Katie Benner and Paul Mozer, New York Times:
In China, for example, Apple — like any other foreign company selling smartphones — hands over devices for import checks by Chinese regulators. Apple also maintains server computers in China, but Apple has previously said that Beijing cannot view the data and that the keys to the servers are not stored in China. In practice and according to Chinese law, Beijing typically has access to any data stored in China.
If Apple accedes to American law enforcement demands for opening the iPhone in the San Bernardino case and Beijing asks for a similar tool, it is unlikely Apple would be able to control China’s use of it. Yet if Apple were to refuse Beijing, it would potentially face a battery of penalties.
Analysts said Chinese officials were pushing for greater control over the encryption and security of computers and phones sold in the country, though Beijing last year backed off on some proposals that would have required foreign companies to provide encryption keys for devices sold in the country after facing pressure from foreign trade groups.
This story — and, in particular, these paragraphs — are very similar to those subtly removed from an article the Times previously published. This is a welcome expansion and deeper dive into the natural consequences of Apple’s capitulation to the FBI’s unreasonable demands. Still, it remains a little odd that the article from which it was derived and expunged lacks any sort of notice of correction.