Or what? A physical presence is one of the only leverage points they'd have over you. If you don't accede to that, what are they going to do?
Obviously I'm describing a much different tack than Google and Apple have chosen, and switching between the two isn't easy. But the point is that Google and Apple could have set themselves up this way, likely with the full blessing of the State Department. They chose not to and now predictably find themselves being used to implement totalitarianism.
Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, but that just illustrates why they shouldn't have built in digital restrictions to their devices. I doubt Asus is finding themselves under such pressure, because they simply don't have the technical capability to control what users run on their computers.
> Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands,
I agree with your general point but not this part. Apple products still find their way into countries with no Apple Stores. I don't think selling physical products really makes the situation much sticker. If Apple chose to be a pure hardware company and refused to do any business in Pakistan, Pakistanis could still purchase Apple devices through the usual resellers and/or [black/gray]markets. Pakistan would have no leverage over Apple, as you point out, and Apple would not be a participant in the implementation totalitarianism (as they presently are.)
As it stands, as someone from one of those countries that's recently managed to reign in companies without such physical presence, there's a lot they can do.
It typically starts from automated ISP/NSP level blockages of assigned IP spaces, then an import / licensure ban and typically even extends to full ban on payment outflow (or automatically enforced surcharges).
To effectively fight against this, the company has to be prepared to lose access to its entire userbase in that country. As we've found more and more often recently though, not many are.
Eh, it does not sound like you thought this through. I would prefer my medical data to reside in my country, so that its governed by privacy laws I vited for.
The whole blockclain free-for-all ungovernable banansa has it's place, but its not for everything.
It sounds like you live in a country that is not Pakistan, where it's likely to make more sense for tech companies to operate within the system rather than staying outside of it. Even so, it would ultimately be up to you whether to trust any specific company with your "medical data", with one of the factors being whether they were bound by your country's legal system or not.
And who mentioned anything about blockchain? The philosophy of routing around censorship and end user empowerment is much older than blockchains, and that you're pigeonholing the ethos as "blockchain" just shows how much we've forgotten.
Obviously I'm describing a much different tack than Google and Apple have chosen, and switching between the two isn't easy. But the point is that Google and Apple could have set themselves up this way, likely with the full blessing of the State Department. They chose not to and now predictably find themselves being used to implement totalitarianism.
Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, but that just illustrates why they shouldn't have built in digital restrictions to their devices. I doubt Asus is finding themselves under such pressure, because they simply don't have the technical capability to control what users run on their computers.