Apple's decision to remove VPN applications from the Chinese App Store could have been made under the informal pressure of local authorities and probably has little in common with the requirements for enforcement, says David Kay, an expert with the UN Human Rights Council. On such thoughts prompted human rights defender case of San Bernardino, which led to a proactive company in the struggle for freedom of speech in the US.

In his letter (available to AppleInsider. Ru) Kay urges Apple, and in particular its leader in the person of Tim Cook, to be held accountable for populism and ambivalence towards situations of a similar nature and equal importance to society. Pursuing connivance, says Kay, Apple violates its own beliefs, because it directly contributes to the creation of censorship, which impedes freedom of expression.

"The legislative restrictions with which you reluctantly had to put up, put you in an unenviable position, turning into a kind of arbitrator between your Chinese clients and local authorities," the human rights activist admits.

Nevertheless, says Kay, Apple's subordination to the regime creates a dangerous precedent that later risks leading to authoritarianism and total control over people far beyond China.

In July 2017, it became known that Apple agreed to the demands of the Chinese authorities and removed from the local App Store most of the VPN applications used by users of iOS devices to bypass the locks on the Web. Tim Cook, despite the apparent disapproval of the company's decision, led him to the need to comply with the laws of the country on the territory of which the company conducts its business.