iOS 15 'iCloud Private Relay' Feature Won't Be Available in China, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and More

[bsolar]

Privacy is a fundemental human right that is granted by a government.

Nope, that's incorrect. From The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is the the leading UN entity on human rights (emphasis mine):

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state.

This means that if Apple acknowledges privacy as a fundamental human right, it acknowledges said right is entitled regardless whether a given government decided to respect it or not.

 

[I7guy]

Nope, that's incorrect. From The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is the the leading UN entity on human rights (emphasis mine):



This means that if Apple acknowledges privacy as a fundamental human right, it acknowledges said right is entitled regardless whether a given government decided to respect it or not.

Humans have to reach to the stars to get to the moon. The reality of those lofty goals is it doesn't work that way and the reality of Apples' privacy stance is they don't protect your data from government...whether it's the US or abroad.

Apple wants to protect you and your data against those who view you and your data as the product. So even in locales where the government can get to your data, your next door neighbor shouldn't. That is the direction of Apples' privacy stance...I see no issue. YMMV though.

 

[bsolar]

Humans have to reach to the stars to get to the moon. The reality of those lofty goals is it doesn't work that way and the reality of Apples' privacy stance is they don't protect your data from government...whether it's the US or abroad.

As stated before, nobody is forcing Apple to acknowledge privacy as a fundamental human right. This is a choice Apple freely made itself. Fundamental human rights are a serious matter, not a "lofty goal" one can stop protecting when it becomes difficult, impractical or hits the bottom line.

Apple wants to protect you and your data against those who view you and your data as the product. So even in locales where the government can get to your data, your next door neighbor shouldn't. That is the direction of Apples' privacy stance...I see no issue. YMMV though.

Fundamental human rights don't work like that though: they don't stop existing because a government makes it legal in its jurisdiction to violate them... and again, it's Apple's own decision to frame their privacy stance around the acknowledgment of privacy as fundamental human right.

 

[I7guy]

As stated before, nobody is forcing Apple to acknowledge privacy as a fundamental human right. This is a choice Apple freely made itself. Fundamental human rights are a serious matter, not a "lofty goal" one can stop protecting when it becomes difficult, impractical or hits the bottom line.



Fundamental human rights don't work like that though: they don't stop existing because a government makes it legal in its jurisdiction to violate them... and again, it's Apple's own decision to frame their privacy stance around the acknowledgment of privacy as fundamental human right.

As stated before, while privacy is fundamental human right:
1. Governments across the board seem to disagree as your data can be scooped up in a minute.
2. Companies have to follow the rules and regulations of the country they do business in...including the US.

Apple never intended to the iphone impenetrable to government entities. The privacy that is built in on the iphone is meant for those who want to harvest your data. And on that front, Apple is succeeding. They are clearly allowed to say "privacy is a fundamental human right", while obeying the laws of the land they do business with. You of course, are free to call them out and I am free to say I have no issue with this.

On the other hand, apple does what it does.

 

[bsolar]

As stated before, while privacy is fundamental human right:
1. Governments across the board seem to disagree as your data can be scooped up in a minute.
2. Companies have to follow the rules and regulations of the country they do business in...including the US.

This is irrelevant. Fundamental human rights are routinely violated in many countries by many entities: it still doesn't mean those rights cease to exist, nor that the entities violating those right are justified in doing so because the local legislation says they can, or even need to.

Apple never intended to the iphone impenetrable to government entities. The privacy that is built in on the iphone is meant for those who want to harvest your data. And on that front, Apple is succeeding. They are clearly allowed to say "privacy is a fundamental human right", while obeying the laws of the land they do business with. You of course, are free to call them out and I am free to say I have no issue with this.

On the other hand, apple does what it does.

Apple is allowed to say what they want and do what they want. What they say is that they consider privacy a fundamental human right, but what they do is considering it a fundamental human right until it interferes with Apple's ability to do business, then it de-facto becomes merely an expendable feature.

Your claim was that "Apple can acknowledge that privacy is a fundamental human right and not be hypocritical about saying so", but for the reasons explained above I beg to differ.

 

[I7guy]

This is irrelevant. Fundamental human rights are routinely violated in many countries by many entities: it still doesn't mean those rights cease to exist, nor that the entities violating those right are justified in doing so because the local legislation says they can, or even need to.

This is what the relevant part is. I can make the blanket statement, that in the world there are those whose rights are violated. It doesn't mean Apple can make the law of the land. Apple has to adhere to the local regulations. They can do that and still proclaim "privacy is fundamental human right".

Apple is allowed to say what they want and do what they want. What they say is that they consider privacy a fundamental human right, but what they do is considering it a fundamental human right until it interferes with Apple's ability to do business, then it de-facto becomes merely an expendable feature.

You are saying too bad for laws as they hamper the ability to operate as one wants?

Your claim was that "Apple can acknowledge that privacy is a fundamental human right and not be hypocritical about saying so", but for the reasons explained above I beg to differ.

Right, difference of opinion based on ones' views.

 

[bsolar]

This is what the relevant part is. I can make the blanket statement, that in the world there are those whose rights are violated. It doesn't mean Apple can make the law of the land. Apple has to adhere to the local regulations. They can do that and still proclaim "privacy is fundamental human right".

Apple can refuse to do business on terms it deems not acceptable. If doing business in a given country would require Apple to violate, take part or facilitate the violation of its users' privacy, now Apple has the choice of taking part in said violations and compromise on what they acknowledge as a fundamental human right, or stick to its principles and do business elsewhere.

You are saying too bad for laws as they hamper the ability to operate as one wants?

I'm saying that laws cannot be a justification for violating human rights. If a law would allow or require you to violate a human right, the correct choice is not to violate the human right.

Basically it's a matter of priorities and between laws and human rights human rights are on top. Consequently, with your own words: "you are saying too bad for human rights as they hamper the ability to operate as one wants?".

 

[I7guy]

Apple can refuse to do business on terms it deems not acceptable.

What you are saying is that you want Apple to take on your view. And because you have an opinion, Apple should have the same opinion, and because they don't you criticize Apple.

If doing business in a given country would require Apple to violate, take part or facilitate the violation of its users' privacy, now Apple has the choice of taking part in said violations and compromise on what they acknowledge as a fundamental human right, or stick to its principles and do business elsewhere.

So Apple should just close down because every government, that at least I know of, has the power to usurp "private" user data.

I'm saying that laws cannot be a justification for violating human rights.

The two can't be separated.

If a law would allow or require you to violate a human right, the correct choice is not to violate the human right.

Apple is not violating any fundamental human rights. They are adhering to local laws all over the world, even in the US.

Basically it's a matter of priorities and between laws and human rights human rights are on top. Consequently, with your own words: "you are saying too bad for human rights as they hamper the ability to operate as one wants?".

What you are really saying, is that Apple should ignore the laws of the countries they do business in and do what they want or they should take your opinion and run with it and don't do business in certain countries. And because they don't agree with your opinion, they are hypocritical.

 

[bsolar]

What you are saying is that you want Apple to take on your view. And because you have an opinion, Apple should have the same opinion, and because they don't you criticize Apple.

No, it's not my view that matters, it's Apple's. Again, Apple itself decided to acknowledge privacy as a fundamental human right, not me.

So Apple should just close down because every government, that at least I know of, has the power to usurp "private" user data.

Nope, not all governments "usurp" private user data. From the OHCHR link I posted to you before (which I'm not sure you did read...), emphasis mine:

Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

Basically as long as there is a legitimate specific reason and fair due process, it's acceptable to take away human rights, the right of freedom being taken away from criminals found guilty in a fair court of law being a prime example. The problems are governments where there are broad excuses instead of legitimate specific reasons and no fair due process in place.

Furthermore, Apple has other options from closing down.

The two can't be separated.

Sure they can. As quoted before, by definition human rights are not granted by any state, so they exist independently of whatever law is in force in whatever state.

Apple is not violating any fundamental human rights. They are adhering to local laws all over the world, even in the US.

Adhering to local law is not guarantee of not violating fundamental human rights. As example, there are still plenty of countries with laws which attempt to legitimize the violation of human rights, e.g. persecution of ethnic or religious minorities, or people with non-traditional gender orientations are the most popular.

Those laws don't make violations of human rights any less violations. Or are you arguing e.g. that the execution of an homosexual for his/her gender orientation in countries with homophobic laws is not a violation of his/her human rights "because the law in that country allows it"? It's obviously a mistaken rationale.

Once one acknowledges privacy is also a fundamental human right, the same considerations apply to it.

What you are really saying, is that Apple should ignore the laws of the countries they do business in and do what they want or they should take your opinion and run with it and don't do business in certain countries. And because they don't agree with your opinion, they are hypocritical.

Again, you are ignoring the other obvious option, which is for Apple to stop acknowledging privacy as a fundamental human right until it's willing to consequently treat it as one in all instances.

They can state they acknowledge privacy but not as fundamental human right and they can state they acknowledge the need to compromise it due to business considerations like complying with regulations in regimes which don't respect privacy but where Apple is nonetheless interested in doing business... which is actually what they are doing in practice but I guess a much less appealing slogan from a marketing point of view.

 

[I7guy]

No, it's not my view that matters, it's Apple's. Again, Apple itself decided to acknowledge privacy as a fundamental human right, not me.



Nope, not all governments "usurp" private user data. From the OHCHR link I posted to you before (which I'm not sure you did read...), emphasis mine:



Basically as long as there is a legitimate specific reason and fair due process, it's acceptable to take away human rights, the right of freedom being taken away from criminals found guilty in a fair court of law being a prime example. The problems are governments where there are broad excuses instead of legitimate specific reasons and no fair due process in place.

Furthermore, Apple has other options from closing down.



Sure they can. As quoted before, by definition human rights are not granted by any state, so they exist independently of whatever law is in force in whatever state.



Adhering to local law is not guarantee of not violating fundamental human rights. As example, there are still plenty of countries with laws which attempt to legitimize the violation of human rights, e.g. persecution of ethnic or religious minorities, or people with non-traditional gender orientations are the most popular.

Those laws don't make violations of human rights any less violations. Or are you arguing e.g. that the execution of an homosexual for his/her gender orientation in countries with homophobic laws is not a violation of his/her human rights "because the law in that country allows it"? It's obviously a mistaken rationale.

Once one acknowledges privacy is also a fundamental human right, the same considerations apply to it.



Again, you are ignoring the other obvious option, which is for Apple to stop acknowledging privacy as a fundamental human right until it's willing to consequently treat it as one in all instances.

They can state they acknowledge privacy but not as fundamental human right and they can state they acknowledge the need to compromise it due to business considerations like complying with regulations in regimes which don't respect privacy but where Apple is nonetheless interested in doing business... which is actually what they are doing in practice but I guess a much less appealing slogan from a marketing point of view.

Humans have a fundamental right to privacy and that is controlled by governing body of the country a person resides in. Motherhood and apple pie are all well and good, ideals are necessary but then there is the execution of which Apple has no control over.

Appke should stand high, but are limited by laws and regulations. Apple shouldn’t follow the advice of MacRumors posters and do what their corporate conscience tells them even if MR posters don’t like it.

Thanks for the congenial discussion…if the nuance changes I’ll chime in again.