"What if every country on Earth violated everyone's rights" isn't really much of an argument against standing up to countries that try. If that actually happens then we're all screwed anyway. Until it does actually happen, why roll over and allow it to happen without even trying?
According to Apple, everything in their system still works the same and they still have control of their own hardware, even if it’s in a Chinese data center. Systems like iMessage are still fully end-to-end encrypted even in China. Maybe they’re lying but it would be a huge opportunity for devastating leaks if that’s true.
> Systems like iMessage are still fully end-to-end encrypted even in China.
I do wonder about this. How can an authoritarian state allow a (very!) large foreign corporation to operate an important communications network without data transparency to their domestic spy agency? I am not normally a tin-foil-hatter, but I just assume that the domestic spy agency has a copy of the private encryption keys used for HTTPS/TLS. Then, Apple can continue to advertise "end-to-end encrypted" (in Mainland China), but the local spies can read the comms.
The simplest answer to your question is "it exists" and "iMessage isn't important," but instead, you chose to write a whole fiction for your brain. If that's critical thinking, I'd call it hallucination.
See, I don't see just withdrawing from the country as 'standing up to'. It's just giving up in a more disruptive way, especially when It seems very likely to me that other countries will start demanding the same.
Actually taking them to court and objecting seems more productive to me.
> I don't see just withdrawing from the country as 'standing up to'. It's just giving up in a more disruptive way...actually taking them to court and objecting seems more productive to me.
"objecting" alone does nothing. Objecting + lawsuits or objecting + withdrawing might accomplish something.
I'd agree that lawsuits are a good idea but they are also entirely dependent on the courts (of the same country that already wants to violate people's rights) to do the right thing. If the lawsuit works and the government forces the government to back off it's a good thing, but if not a company keeps the power to take their technology and leave. They can choose to do that regardless of what the laws or courts of another country thinks.
Walking away might be seen as a company "giving up" on the corrupt country that wants to violate people's rights, but it's certainly not a company giving up on their principles.
A nation full of people angry that they won't be able to get highly sought after products and services can change policy too.
