I’ll sooner go off grid than submit to this police state nonsense.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple May Have to Enable Always-On GPS in India
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
they are already...
Pertaining to this request: this is bad from a quality perspective as it will put a considerable toll on battery life. Can't sell a 1000$ phone that only lasts half a day. I think they will argue this first, then introduce a new low battery consumption GPS feature next WWDC (nice for all users, great for business in India).
constitute a regulatory overreach?!
Apple cannot try to run a country, period. Apple is not a governing body.
At least India is honest. I wonder how limited and controlled GPS tracking really is in the ivory towers of the west? Do not tell me the intelligence branches and police do not have these capabilities and it is utilised in crime and terrorism investigations.
This is the salient point. The plan being Digitalisation of money, therefore you can never be or do without your digital device/ (phone) to survive.
The plan is you will not be able to if they successfully digitise money.
For example The EU, well really it's the magcial "Central Bank" is still racing down the EU roadmap
Progress on the digital euro
The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank of the European Union countries which have adopted the euro. Our main task is to maintain price stability in the euro area and so preserve the purchasing power of the single currency.
Apple isn’t trying to run a country. A trade association that Apple is a member of (along with Google, Foxconn, Vivo, Xiaomi, Oppo, Dell, Amazon, and others) sent a letter to the Indian government warning that the proposal has seriously privacy, security, and legal issues and the government should reconsider.
Companies absolutely should push back on governments when they propose rules or enact laws that hurt the companies or their customers. Particularly when the rules are proposals. As someone who works with government regulators, those proposing even well-meaning rules and regulations aren’t always aware of the actual implications of what they propose.
Governments don’t always follow their laws and constitutions. Just because a government say to do something or passes a law doesn’t mean any company should just say “sure, boss, whatever you want.” They should push back, lobby to reduce the harm caused, and yes, even sue to stop it. No one is suggesting Apple not follow the laws of the country it operates in. If India implements this and the courts uphold it as lawful, then Apple will have to comply.
But this idea that just because some on MacRumors think Apple is too big, or don’t like Tim Cook or whatever, means that anytime Apple pushes back against something a government wants the government is right and Apple is in the wrong leads to defending some really, really terrible things. Like “the government should be able to track your exact location whenever it wants without a court order.”
I'm confused by this statement. I thought the EU is actually trying to protect end-end encryption. The current discussion is that they want to somehow implement "Chat Control" to scan messages for Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). That would indeed likely break encryption as a unwanted side effect, so they are having a healthy discussion how to make this work with some countries blocking it. But there are certainly also factions that would like to end encryption, but it's not clear yet if this is a EU wide goal. I thought only the UK is trying to actively end encryption and wants backdoors, but the UK is not in the EU.
What did you think of Jimmy Kimmel being taken off the air for a week because Trump’s FCC Chairman threatened networks for people saying things they didn’t like?
Feedback on proposals is great and expected and the governments would not work without them.
However, Apple always push back on every proposal (at least as reported at MR) suggesting inability to engage in a meaningful way. Saying "no" without a meaningful counter proposal has no value and therefore Apple appears obstructive. Apples constant obstructions makes them unconvincing as responsible entity wanting to exist in other markets than the US.
Also, who is tech protecting: the individual, a government or their the tech stock value? In my world: stock value>government>individual. It is all about creditability in the end.
PS. GPS tracking without court order is an abomination but considering the lack of integrity of some legal systems and courts, I am not sure how protected we are in reality. DS
The tech (Apple) see only one side of the coin while a government must look at both sides. We need a healthy debate about the value of finding criminal activities vs risk of potential misused by governments and third parties. Big tech need to engage here or else they may seem to be OK with supporting all sorts of criminal activities by providing the platforms.
Then comply with the internal regulations of the respective country. There are many nations outside the US that are more socially inclined towards their own citizens, for instance, your neighbour to the north.
The country and its citizens come first, not some foreign company, period!
Apple can and will “challenge the system”. Period. Governments make mistakes because the people running them make mistakes.
Or challenge it. There are many instances of challenging the establishment that were successful. Sometime a foreign company adds value and to have that governments sometimes have to acquiesce. Period.
The US is not as powerful as one might believe, so American companies won’t get what they want outside the US. Find and read the wish list in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
Sure, but a good dialogue between the two sides is nowadays lacking.
Apple is as all companies charged with two aims: 1. increase stock value and 2. make a profit. Governments have hundreds if not thousands of bottom lines to consider when making legislations and politics. Quite different responsibilities and view points don´t you think?
I don't think Apple "always push back on every proposal." It's that when Apple pushes back it makes it newsworthy (particularly on a site like MacRumors).
For example, Apple didn't oppose California's "right to repair" bill. They provided technical feedback and supported the the law, as well as cooperated with similar laws in Minnesota and Colorado. On the EU's USB-mandate they did state their opinion during the consultation phase (correctly noting it would harm innovation) but once the law was implemented they didn't sue, launch a PR campaign or anything like that. Apple didn't push back on GDPR. Apple didn't push back when India mandated specific categories of Indian user data in the cloud stay within India. Etc.
I don't think it is so black and white, and do think that Apple will put its users' needs above its needs or the government's in some (clearly not all) instances. I know it's taken as gospel on here that Tim Cook would do anything to raise the stock price, but as he said in 2018:
And, as the article I linked to notes, in 2015 Apple famously put their users ahead of the government's desires to force them to unlock an iPhone.
No argument here.
And when the country is, like India is proposing here, doing something that puts the needs of the government over the needs of its citizens, what would you have Apple do? Not say anything? Just let it pass and then implement it even though it hurts Apple and its customers? Apple isn't allowed to state thoughts or opinions of proposed laws and regulations of the countries it operates in?
The US isn’t as powerless as you believe. Money, and power talk and b/s walks.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes there is tendency for bias in the reporting. Given the anti-EU attitude here it is difficult to hold a serious discussion what is reasonable and when Apple engage in a positive capacity. "Did not oppose" is not exactly the same as contributing positively thought.
"Apple famously put their users ahead of the government's desires to force them to unlock an iPhone". If being unwilling to unlock a phone in a criminal investigation, who is Apple protecting?
The chaos of port standards is IT industries worst failure. Having a common port is an innovation in itself.
Soon we have Musk and the X fine up for discussions but maybe that is not MR.
And when there is benefit to both sides there generally is negotiation. Don’t you think?