LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

for the American consumer? Or is it to contend that his firm has a more compassionate heart than others? Why would his firm not use customer data for advertising if there were a commercial path to doing so at a profit? That is, after all, Apple’s raison d’être as a matter of economics—simply put, to maximize profits in the long-term interests of the shareholders. The conclusion must be that he has decided that, all things considered—which could include current regulatory standards, additional forthcoming regulation, the ongoing techlash, the inability to innovate or compete, the opportunity to throw the competition under the bus, and the chance to demonize rival chief executives while highlighting his own sensitivity—it is actually in Apple’s commercial interests to have its chief executive project the idea that Apple cares more about your personal privacy than Facebook and Google do, while leaving the immediate revenues to be had from targeted advertising on the table. Apple’s braggadocio concerning its privacy standards benefits the Apple shareholder.

      After all, when was the last time an American business leader stood up primarily for the benefit of the American people as a general matter? That is not a feature of our economic system; our country has cultivated an economic design over three centuries that favors the ingenuity of industry in such a manner that encourages industry leaders to be adventurous and daring, take investment risk, and develop the innovations that Americans will buy tomorrow. Under this regime, American society itself has suggested that business should not first think of regulatory boundaries but rather the theoretical economic space in which it can operate to be a vast, open space of opportunity. The first firm that can invade and occupy that vacuum can perhaps even achieve monopoly, at least for a time.

      In effect, and taken with this economic environment in mind, that Apple has chosen not to pursue the monetization of certain forms of consumer data (at least, to date) should not be seen as a signal of its commitment to consumer rights. Apple has concertedly chosen not to use personal data simply because it is not in the company’s best interests to do so. It is, in other words, a strategic decision. This is how the public should view these statements. They are nothing more, and nothing less.

      If any doubts over this might linger, consider that Apple does not hesitate to compromise common conceptions of human rights should such oversteps be in the firm’s favor to undertake. Take, for example, Apple’s activities in China. In May 2017, the Chinese government issued a draconian data-security regulation, one that was particularly stringent against internet and technology firms, especially American ones.60

      The much-anticipated regulation was loud and clear. A foreign company that serves Chinese nationals and wishes to collect and maintain data on Chinese citizens must engage in an extreme form of what is known as “data localization”: the data must be stored on the Chinese national storage system in China. More questionably, foreign firms that maintain data on Chinese nationals must partner with a Chinese cloud-computing firm to build and maintain their Chinese data centers. Any data stored in China are subject to inspection by the Chinese government should it wish to investigate any matter, without exceptions. Finally, should the firm wish to transmit or transfer any data outside of China for any reason, the transmittal would be, per the regulation, subject to review and potential blockage by the Chinese security authorities. In a country that offers little transparency into the actions or motivations of a national government that has openly and consistently committed human rights violations, particularly against those thought leaders and activists who have tried to expose how the Chinese government has perpetrated these intense privacy violations against its own people, a data-security regulation such as this one should give pause to any multinational American firm—let alone a chief executive from Silicon Valley who preaches that other corporations should consider the position of the consumers’ right to privacy.

      Not so for Apple. Here was the ultimate chance to express resistance to the nature of the Chinese data-security regulation, but mere days after it went into effect, the firm disclosed—through a brief press release that failed to receive much scrutiny from the American media—that it had secured a deal to open a new data center in Guizhou in partnership with a Chinese cloud-security firm.61 Apple quite likely decided, quickly, to comply with the Chinese regulation principally for three reasons. The first is that the firm wishes to protect its existing market share and customer base in China. China is a massive consumer market for Apple, perhaps its biggest projecting into the future, and if it were to choose to disregard the data-security regulations, the government could well choose to oust Apple from the market.62 Second, Apple’s primary manufacturing base is in China. It exploits the relatively inexpensive but talented Chinese labor pool available to its commercial advantage.63 Third, Apple wishes to maintain a working relationship with the Chinese government so that it can maintain its Chinese market share and manufacturing base.64

      With that cool calculation, Apple quietly subscribed to a Chinese regime that is never shy in silencing those who protest its policies and practices—whether through harassment, confinement, or torture.65 Apple knows that very well and in complying with the regulation it basically shrugged and said to itself, “Well, that’s fine.” And it is likely—perhaps even inevitable—that some among Apple’s ranks would have questioned the firm’s decision given China’s skullduggery. But these independent voices, if they exist, never became public. In this situation, then, all the public has to assess Apple’s care for the world is the company’s overt decisionmaking in the marketplace. Where, then, does that leave Tim Cook’s statements that superficially juxtapose Apple’s commitment to consumer privacy with the lack thereof with other companies? And what of the impression that he tries so hard to cultivate, that he and his company have attempted to cultivate around their emotive care about individual rights and global progress? Does it matter that Apple, at least in practice even if not in functional morality or philosophy, uses American customers’ data for monetization less overtly than Facebook does but simultaneously submits to the Chinese government in the name of corporate growth?

      I do not think it should. Cook’s histrionics are so clearly designed for strategic reasons that I am quite surprised that the media continues to engage his calls for the regulation of social media (for instance, in the case of his calls for a federal privacy bill).66 That is not to say that social media should not be regulated—it of course should be. But where social media firms should be regulated for their breaches of human rights, Apple, too, should be regulated—or at the very least adequately scrutinized by independent parties—for its disregard for the civil liberties of the 1.4 billion people of China.

      To our earlier point, these facts should clarify why Apple does not qualify as a consumer internet firm, at least in the formulation offered here. Otherwise, Tim Cook would not without provocation assert that Facebook and Google should be regulated for the collection and use of consumer data. Additionally, I would suggest that as we are deeply inspective of Cook’s false hubris, we similarly scrutinize the statements of other executives. One example is Marc Benioff, the founder and chief executive of Salesforce, who has suggested that “Facebook is the new cigarettes.… It’s addictive. It’s not good for you. There [are] people trying to get you to use it that even you don’t understand what’s going on. The government needs to step in. The government needs to really regulate what’s happening.”67 Benioff is absolutely right in expressing concerns about how the use of social media triggers a response of addiction in many users, especially among children.68 But like Apple, Salesforce is not a consumer internet firm; it does not benefit from the monetization of consumer data to the extent that Facebook and Google do, given its core function of serving as an online-enterprise service platform for business clients.

      Microsoft presents yet another example. The New York Times noted in a review of Brad Smith’s book that the company “has positioned itself as the tech sector’s leading advocate on public policy matters like protecting consumer privacy and establishing ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence.” In response, professor David Yoffie of the Harvard Business School precisely summarizes the company’s motive: “Microsoft can afford to be more self-righteous on some of those social issues because of its business model.”69 Smith’s perspective that when “your technology changes the world, you bear a responsibility to help address the world that you have helped create,” and furthermore that government needs “to move faster and start to catch up with the pace of technology,” is motivated by strategic positioning; it aids Microsoft to attack a business model

Скачать книгу