[smoldesu]

China has a reputation for hunting down religious minorities and political dissidents, Europe is known for a more moderate take on those matters. I think there's cause for concern when China demands domestic ownership of iCloud info.

[scarface74]

You mean like the French banning burkinis worn my religious minorities?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkin...

[lern_too_spel]

Would it surprise you to learn that France also bans female genital mutilation, another religious practice enforced on people who typically have no say in the matter? These bans apply to people of any religion and of no religion.

Let's not pretend this is the same thing as kidnapping you and taking you to a reeducation camp because of your religion, leaving your kids alone and confused.

[scarface74]

So you put banning the clothes you can wear because you want to be modest with female genital mutilation?

[lern_too_spel]

Let's be clear about what we're discussing. France prevented a law that would have allowed burkinis to circumvent existing public pool rules that require a swim cap and forbid baggy clothes and certain sun protection suits. People forced to wear certain clothes by others in their religion do not get special exceptions. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna34833

[scarface74]

You realize that your citation actually reinforces the idea that the only reason this law was passed was because the government was against them to enforce “secularism”?

No one claimed that they were being “forced” to be part of a religion. What next? Forcing people to eat pork even if it is against their religion to enforce “secularism”?

This was nothing more than discrimination.

In the US, we had to have laws that allowed Black girls to wear their hair the way they wanted and schools were forcing black girls to straighten their hair to fit in.

https://www.naacpldf.org/natural-hair-discrimination/

[lern_too_spel]

The pool rules considered no religion and only what is necessary for pool safety and cleanliness. The law that the city passed made concessions for a religion (just one). If your religion requires you to defecate in the pool each time you enter, should they make laws allowing that?

People who are forced to wear certain clothes by others in their religion are also often forced to have that religion.

Confusing race with religion is even crazier. We should accommodate people who are physically different, but there is no reason to go out of our way to accommodate people with arbitrarily wacky beliefs and even less reason to go out of our way to accommodate oppression by people with arbitrarily wacky beliefs.

[vineyardmike]

> Europe is known for a more moderate take on those matters.

Very recently in history. China is bad now, European nations have been bad in the past… but who knows what the future holds.

Once data is released (keys, databases, plaintext messages, it doesn’t matter) it can’t be made private later.

[shuckles]

The technical proposals are equally odious, and Europe is, what, 30 years removed from all sorts of authoritarian hijinks?

In any case, selective support for technical proposals based on broader political vibes is not a particularly inspiring stance.

[smoldesu]

You seem to have missed my point entirely then. I'm in full support of Apple holding themselves accountable for the data they hold, but they don't. As a result, we rely on "broader political vibes" to read between the lines.

[shuckles]

I’m not sure what you mean by “holding themselves accountable for the data they hold”, but you began by implying data residency was compromising security at the behest of a government, but it does not itself do anything of that sort. Your technical claim is outright false.