Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 17, @03:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-one-way-to-handle-it dept.

Apple has found its solution for dealing with tougher cybersecurity laws in China.

The iPhone maker is building its first data center in the country to meet new cybersecurity laws that took effect in June, Reuters reported Wednesday. The laws require foreign companies to store data locally.

To comply, Apple is collaborating with a local data management company called Guizhou-Cloud Big Data (GCBD), which said in a statement that the two companies will provide Chinese users a "faster and more reliable iCloud experience." The facility will be built in the southern province of Guizhou.

"The addition of this data center will allow us to improve the speed and reliability of our products and services while also complying with newly passed regulations," an Apple representative told Reuters. "These regulations require cloud service be operated by Chinese companies so we're partnering with GCBD to offer iCloud."

Additional coverage at The Register.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by BK on Monday July 17, @03:38AM (10 children)

    by BK (4868) on Monday July 17, @03:38AM (#540157)

    One more reason not to do business with Apple. When will we learn.

    --
    4 out of 5 dentists choose Brand X. The other is just a denier.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday July 17, @04:52AM (9 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @04:52AM (#540179)

      One more reason to stop using smartphones.
      The next ones in which the the law of mathematics do not apply [newscientist.com] are UK and Australia.
      In US, this may be already the reality, even if not yet openly admitted.

      • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday July 17, @05:57AM (8 children)

        by Kell (292) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @05:57AM (#540195)

        Honestly, the general feeling in Oz is that the government is already snooping our data freely. I don't think anyone really expects otherwise anymore. Aussies are famously slow to take an interest in politics, and for most of the population this is just a politics thing. They don't see the risks of government snooping at all.

        --
        Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by caffeine on Monday July 17, @07:29AM (7 children)

          by caffeine (249) on Monday July 17, @07:29AM (#540214)

          In Australia we've got the lowest political participation rate in the western world measured in terms of party membership. I blame compulsory voting and the Australian Electoral Commission directly funding political parties based on primary votes. Parties just don't need that many members and have no need to let the members have a say in policy.

          This makes us easy to abuse as there is almost no accountability for elected representatives. We don't even have recall elections.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:24PM (#540314)

            Who cares if they belong to a party? That just means they are more likely to think about the issues and vote accordingly than just do what the party tells them. You said it yourself, they all have to vote anyway.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 18, @12:29AM (5 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @12:29AM (#540660)

            In Australia we've got the lowest political participation rate in the western world measured in terms of party membership.

            And you say it as this is a "bad thing™"
            I see it as a common-sensical attitude - you know what needs you have, you decide which party have best chances to deliver them on a case-by-case (i.e. election-by-election) basis.
            Heck, even independents may have better chances sometimes.

            • (Score: 2) by caffeine on Tuesday July 18, @03:49AM (4 children)

              by caffeine (249) on Tuesday July 18, @03:49AM (#540758)

              What makes it a bad thing is that the parties are not held to account. Their own members have no real say in party policy, no say in who gets preselection, no say on who leads the party. All of that is decided by a handful of party power brokers behind closed doors. This makes it far easier for lobbyists to buy the decisions they want.

              The voters also do not effectively hold parties to account. We have a lot of low motivation voters who make their decisions based on the three word slogans most seats are considered safe and will not change parties.

              Independents struggle to get elected. The AEC provides funding to political parties but the system is biased against smaller parties and independents.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 18, @04:30AM (3 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @04:30AM (#540778)

                What makes it a bad thing is that the parties are not held to account.

                There's no "delegate representation" in the current democracy - the elected member is not delegated to represent the voters. As such, there's no way to hold the politicians to account, much less the parties.

                The other options, either:
                a. "trustee representation" (trust me that I'll act in your best interest possible within circumstances) - mainly independents act this way - think Jacqui Lambie or Andrew Wilkie.
                b. "party mandate representation" (giving me your vote means you trust the party manifesto, I'm first and foremost a member of the party and only then your specific representative) - the rest of the others.

                See also Green "disciplining" Lee Rhiannon [greenleft.org.au] few weeks ago because she acted more on a "delegate representation" than "mandate representation", ruining the negotiations between Green and govt in regards with Gonski 2.0 (education funding reform), because her electorate "delegated" her with a "no-deal" position. We'll see how the Greens will navigate this interesting situation (note the: "The NSW Greens has rejected the bid by the Australian Greens to overturn the NSW Constitution by edict." in the linked)

                (Ah, a few elections ago there was a "Senator on demand" party on the election list - I reckon about the same election when Assange ran for Senate. Their promise - organize a poll over internet and vote, in Senate, based on the results. I don't know how many voted for them, I didn't because a fair "delegation over internet" is not that easy to set up)

                --

                This being the situation, I reckon the only way to have a better balance between the "wants" of the electorate and the reality of the politics would be direct democracy Switzerland-style [wikipedia.org] (which works absolutely fine with compulsory voting), but I won't hold my breath to see it happening in Australia.

                • (Score: 2) by caffeine on Tuesday July 18, @10:52AM (2 children)

                  by caffeine (249) on Tuesday July 18, @10:52AM (#540894)

                  Thanks for the well thought out response.

                  I agree with most of what you are saying. I do see these types as something only defined by established practice and open to change. My belief is that we should have a combination of (a) and (b) options, rather than straight (b). Parties have a role to play in our democracy and I think party members should generally be expected to vote on party lines. I do believe that they should be free to cross the floor without penalty if they think that is in the best interests of their electorate, state or nation. I'd like to see more focus on voting yes to good legislation based on the national, state and electorates best interests rather than the members parties best interests.

                  There are a few direct democracy parties in Australia ODDemocracy and voteflux etc. I've questioned them all on their procedures for voting in terms of senators representing all constituents in their state. I can see a role for direct democracy candidates but don't see them as the answer.

                  I can't see compulsory voting being dropped anytime soon in Australia. It is difficult to even have reasonable a discussion on the issue. I've been called unaustralian and an insult to the diggers for even suggesting it.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 18, @12:11PM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @12:11PM (#540916)

                    I can't see compulsory voting being dropped anytime soon in Australia. It is difficult to even have reasonable a discussion on the issue.

                    As it happens, I'm on the opinion that compulsory voting is good (no insult towards those who think otherwise).

                    The reason stay mainly in my direct experience in countries with abusive politicians (and the Aussie ones aren't too far away, some going well over being just abusive... Tony, get back in your place, at the back, ye hear me?) and non-mandatory voting - the populace grows so quickly tired of this political tragicomedy, they won't even take their chance to elect a Ricky Muir only to signal "I'm sick of your theatricals, mates. No, you don't have any mandate to do as you fucking please, so start negotiating with the others and do something for us. Or GTFO. "

                    I'll repeat: it's a personal opinion, based on personal experience - I can't put it as an argument (I don't know how statistical representative I am), thus I'll refrain from arguing on the issue.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 18, @12:20PM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @12:20PM (#540917)

                    My belief is that we should have a combination of (a) and (b) options, rather than straight (b).

                    In the absence of direct democracy, I prefer all (a) no (b).

                    Parties have a role to play in our democracy ...

                    By established practice, unfortunately yes, they do.
                    Beat me if understand why their existence are required nowadays - what beneficial social role they serve (other than signalling "My mob is bigger than yours, so gimme more money")?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:43AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:43AM (#540160)

    Southern China is pretty warm, means an expensive AC bill for the server rooms. Why not put the data center somewhere in the north where it's cooler?

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:47AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:47AM (#540161)

    Just relocate Apple to China and don't come back.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 17, @04:54AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @04:54AM (#540180)

      Just relocate Apple to China and don't come back.

      And... be a sport, old chap, take Google with you.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:26PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:26PM (#540315)

        What's google?

        Said 99.9% of Chinese people.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 17, @09:18PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @09:18PM (#540568)

          What's google? Said 99.9% of Chinese people.

          Let them learn, please.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 17, @06:45PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 17, @06:45PM (#540469)

      Relocate what from where?
      Their manufacturing? already in China.
      Their legal home in Ireland (/netherland/).
      Their billions stashed all over the world.
      Their customer virtual pens wherever electricity is cheap...

(1)