[mikeg8]

In regards to your second paragraph, I feel a certain dissonance. We have a right to purchase the products we desire in a “free market” but at what point do we have the right to dictate how that producer chooses to design their product/platform ie. free installation of all applications. I think technologists have a too idealistic view of software as a basic right/liberating force without accepting companies should have the right make decisions we strongly disagree with.

[leereeves]

Are you against requiring seat belts and emissions controls in cars? Requiring homes to be built to code? Requiring utilities to provide water/power/gas to products made by other companies?

Society regularly dictates how producers design their products. Technologists aren’t used to that because lawmakers have been slow to catch up, and many were intentionally hands off to foster the growth of the Internet, but the Wild West days are over and civilization is coming to Silicon Valley.

[mistermann]

> Are you against requiring seat belts and emissions controls in cars? Requiring homes to be built to code? Requiring utilities to provide water/power/gas to products made by other companies?

This seems like a good line of reasoning that should be used when drafting up legislation to stop this behavior. All of this legislation enforcing certain behavior is to prevent harm to people. Similarly, the ability for China to so easily make Western corporations dance to their tune is an incredibly dangerous development with obvious potential for significant and frequent harm. I hope this becomes a major election issue.

[mikeg8]

Society regularly dictates how producers design their products, when it effects the immediate physical safety and well-being of their citizens. I think equating the Apple/HK issue to your other examples is a far stretch.

[leereeves]

From what I've seen of the behavior of police in HK, I think knowing where the police are might well affect the immediate physical safety and well-being of HK citizens.