Apple CEO Tim Cook warned during a passionate speech in defense of privacy and his company's business models at the Global Privacy Summit in Washington DC this week that regulators are on the verge of making bad decisions that will affect our future.
Neither good nor bad
The driving force of Cook's argument is that privacy and security are fundamental building blocks of trust for a technologically advanced society. But this huge potential is constrained by surveillance and mistrust.
Just as unrestricted surveillance of where we go online violates privacy, mandated requirements for security at backdoors that governments can use to peek inside a device (and that criminals can steal) make every connected person or device more insecure.
Cook cited Alan Westin, father of data privacy law, for warning about the consequences of sideloading apps on the iPhone. He even offered demonstrable examples where sideloading on other platforms undermines security, arguing that the peace of mind offered by Apple's regulated store is a choice customers should be allowed to take.
“Technology is neither inherently good nor intrinsically bad,” he said. “This is what we do from it. It is a mirror that reflects the ambitions and intentions of the people who use it. The people who built it. And the people who edit it. ”
But a water gun in a gunfight
The problem with Apple's passionate stance on privacy and user safety is that the people attacking its position aren't interested in the same thing. Apple sees how responsible technology can enable a connected and useful world by creating millions of new job opportunities, protecting people, and uniting around shared, collective values.
Apple's critics don't see it the same way. In their world, privacy and security are not human rights and the data generated as we lead our digital lives should be a business opportunity for them. If your online security or the structure of your society is damaged as a result, it's simply a result of their doing business with your destiny.
These forces belittle Apple's "walled garden." Indeed, they argue, the garden itself, one pillar of the company's product offering, is anticompetitive.
I do not agree. To use an analogy, I see this as the kind of argument knotweed would make if it was forbidden to take root in a well-tended lawn. Spraying the herbicide on invasive species is an appropriate response. This is a policy choice.
As Cook points out, Westin saw this coming. In 1968 he explained: "Privacy is the claim that individuals or groups or institutions determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about themselves is communicated to others."
Denial of freedom
Apple advocates giving users this option. Its critics want to make this selection as limited as possible. The same people who claim that Apple's business model makes privacy and security a commodity want to force Cupertino to undermine both.
I feel the arguments come from a toxic power pile of useful idiots, financial interests, authoritarian control freaks and free market ideologues.
In this context, Cook's claims are not heard.
You can see the evidence. While Apple has had to defend our right to privacy, it makes sense that many in the media insist on saying how many millions of Metas it has "lost" as a result of Apple defending us. They rarely stop to question the legitimacy of the intrusive, surveillance-based business plan that Apple opposes.
[Also read: Google slowly follows Apple in app-tracking lockdown]
Cook seems genuinely concerned about this travel aspect, warning that the changes regulators want to make "mean that data-hungry companies can circumvent our privacy rules and, once again, track our users against their will."
The thing is, once you realize that it doesn't matter how good Apple's arguments are, it becomes clear that Apple will have to change its approach.
Attention
To protect the most critical sectors (in this case, personal privacy and security), the company will need to develop constructive compromises.
The current direction of travel means that the company will inevitably have to comply with regulations we expect to be created by people who don't understand the nuances of what they're asking for.
Bad laws have bad consequences. Maybe it's not too late for Apple to go back to regulators, reiterate its position, and offer other concessions in exchange for ensuring user safety. Perhaps there is a way to stop the actions until there is a more constructive dialogue and agreement process.
Sacrifices will be needed.
What is the biggest challenge facing the advancing company? Maintaining this 30% (really 15%) fee on App Store sales or ensuring that its platform remains private and secure for the benefit of all its customers?
Walking away is the big picture for me, Apple will definitely need to acknowledge some of the things it wants to defend in order to effectively – and hopefully permanently – protect what it needs to defend.
"This is a crucial moment in the battle for privacy," Cook warned. “Let's protect our data and secure our digital world. And let's make it clear that privacy cannot and will not be a relic of the past."
Amen to this.
please follow me excitementor join me in AppleHolic's bar & grill and Apple Discussion groups on MeWe.
Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.
Comments
Post a Comment