[kodablah]

> I'm having a hard time understanding what is cowardly about complying with Chinese law when selling products inside China. There are many laws in the US I don't agree with, but I'm obligated to comply with them for as long as I choose to live here and remain a citizen.

That you draw such equivalence may be why you have a hard time understanding.

[brisance]

Do you agree that if Congress passes a law that bans phone encryption, Apple would have to comply with it? Yes or no?

[kodablah]

Not quietly and without disagreement, no. And not a ban on an image of a flag or name of a disputed country, no. These equivalences are getting ridiculous and I'm beginning to believe the only justification for constantly bringing them up is to distract from the issue at hand.

[BrandoElFollito]

You mean that one can have its own interpretation of the law and follow the rules which they see fit? This is anarchy.

Apple could leave the US in that case, but if they stay they have to follow the law. Whether they do it loudly or not is irrelevant.

[brisance]

Merriam-Webster defines "ban" as "to prohibit especially by legal means". I don't see the problem.

If you replace the word "Apple" with "Microsoft" or "Red Hat" or "Canonical", would you still be as outraged?