Question

is Apple meeting ethical responsibilities to customers and others with their privacy policy?

Answer 1

Apple is not meeting ethical responsibilities to customers and others with their privacy policy here is why:

The first is essential that Apple is an organization. An organization is a lawful fiction, is anything but an individual, it doesn't have a spirit and it is altogether unequipped for any activity whatsoever, moral or deceptive. The people inside it can without a doubt take activities and those activities can be pretty much moral (utilizing whichever set of moral benchmarks you need to apply) however the organization itself is a thing and along these lines unequipped for either activities or morals. That is a fairly nitpicking consistent contention however I concur.

The second is that truly, Tim Cook has taken over from Steve Jobs as the CEO. However, when we talk about the treatment of the laborers in the inventory network we must recollect that it's Tim Cook who has fabricated that store network. Not Steve Jobs at all anyway great he was at propelling the structure group and advertising the completed merchandise. The conditions that existed at Foxconn and different temporary workers in 2004, in 2011, were the same amount of Tim Cook's obligation as they are present. For he was, the extent that Apple is concerned, the maker of that whole framework in any case.

Yet, the third reason I don't concur with this "progressively moral" recommendation is that I don't accept the changes, for example, they are, have been driven by anything so refined as morals. They're a basic, an exceptionally straightforward and surely understood, result of Chinese financial improvement. I've said this previously, that we can clarify rising wages and better working conditions for Chinese assembling laborers using Marx, by the Marxist investigation. Review that the industrialists are just ready to crush the essences of the laborers into the residue when there is a save armed force of the jobless. Individuals are significantly more edgy than the laborers who are happy to take the work and the positions at even lower pay and far more detestable conditions.

That positively was what China resembled until as of late. Millions as well as a huge number of underemployed work out there in the wide-open ready to move to where the production lines were and work for what we view as an allowance. Be that as it may, which to them was superior to 14 hours every day in a paddy field taking a gander at an inappropriate finish of a water bison. That save armed force is currently gone. Vanished totally: the significant assembling territories on the coast are announcing, as they have been for a few years currently, work deficiencies. They just can't get the same number of laborers as they might want at the costs they used to pay. In this way, the costs they are happy to offer are rising. Similarly, as Marx himself anticipated would happen to compensation when there is never again that save armed force.