. They now have access to all the keys and user data at rest.
If the Chinese government is accessing all the user data because they requested Apple to put the user keys on their now-state-owned servers, then why does it matter if Apple controls the keys? You're still splitting hairs.
>No, the Chinese government now owns the servers with the key storage. They now have access to all the keys and user data.
>If the Chinese government is accessing all the user data because they requested Apple to put the user keys on their now-state-owned servers, then why does it matter if Apple controls the keys? You're still splitting hairs.
Apple said literally the opposite of this to Reuters and in this statement to 9to5Mac [1]:
>Last year, we announced that Guizhou on the Cloud Big Data (GCBD) would become the operator of iCloud in China. As we said at the time, we’re committed to continuously improving the user experience, and our partnership with GCBD will allow us improve the speed and reliability of our iCloud services products while also complying with newly passed regulations that cloud services be operated by Chinese companies. Because of our commitment to transparency, there will be a series of customer communications over the course of the next seven weeks to make sure customers are well informed of the coming changes. Apple has strong data privacy and security protections in place and no backdoors will be created into any of our systems.
You seem to think there's some material difference by storing the keys or data in China. There isn't. China's power over Apple comes from the fact that they can block their access to operate in China. It's not technical or legal. Chinese iCloud data was just as vulnerable to requests from the Chinese government when it was stored in the US.
>Apple says the joint venture does not mean that China has any kind of “backdoor” into user data and that Apple alone – not its Chinese partner – will control the encryption keys.
> That report doesn't say that Apple no longer retains control of the keys.
Even if it does (which is unclear), do you think Apple will be able to refuse if the Chinese government asks for them? I wouldn't be surprised of "the laws and regulations of China" say that Apple is required to turn them over.
>Even if it does (which is unclear), do you think Apple will be able to refuse if the Chinese government asks for them? I wouldn't be surprised of "the laws and regulations of China" say that Apple is required to turn them over.
Apple says that they respond to valid legal requests, but that isn't any different than when iCloud data was stored in the US. If you thought that Apple would cave to any request for data from the Chinese before, then there's no material difference by storing Chinese iCloud data in China.
That is because Chinese manufactures still need Apple and Foxconn, iPhones are made (assembled) in China. Once that changes (i. e. in a few years) watch how new regulations will destroy or at least reduce the iPhone business.
> With only seven million iPhones sold in China during the second quarter of 2018, Apple's market share in the country dropped by 12.5 percent year on year to 6.7 percent, according to a report by the International Data Corporation (IDC)
And you can imagine why is that so.
> Xiaomi pokes fun at Apple with phone, laptop, fitness tracker, and Bluetooth earphones bundles that cost the same as the new iPhones.
Actually mocking the Apple might became the cultural thing in China.
> Huawei has taken the act of mocking the newly launched iPhones to the next level in seemingly funny way. In Singapore, those who were waiting overnight for the release of the iPhone XS and XS Max, were handed power banks by the China-based tech giant. Some people wearing Huawei t-shirts started giving away power banks to the hundreds of people waiting in line to get their hands on the newly announced iPhones. Not just that, there’s a message on the power bank’s box which reads – “Here’s a power bank. You’ll need it. Courtesy of Huawei.”
I don't understand the notion. Google already censors anything they like with very advanced methods that even provide them with plausible deniability, high specificity etc. And I bet they're better than the Chinese at tracking literally everything you do online and connecting that with your real, offline identity, complete with your entire social network graph, your biometrics, SSN, income, race, personality type, political affiliations etc etc... And they already provide that data to governments upon request. Not a legal request, but an API request.
The only thing I'd want explained about the article is how it would be physically possible to track users more closely than they currently do in the western world.
Censorship is a government action. When people and private companies do it, it's called filtering. There's a world of difference between an individual or company having control over data vs. a government. People and companies with heavy influence can mess things up a quite a bit, sure, but they can't arrest, imprison, sentence or put anyone to death.
Censorship is not at all limited to government action. It is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
Anybody with suppressional power over information can do it.
"Filtering" is not descriptive of what is happening either, that word trivializes and even gives the action a positive connotation. Filtering removes stuff nobody wants, it cleans, it gets rid of debris and trash.
Beware of word subversion! If you try to make morally bankrupt actions harder to describe depending on the actor then you're attempting speech and thought control.
That world of difference is a very small world given the kind of collusion that goes on these days. In China, it's probably about the size of a desktop globe.
Censorship can also be unofficial, when there is no law for it, but someone from the government unofficially advises that the company should "filter" some information and they comply.
This is cognitive dissonance. You can create rationalizations for the worst of actions, and that's exactly what this is. The motivation is simply money and growth. China is a huge market that may, in the future, become the single most lucrative market in the world. They want in on this and are willing to toss any values they may have once held to pursue the profit and power potential of this market.
Perhaps they are playing the long game. Actions against their values taken now will give them more power to act in line with their values in the future.
In terms of tracking everything and having a file on everyone Google and Western governments are already there. The only saving grace is that they don't use that information all the time to get people in trouble -- but they could, just look at the whole airport security thing. However, in terms of the ability to abuse, they are already well at par with anything China can do. And really it does not matter if they help China or not, China is more than capable of doing it all themselves given enough time. The difference will be that Western companies and governments will be left out of all of that... which to them is not good.
There's a major problem with this. Actions are what decide the values of an individual or a company. Nearly all horrible actions throughout history were certainly rationalized by at least one actor as reasonable and just, if not outright good. I've no doubt that your rationalization is likely similar to the rationalizations that the numerous US companies (IBM, Coke, Ford, Bayer, GM, Chase, etc) used when deciding to aid and support the Nazis.
Of course in hindsight you judge these companies not by their rationalizations, but by their actions. And this is how it should be. Rationalizations or Machiavellianism are ironically myopic. The means (or rationalizations) do not justify the ends. The ends are rarely predictable and often are far different than what we may ever expect. By contrast we live, each and every day, through the direct consequences of the means. Many people find China's actions morally dubious, and Google is now directly engaging in behavior that will, at the minimum, enhance the ability of Chinese authorities to track and 'handle' individuals who run afoul of state interests. These actions are what inform you of Google's values.
Are you certain that's the only way for them to do so? I suspect that smart people could find effective technical means to undermine and circumvent the Great Firewall of China.
It’s not that hard to circumvent actually. Also in major tech companies in China, employees can just use company network to access websites blocked by the firewall. But if you provide that as a service to general public, it’d get shutdown when it get popular
Could we discuss at least a little bit that this culture of "I must not be blamed" is toxic ?
Companies must sometimes choose between pest and cholera. Having search in China would let millions of Chinese citizens improve themselves a LOT. It would make Chinese censorship a lot harder as well. It would have pretty damn good effects. A billion people would get access to a LOT of information they don't currently have access to.
And it would collaborate with a criminal regime. You can criticize that ... evil !
Not doing it, while less criticizeable, would imho be more evil.
Like with any other issue, there are always be haters and supporters. You assume all googlers oppose this ? I'm sure there are still many googlers that are fine to work on this. I'm not googlers but I would have no issue on working with something like this.
