Comment by kevin_thibedeau
4 years ago
It isn't a philosophical debate. It's about invading and controlling someone else's property. I can't shack up in your home and eat your food just because I feel like it. We're all doomed because digital natives have no concept of boundaries between something they own and something someone is renting or letting you use for free in exchange for data mining.
Like I said, Apple controls the hardware, software, and services. They are already control your property.
There's a substantial difference - both in theory and in practice - between Apple being capable of making your device do things you don't want it to do, and them actually doing it.
Saying that just because they could have, we ought to be okay with them actually doing it is nonsense. If you apply that line of thought to a non-updatable product, it becomes pretty clear.
Pick basically anything man-made around you - your shoes, your couch, whatever. That could have plenty of awful things in it. It could be spying on you, it could be poisoning you, whatever.
Just because the manufacturer could have done something terrible, doesn't mean we're okay with them actually doing it. The mere fact Apple can do these things after purchase doesn't make it any more acceptable for them to do so.
> Saying that just because they could have, we ought to be okay with them actually doing it is nonsense. If you apply that line of thought to a non-updatable product, it becomes pretty clear.
That is not the argument I made. The argument was that if they could be corrupted we should assume they are already corrupted. And since they already have control over the device an already corrupted Apple could have been spying on you already. It isn’t excusing their behavior. It is pointing out the naïveté of the current outrage.
1 reply →
The concept of ownership you are asserting is but one of many historical principles of ownership. There are however, other concepts of ownership that conflict with what you are asserting.
https://www.econtalk.org/michael-heller-and-james-salzman-on...
I don't think there is a good faith argument that Apple is invading or controlling anything of you own. All that's happening is you agree to run the algorithm in exchange for using iCloud photos. That's just a contract; a mutual, voluntary exchange.
Contract implies meeting of the minds. I'd like to see the process by which I can line out or alter the terms of the agreement please.
I'll wait.
This is the other thing "digital natives" don't get, nor want to. Negotiation is normal. Ya know something else tgey don't get? Selling something with the damn manual, and enough system documentation to actually be able to sit down and learn something. Drives me nuts.
Of course they won't let you alter the terms of the agreement, but everyone always has the option (barring some sort of malicious state-enforced intervention) to walk away and divest themselves away from platforms and ecosystems that don't respect their privacy or otherwise act in ways they do not agree with. Or at least if it's going to take a long time to get there, one ought to start thinking about how to go about ensuring that escape hatch is available if their entire life's data depends on someone else continuing to provide them access to their "cloud" services based on potentially arbitrary rules and changing conditions they may never know about or be able to audit for themselves.
If there were enough people out there to stand up and make a difference by going somewhere else and hitting these companies where it hurts (stop giving them money and personal data to mine), then maybe it would start to make a difference.
3 replies →
Among the "historical principles of ownership" are those from the communist countries, where the individual humans had the legal right to own only things belonging to a very short list and nothing else.
However, USA has claimed during decades that such restrictions of the rights of ownership are an abomination.
Even if we would accept that this is just a modification of a contract between the "owner" of a device and Apple, if Apple would have acted in good faith, they should have offered that if you do not agree to let Apple run programs on your own device for their benefit, which was never mentioned when you "bought" the device, then Apple should fully refund everything that you paid for your device and other Apple services, so that you will be able to get an alternative device.
As it is now, you either accept that Apple changes their "contract" at any time as they like, or you incur a serious financial loss if you do not accept and you want an alternative.
This certainly isn't a "mutual, voluntary exchange".
the problem is that the companies make ilegal alternatives, obfuscated legals terms, and put himself in the least resistant position, and force you to opt in.
Apple is renting the phone to you for $1000 down and $0 a month (unless you actually are financing). Therefore, they are the landlord and, given notice, can change the property as they feel fit.
This is demonstrably not true. If you rent a home and then burn it down, you are going to be held liable to the owner of the home. In the case of your phone, no one, including Apple, cares if you buy it and then immediately smash it on the ground and destroy it.
Apple controls the software that runs on it but there is nothing that stops you from modifying or hacking it to your heart's content if you are able to, just as they are not obligated to make that an easy task for you.
>Apple controls the software that runs on it but there is nothing that stops you from modifying or hacking it to your heart's content
Nothing except all of Apple's attempts to make that difficult and a bad op sec decision. Oh and let's not forget the series of lawsuits attempting to make jailbreaking considered illegal. Luckily they failed there, but if they could make modifying their software illegal make no doubt that they would.
They don't own the hardware they sell you in the same way a landlord owns a home because they have transferred all physical equity to the purchaser. However, Apple's model really stretches the definition of "ownership". Would you say you own a adobe acrobat because you paid for it, or would you say you own a license to use it? Buying Apple means you own the hardware and license the software that makes that hardware be anything other than a paperweight. It's not a very attractive idea. Kudos to their marketing department.
7 replies →
I think the op meant that as an analogy : in order for you to use their software, you pay 1000$ upfront for the hardware. So you can look at it as a one time payment/rent to use their environment. Since you need to upgrade iPhones quite often, I guess renting isn't a bad analogy.
> but there is nothing that stops you from modifying or hacking it to your heart's content if you are able to.
Are you sure? I haven't read the terms, but that might be quite against their rules. Rules that you probably adhere to by using their product, but I'm not a legal expert.
3 replies →
I agree we are all doomed, but I don’t agree it has that much with digital native or not to do. My boomer grandparents, my gen x parents and my millennial self, we are all affected by this. And gen z (the first generation of digital natives), and whatever comes after gen z, is not to blame for that. Reducing it to a generational thing is silly.
I think the point was that the digital natives and the next generation of digital natives coming will not know any different and will thus tacitly accept it.