Apple Defends Pulling Many VPN Services from App Store in China
'By banning unregistered VPNs, and asserting more control over those that continue to operate, China will be better able to inspect traffic coming in and…
August 03, 2017 at 09:28 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
'By banning unregistered VPNs, and asserting more control over those that continue to operate, China will be better able to inspect traffic coming in and out of the country.'
Apple is defending its recent decision to remove many virtual private network services from the App Store in China despite criticism by several VPN providers and privacy advocates. The move, in response to government demands, comes as Russia also announced a new VPN ban.
These recent restrictions are enacted as private companies increasingly look for options to protect their confidential information when visiting employees communicate in foreign nations.
When asked about the recent events in China, Peter Micek, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, said businesses may want to “consider ways to pressure Apple to push back against the government's demand, rather than banning trustworthy VPN services that they depend on.”
For its part, Apple defended its decision. “We would obviously rather not remove the apps, but, like we do in other countries, we follow the law wherever we do business,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said in an Aug. 1 company earnings call .
He explained that in 2015 the Chinese government “started tightening the regulations associated with VPN apps. We have a number of those on our store. Essentially, as requirement for someone to operate a VPN, they have to have a license from the government there. Earlier this year, they began a renewed effort to enforce that policy. We were required by the government to remove some of the VPN apps from the app store that don't meet these new regulations.”
However, he noted that there are “still hundreds of VPN apps on the App Store, including hundreds by developers outside China.”
VPNs are popular with U.S. employees visiting foreign nations and who want to secure company data, reduce the risk of cybercrime and keep proprietary information private.
“By banning unregistered VPNs, and asserting more control over those that continue to operate, China will be better able to inspect traffic coming in and out of the country,” Micek said. “Businesses should assume that the government can read and even alter their internet traffic transiting through China.”
“Preventing unauthorized access to existing data and accounts is paramount,” he advised. “Steps to mitigate exposure of confidential information include setting up new, temporary devices and email and messaging accounts for those traveling to and from China. Policies on digital security should be developed, in coordination with technical as well as legal experts, and staff should be trained in best practices.”
News of the removing of apps was announced by some of the impacted companies. For example, last week, ExpressVPN reported that its iOS app was removed from the China App Store. In a blog post , the company called Apple's decision “surprising and unfortunate.” Initially, ExpressVPN said its “preliminary research” showed “that all major VPN apps for iOS have been removed.”
“We're disappointed in this development, as it represents the most drastic measure the Chinese government has taken to block the use of VPNs to date, and we are troubled to see Apple aiding China's censorship efforts,” ExpressVPN added in the blog post. “ExpressVPN strongly condemns these measures, which threaten free speech and civil liberties.”
Another VPN provider, Golden Frog, also reported on how VPNs were removed from the app store.
“Golden Frog's core mission is to fight for a free and open Internet experience for users around the world, so we will file an appeal with Apple—but I am not hopeful,” according to a company blog post written by Golden Frog president Sunday Yokubaitis. “When it comes to their App Store, Apple is the judge, jury and executor, and now it appears the Chinese government is Apple's overlord.”
“We're extremely disappointed that Apple has bowed to pressure from China to remove VPN apps without citing any Chinese law or regulation making VPNs illegal,” the blog post added. “We view Internet access—and unrestricted Internet access—as a human rights issue and will continue to fight for a free and open Internet.”
The move by Apple comes a few weeks after service disruptions to WhatsApp in China, which led to speculation that government officials may be trying to crack down on encrypted communications.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 2The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
- 3Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 4The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 5Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250