Senators Ted Cruz and Patrick Leahy have written to Apple CEO Tim Cook to ask ten questions about Apple's recent removal of VPN apps from its Chinese app store:
Two US senators have written to Apple CEO Tim Cook asking why the company reportedly removed VPN apps from the company's store in China. "If these reports are true," the senators wrote, "we are concerned that Apple may be enabling the Chinese government's censorship and surveillance of the Internet."
[...] On or around July 29, Apple removed many of the most-used VPN applications from its Chinese app store. In a short email from the company, VPN providers were informed that VPN applications are considered illegal in China.
"We are writing to notify you that your application will be removed from the China App Store because it includes content that is illegal in China, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines," Apple informed the affected VPNs.
[...] Now, in a letter sent to Apple CEO Tim Cook, US senators Ted Cruz and Patrick Leahy express concern at the move by Apple, noting that if reports of the software removals are true, the company could be assisting China's restrictive approach to the Internet.
"VPNs allow users to access the uncensored Internet in China and other countries that restrict Internet freedom. If these reports are true, we are concerned that Apple may be enabling the Chines[sic] government's censorship and surveillance of the Internet."
Leahy and Cruz were cosponsors of the USA Freedom Act.
Previously: Apple Capitulates, Removes Unlicensed VPN Apps From China App Store
Russia Bans VPNs and Tor, Effective November 1
Related Stories
Apple has removed major VPN apps from its mainland China app store:
China appears to have received help on Saturday from an unlikely source in its fight against tools that help users evade its Great Firewall of internet censorship: Apple. Software made by foreign companies to help users skirt the country's system of internet filters has vanished from Apple's app store on the mainland.
One company, ExpressVPN, posted a letter it had received from Apple saying that its app had been taken down "because it includes content that is illegal in China." Another tweeted from its official account that its app had been removed.
[...] In a statement, Apple noted that the Chinese government announced this year that all developers offering VPNs needed to obtain a government license. "We have been required to remove some VPN apps in China that do not meet the new regulations," the company said. "These apps remain available in all other markets where they do business."
Also at TechCrunch, CNET, Newsweek, and TorrentFreak.
Russia has banned VPNs capable of circumventing website blocking, and will require users of chat apps to have a phone number associated with their accounts:
Vladimir Putin has banned virtual private networks (VPNs) and Tor in a crackdown on apps that allow access to websites prohibited in Russia. The law, signed by Mr Putin, was passed by Russia's parliament last week and will now come into force on 1 November. A second law to ban anonymous use of online messaging services will take effect on 1 January next year.
It would make it easier for the state to snoop on citizens' browsing habits, one internet security expert suggested.
The laws signed by Mr Putin are meant only to block access to "unlawful content" and not target law-abiding web users, the head of the lower house of parliament said, according to the RIA news agency.
One feature of the second law is the provision to require internet operators to restrict users' access if they are found to be distributing illegal content.
Also at Engadget, ZDNet, RT, TechCrunch, and CNET.
Related: Apple Capitulates, Removes Unlicensed VPN Apps From China App Store
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 21 2017, @02:44AM (14 children)
Western leaders want their backdoors to cryptography, eastern leaders just want to shoot secure and secret communications out of the water. Which is better, which is worse? But, western leaders need to feel superior, no matter how they have to contort themselves to do so.
Another bit of hypocrisy tacked on to the first: national sovereignty. We claim the right to do anything, anywhere, but China doesn't have the right to run things their way, within their own borders?
Let it be noted that I disapprove of China's methods, as well as our own. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the typical dishonesty of politicians.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @03:00AM
In other news water is still wet, more at 11.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday October 21 2017, @04:41AM (2 children)
The Chinese version is worse. It opens you up not only to state surveillance, but also makes you vulnerable to anyone else who manages to get hold of your connection (say, some rogue access point MITMing you).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:42AM
As opposed to what? Backdoor, no privacy whatsoever if the "master" of backdoor wants it, plus your pants down to any hacker that cracked your backdoor opened?
Both a equally bad for you as a citizen, the Chinese is no protection, the westernized version is an illusion of protection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 22 2017, @02:12AM
The Chinese version is better. It tells you clearly and without doubt that this here link is not secured. Do not use it for anything that you wouldn't want printed in a newspaper; that includes your bank account, your healthcare reports, and the like. The Western version pretends that there is security, but nobody can tell how much. It creates illusion of security and prompts people to treat it as secure, when those in the know would steer away from it - like geeks keep away from twitbook, for example.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @04:57AM (9 children)
We also say that Iran and North Korea can't have nukes.
Look, international law is a polite fiction. Might makes right. It's silly to pretend that it could be otherwise.
Given the situation, I highly approve of my country being a winner. It is better to be the bully than to be bullied. The power struggles of nations affect the personal well-being of their inhabitants in many ways, such as currency value and the ability to get advantageous trade deals. I like my life comfy, not starving.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:45AM (7 children)
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Now you are a bully, now there's another bully on the block - especially when you have a clown as the president, the second "now" may come quicker than you'd like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @08:15AM (6 children)
Being polite and predictable is no way to stand up to Putin or Kim.
Sometimes being polite and predictable is the correct strategy. Sometimes you have to be an asshole. If physically shoving the prime minister of a minor European country to the side might have a useful psychological effect on other world leaders, you do it. Sometimes you drop bombs. Sometimes you bribe foreign government officials.
The job of the US president is definitely not to be loved all around the world. Trump is doing his job correctly, and the fact that you find this unpalatable is of no importance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @08:41AM
Putin gets it. [thehill.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @11:07AM (3 children)
- Retreat from Paris accord - the others stay in
- Retreat from UNESCO [theguardian.com] - with payments arrears
- Planning to renege on the Iran nuclear deal - all the other 6 members plan to stay in [reuters.com]
Do it some more times, and US will start to be alone.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:28PM (2 children)
When you are an 800-pound gorilla, you don't do everything by consensus.
If countries want to be in the Paris accord, cool. We don't benefit from being in it. Let other countries fuck up their own economies. We'll be fine. The accord was absurdly biased against us anyway. We paid the most, and we had to make severe economy-destroying changes, while China and India got to increase pollution and all sorts of minor countries got huge payments.
UNESCO was junk. Again, we paid the most. It was a little we-hate-Israel club.
The nuclear deal with Iran was screwed up because the people on our side were personally benefiting from it. Some of those people are the same ones who made a similar nuclear deal with North Korea back during the Clinton administration. Clearly that didn't do what we supposedly expected it to do.
Being alone is not a bad thing. Don't fear it. We are not in a situation like Slovakia, Armenia, Rwanda, Bolivia, or Bhutan. We have hundreds of millions of people. We have millions of square miles of land, much of it good for farming and mining. We have access to two huge oceans; the Indian ocean is less important BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THERE. Our mere presence makes our oceans matter.
We've become addicted to interaction with the rest of the world, but we really could go it alone while retaining modern life. We have this capability. We can also shove other countries around. We are a mighty country. Unilateral actions are what we do.
Heck, some of us take your fear as a blueprint for the future: Do it some more times, and US will start to be alone. 'MURICA! FUCK YEAH!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @09:53PM
Heh, nostalgia or delusion, I wonder which?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 21 2017, @10:54PM
My fear? Yeah, I suppose so.
The natural fear any sane person has to have of a mad crazed aggressive one.
Does this mean the sane persons need to play mad? I really doubt it when alternative solutions exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 21 2017, @11:12AM
Ummmm... you omitted Xi [wikipedia.org], I think this is where your worry should be placed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 21 2017, @02:51PM
"It is better to be the bully than to be bullied."
You're sure of that? Bullied kids can grow up, and overcome being bullied. The bully? He'll probably remain a mental midget, on emotional crutches, all of his life. That is, IF one of his victims doesn't eventually tear his head off, and shit down the hole they find under there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @03:06AM (5 children)
Ted Cruz is just worried that if he goes on an official trip to China, he won't be able to browse his usual porn sites.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday October 21 2017, @03:26AM (3 children)
Nah, he has a U.S. phone so even if it is an iProduct it would connect to the U.S. Store. Whether a VPN connection can still go through the Great Firewall is an unanswered question. Because anyone who is Chinese who tries and fails is probably f*cked. Almost a safe bet that foreigners ARE allowed to VPN between their Chinese locations and the outside world, no idea if they are exempted for their devices while on the Chinese cell networks. Probably best if somebody like Cruz was the one who publicly tried it first, they wouldn't lock his ass up or even toss him out of the country. Rank hath privileges.
That is the part people keep forgetting, bypassing the Great Firewall isn't some spergy nerd game like violating TOS is here in the U.S., when China bans VPNs it isn't playing cat and mouse games, the mice that get caught aren't scolded and released, they aren't fined. People who defy the authority of a Police State quickly learn why they are called Police States. And while I'm OK with Cruz and Leahy giving some pushback, Apple didn't have anymore choice in this than an average Chinaman. Obey or forfeit all assets in China isn't a hard call to make. Whether they should have ever put assets in China is the decision they failed at but everybody seems to have made that mistake.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:33AM (2 children)
"China revenues for Apple fell 10 percent year-on-year in its fiscal third quarter to just over $8 billion"
8 billion reasons to have assest in China.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/apples-china-revenues-fall-q3-earnings.html [cnbc.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:50AM (1 child)
I have a hunch losing access to cheap fabbing compounds those 8 billion worries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by MostCynical on Saturday October 21 2017, @07:12AM
So, make sure you don't have all your eggs in one basket:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/17/apple-begins-manufacturing-iphone-se-in-india.html [cnbc.com]
http://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/apple-first-assembled-in-india-iphone-india-market/story/255222.html [businesstoday.in]
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2083402/going-local-how-apple-got-back-indonesias-smartphone-game [scmp.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @01:43PM
Or that at least a few of the VPN providers are NSA fronts, and he is upset that the NSA is loosing an intel gathering channel.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday October 21 2017, @06:46AM (5 children)
"we are concerned that Apple may be enabling the Chinese government's censorship and surveillance"
Apple is only supposed to enable US censorship and surveillance. /sarc
More to the point, why does the US insist on sticking its nose into other countries' business? The other current egregious example is the debate on whether or not the US can justify (to itself?) demanding data stored on servers located in other countries.
Maybe the US should just declare itself to be the one, true world government?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @07:50AM (2 children)
Because it can. Next question?
The power game is how life is. There is no opt-out.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday October 21 2017, @08:47AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:57PM
China doesn't need "revenge" as a motivating factor. China will screw us over at the first opportunity no matter what we do.
Yes, we are in decline. Every great nation becomes soft and lazy, and most of them bring in outsiders who do not share the attributes that made the nation great. There is a duty to fight this inevitable decline, perhaps even temporarily reversing it.
Well, that is why we elected Trump. Our decline has slowed, but it probably hasn't stopped.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday October 21 2017, @03:23PM (1 child)
The other current egregious example is the debate on whether or not the US can justify (to itself?) demanding data stored on servers located in other countries.
Bullshit. The US isn't demanding that, they're demanding data stored on servers located in other countries, servers which are owned by American companies. American companies are trying to get around US law by locating stuff offshore, but sorry, they're still American companies so they still have to follow US law. The US can't legally force the Irish government to assist them, however it can certainly lock up the Americans in America who are giving their Irish subsidiary orders. If some company doesn't like that, they're free to leave the US and cease being a US company.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:11PM
Please define what makes a company American - being headquarter in the US, originally founded in the US, majority of stockholders live in US?