Apple vs the FBI

[Berkut]

For those who think Apple should be forced to break the security on their phone (and I understand the logic behind this - I don't think this is an obvious issue at all), I am wondering something.

Apple is a global company. If the US Government can legally force them to break the security on the iPhone (and lets assume they do so and have done so after proper due process), then what justification would Apple have for refusing to do the same when China asks them to do so, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia?

If a sovereign state actor has the power to demand that a business take this action, are you ok with EVERY sovereign having that same power to compel? Or are there only some of them that should have that power, and how should Apple decide which?

[The Brain]

Aren't Apple phones made in China already?

[Razgovory]

Apple isn't incorporated in Russia, China or Saudi Arabia.

[The Brain]

Apples grow on trees.

[Josephus]

It's Eve's fault for tempting Adam with the damn thing. We never would have fallen into a state of sin otherwise.

[alfred russel]

Apple isn't incorporated in Russia, China or Saudi Arabia.

I suspect they have subsidiaries that are incorporated in those locations. If not, at least registered offices.

[Razgovory]

Anyway, this is a false equivalency argument.  If you want to allow one government to be able to investigate and prosecute murder in one country it doesn't mean you are automatically in favor of investigation and prosecution of apostasy in another.

[alfred russel]

Anyway, this is a false equivalency argument.  If you want to allow one government to be able to investigate and prosecute murder in one country it doesn't mean you are automatically in favor of investigation and prosecution of apostasy in another.

But it was presented in terms of equivalency. Certainly terrorism exists in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China--probably all three have worse issues than the US. So if the US can compel Apple to break its security for a phone with possible terrorist information on it, should the previously mentioned countries be able to do so as well?

If so, where are the limiting factors, both in the US and abroad?

[Malthus]

Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.

Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.

[grumbler]

Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.

Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.

Yes, exactly.  The actions of the US government are utterly unrelated to the actions of another.  The US not pursuing the policy forcing Apple to break the security on their phone has no power to stop Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China from forcing Apple to break the security on their phone.

As an argument, that dog don't hunt.  Sorry, Berkut.

[Berkut]

Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.

Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.

Indeed - what I am trying to get at is the views of the individuals who support the US government having the power to compel such from Apple, and if they have really thought through the implications of that position.

I think Apple has kind of an interesting position - it is an occasion where the desire of a mega-corporation actually aligns with the desires of the consumers. Yet some people actually support the government, and in the US, the government is influenced by the people. That means that for me, I want people to call their congressperson and say "Hey, get off Apple's case!". To some extent that is happening, and to some extent people are supporting the FBI.

That is all fine - that is how democracy works. Or is supposed to work.

My issue though is that you cannot create a general rule that says that Apple should be compelled to follow the demands of OUR government, but should be free to ignore the demands of other governments. The reality is that Apple does in fact have to follow the demands of all governments, hence we should be very careful about what we demand that they do - if they are going to do it for the US, then how can we argue that they should not do it for other countries as well?

I think we all recognize that if a business wants to do business, they are going to have to follow the rules of the places they do business in - as the most powerful and valuable business environment for a company like Apple, we need to be careful about what we demand of them.

If Saudi Arabia goes to Apple today and demands that they unlock some phone Apple can and will tell them "No, we don't do that for anyone" and SA isn't going to kick them out (probably). And if SA does, then Apple will shrug and live with it, because it would be more damaging to their brand to give in than the value of that market.

If SA goes to Apple a year from now and says "Hey, clearly you have conceded that sovereign nations can demand that you create this hack, we are sovereign, so do it for us" then Apple doesn't have nearly as strong a position to stand on, and it would not be nearly as damaging to them - rather the damage has already been done, so why risk losing the market for a lost cause?

[Berkut]

Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.

Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.

Yes, exactly.  The actions of the US government are utterly unrelated to the actions of another.  The US not pursuing the policy forcing Apple to break the security on their phone has no power to stop Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China from forcing Apple to break the security on their phone.

As an argument, that dog don't hunt.  Sorry, Berkut.

I think it affects the ability of Apple to resist such demands from other countries.

Basically, Apple has to make a choice at that point - either give up the value of that market, or give in to the demands.

Absent this action from the US (and the US clearly has the power to compel Apple since they cannot give up this market), it would harm Apple to give in to such demands because it would damage their brand globally.

If the US forces them to do this to begin with, it becomes much harder for them to justify resisting others - the damage has already been done.

[grumbler]

Berkut, i don't understand the argument.  You say " if they are going to do it for the US, then how can we argue that they should not do it for other countries as well?"  Why is that a question?  Why would someone have to have consistent policies on what he or she would allow government to do without considering which government is being referred to?

We can argue different policies in different circumstances all the time, and we should.

[Malthus]

I see it as an issue of relative bargaining power. Countries with lots of it will always be in a better position to force Apple's hand. I don't think countries will be able to rely on some notion of basic fairness between nations (as in 'you did it for them, why not for us?'). The answer, though no doubt put more diplomatically, is likely to be "they are the freaking US, and you are Upper Slobovia. Do the math."

[Berkut]

Because the power here is whether or not Apple should bow to a demand that they actually help a government break the security on their product. If in fact a government has that power, then surely that is a power derived from the nature of sovereign governments, rather than the specifics of particular governments.

Are we saying that Apple then has the right to decide which governments they will listen to and which they will not? If so, then aren't we saying that they have the right to refuse the US government?

I don't understand the argument that Apple does NOT have the right to say "No" to the FBI, but does have the right to say "No" to the SVR. Either they have the right to make that evaluation themselves, based on the circumstances (in which case we should support them saying "no" to the FBI) or they do not have that right (in which case we should demand that they should be compelled by the FBI and their views on the matter are not relevant, because they are not the determining body, it is the courts).

The question isn't different policies in different circumstances, the question is what are the range of powers that exist absent the specific circumstances.