[HN Gopher] Apple Ordered by UK to Create Global iCloud Encrypti...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Ordered by UK to Create Global iCloud Encryption Backdoor
Author : throw0101d
Score : 983 points
Date : 2025-02-07 12:18 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| throw0101d wrote:
| See also "U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users' encrypted
| accounts":
|
| > _The law, known by critics as the Snoopers' Charter, makes it a
| criminal offense to reveal that the government has even made such
| a demand. An Apple spokesman declined to comment._
|
| * https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-e...
|
| * https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology...
|
| > _The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (c. 25) (nicknamed the
| Snoopers ' Charter)[1] is an Act of the Parliament of the United
| Kingdom which received royal assent on 29 November 2016.[2][3]
| Its different parts came into force on various dates from 30
| December 2016.[4] The Act comprehensively sets out and in limited
| respects expands the electronic surveillance powers of the
| British intelligence agencies and police.[4] It also claims to
| improve the safeguards on the exercise of those powers.[5]_
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016
| reaperducer wrote:
| _See also "U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users' encrypted
| accounts"_
|
| Not just "see also." Your link is the original reporting.
|
| Without journalists and organizations like these doing hard,
| expensive work like this no one -- not even on HN -- would know
| about it.
|
| It's a shame that the link being used for the HN entry is to a
| blog re-writing other people's work, and not doing any of that
| work or sharing any of that expense themselves.
|
| Correct link:
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-e...
|
| No, I don't care if there's a paywall. Credit where credit is
| due is something your mom should have taught you when you were
| five.
| fsflover wrote:
| Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42970412
| reify wrote:
| I doubt very much if any terrorist, criminal or child abuser is
| going to use any google or apple cloud service to back up their
| files.
|
| Anyone with a fundamental understanding of online privacy and
| security would encrypt any files prior to uploading them to the
| cloud rendering any back doors and access to those files useless
| and toothless.
|
| I dont use any of these services. I have never understood the
| thinking around uploading your private life to some server in the
| cloud when they are more secure on an external hard drive at
| home.
| squeegee_scream wrote:
| I think you have a very high opinion of the millions of people
| around the globe, with varying levels of computer literacy, who
| are terrorists, criminals, and/or child abusers.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| I once worked with a business lady who used her dumbphone as
| an argument in a discussion where we were deciding whether
| all our users have smartphones. She proudly displayed the
| dumbphone and said that if she has one, others probably have
| too.
|
| I learned only much later that her husband was prosecuted for
| fraud related to government funds. So she had a good reason
| to have a dumbphone.
|
| It's anecdotal evidence, but still.
|
| You are of very low opinion of people, probably assuming that
| you are smarter because you are some kind of IT guy.
|
| And you are likely wrong.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > I learned only much later that her husband was prosecuted
| for fraud related to government funds. So she had a good
| reason to have a dumbphone.
|
| Does she? Law enforcement can wiretap and track dumbphones
| just as easily as smart phones. The lack of encrypted
| calling/texting options even make it easier for law
| enforcement. If she's trying to hide more fraud, the
| dumbphone isn't helping her. And of course if she is trying
| to hide fraud from law enforcement, she probably shouldn't
| be doing the fraud in the first place.
|
| There are good reasons for using dumbphones (smartphones
| distract, and it's having a serious impact on everyone
| these days) but avoiding being prosecuted isn't one.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| Don't iPhone photos automatically sync to your iCloud?
| brookst wrote:
| You can turn it off, and it is E2EE.
| InTheArena wrote:
| You need to enable an additional iCloud secure mode for
| true E2E to be enabled.
| kotaKat wrote:
| > I doubt very much if any terrorist, criminal or child abuser
| is going to use any google or apple cloud service to back up
| their files.
|
| Meanwhile, the amount of local news arrests for people getting
| busted for uploading CSAM to online platforms like Google and
| Apple is exponentially increasing.
|
| The average "criminal" is an idiot.
| nicce wrote:
| The real goldmine is WhatsApp. In most cases, WhatsApp backups
| are enabled and uploaded by default, including when the whole
| iPhone backup is created. And by default, backups are
| unencrypted.
|
| So if you ever wonder how they access those WhatsApp messages,
| when you think that they would be end-to-end encrypted, reality
| is something else.
| sgt wrote:
| I've got backups disabled on WhatsApp and the app reminds me
| like once every few weeks "You should turn on your backups!".
| Easier to click yes.
| brookst wrote:
| The overlap between "criminal" and "fundamental understanding
| of online security" is fairly small.
|
| I use online services and sync, but my life is so boring (and
| data breaches have exposed so much) that a disaster that
| destroys my house and all backups is far more likely that harm
| from government or private snooping on my cloud files.
|
| I know we're supposed to stand on principle and make data
| storage choices as if today's cat photo were evidence of being
| the real JFK assassin, but I don't have the energy.
| diego_moita wrote:
| > I doubt very much if any terrorist, criminal or child abuser
| is going to use any google or apple cloud service to back up
| their files.
|
| Most of the time, people become terrorists, criminals or child
| abusers because they're stupid, not because they're smart.
| duxup wrote:
| News stories seem to indicate that many criminals use computers
| just like any given person does.
|
| Even people concerned with security who know a little seem to
| be terrible at it.
|
| A local protest group in my area was passing around an image
| with security tips. They were hilariously bad, suggestions
| based on very confused understandings of risk. These people
| weren't criminals necessarily, but they were motivated and
| concerned and somehow just terrible at basic security.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| > News stories seem to indicate
|
| What's the inverse of survivor bias?
| duxup wrote:
| They are still people committing crimes. I don't think
| that's quite the same as the prototypical survivorship bias
| would imply.
|
| There is the possibility that there is a great deal more
| crime being commuted by capable super criminals who
| understand the nuances of security .... but I'm more of a
| subscriber to the theory that for "most" crime, it's a lot
| of stupid people.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Hamas switched from smartphones, with encrypted messengers to
| pagers, a communication device with encryption so weak it may
| as well not be there. Criminals get caught because they used
| plain phone calls and texts _all the time_. Hell, child abusers
| are regularly reported to the police because someone saw a
| suspicious picture on their phone when scrolling through the
| gallery. Crime and an understanding of cybersecurity don't
| necessarily overlap.
|
| I agree that cloud services cannot be trusted to do encryption
| within their clients, but on platforms like iOS it's difficult
| to do automated backups using independent encryption. It's also
| quite difficult not to accidentally enable backups to these
| services because the setup flow for every phone guides you to
| hitting the "upload everything I do to Apple/Google".
|
| To Apple's credit, while they normally store a copy of the
| encryption key, making most cloud encryption entirely useless,
| they do offer setting a custom key at least. GDrive and
| OneDrive sure don't.
| luqtas wrote:
| there are dumb people out there but can you sum up (just
| talking about illegal drugs) an industry that makes $360
| billion per year? Brazilian ghettos have army grade weapons
| like anti-aircraft missiles [0]
|
| psychopathy is a mental disease who impair people to control
| their impulses/defected judgment; often these are permanent
| personality traits, which either will let them sit in a
| prison for the rest of their lives depending on what they did
| or they will be liberated if they get caught with a high
| chance of another incidence... search for papers/work from
| Kent Kiehl if you are interested in this type of stuff
|
| [0] https://www.globalissues.org/news/2009/10/30/3330
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > on platforms like iOS it's difficult to do automated
| backups using independent encryption.
|
| iOS allows you to perform encrypted backups to your local PC
| or Mac out of the box.
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/back-up-iphone-
| iph3ec...
| rjmunro wrote:
| I believe they switched to pagers because their location
| can't be tracked. Every pager message is broadcast across the
| whole country and the pagers just listen to all of them and
| only tell the owner about the ones meant for them.
|
| A phone has to at least tell the nearest tower that it's
| within range so that the tower can know to send it messages.
| After that, when it get's a message it sends some sort of
| acknowledgement. In theory anyone can pick up those messages
| with a phased array or set of directional antennas and get a
| directional fix on the phone.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _I have never understood the thinking around uploading your
| private life to some server in the cloud when they are more
| secure on an external hard drive at home._
|
| Depends on your threat model. If someone unofficial wanted at
| what you're doing, they'd likely find it easier to go after
| your home data than what you have in iCloud -- particularly if
| using Advanced Data Protection for iCloud.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/108756
|
| Also, ask the folks in Los Angeles how those external hard
| drives at home are working out for them in the fires. There are
| many types of threats.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| The average people have zero idea about these things. They just
| use phones, and do not care how they function, what they do in
| the background.
| cpymchn wrote:
| What's new here?
|
| As mentioned in the article, Salt Typhoon and the recency of this
| request by the UK. At this point they should know better.
|
| My pet theory is anytime the US wants to do something illegal
| under US law, they simply ask the UK to do it and vice versa.
| That's why Salt Typhoon isn't and never will be a lesson learned.
| cpymchn wrote:
| I recommend Susan Landau as the goto person on this. She
| recently spoke with Lawfare on the current state of play.
|
| [1] Susan Landau and Alan Rozenshtein Debate End-to-End
| Encryption (Again!)
| https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--susan-
| la...!)
| EdwardCoffin wrote:
| Formatting in link is broken. This is a direct link to the
| youtube version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWBFXiOcR88
| layer8 wrote:
| Working link: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-
| daily--susan-la...
| eptcyka wrote:
| It is actually Australia where the US goes to test out far-out
| legislative ideas before implementing them at home.
| y-curious wrote:
| Australia does a great job of enacting wacky authoritarian
| policies in the last 5 years; It would make sense to use them
| as a staging ground. Does any specific legislation come to
| mind?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Any specific whacky examples?
| MileyCyrax wrote:
| Something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s
| urveillance_in_Australia...
| throwaway290 wrote:
| I started reading and it talks about something where a
| warrant and a case are required to request interception
| on each case. Is that whacky? You don't think it helps
| you know fight crime and stuff? Or you have an actual
| specific example?
| fukawi2 wrote:
| Social media ban for under 16s is the latest half witted
| idea enacted by the government here.
| banku_brougham wrote:
| It's not a pet theory, it's exactly how the Five-Eyes system is
| meant to work. I remember when Total Information Awareness was
| announced and they even had a cool badge designed for the new
| govt department. It wasn't a popular idea.
| jer0me wrote:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IAO-logo.png
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| It is a pet theory. It is illegal for the US to access its
| citizens' and residents' data without a warrant, and asking
| somebody else to do it doesn't magically make it legal.
| ok_dad wrote:
| It's illegal but they do it anyways. Recall there was a man
| named Snowden who revealed the NSA does collect USA
| citizens' data.
| cess11 wrote:
| Why would they "access [their] data", instead of a report
| from a foreign intelligence agency?
| isaacremuant wrote:
| It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged
| in it through five eyes. We're not saying it respects the
| constitution or its intent. We're saying it's what happens.
|
| Black CIA sites weren't legal either, nor was torture.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| It's exactly how the five-eyes information sharing works.
|
| Participants spy on each other's citizens on the other's behalf
| and share data, to avoid the legality of doing so to their own
| citizens.
| bilekas wrote:
| > requires that Apple creates a back door that allows UK security
| officials unencumbered access to encrypted user data worldwide
|
| How could this even be enforced if Apple pulls out cloud services
| of the UK ?
|
| It's such a ridiculous request, the British Intelligence agencies
| must be bored coming up with new ways to make Apple look good.
| cmsj wrote:
| Apple still has legal entities in the UK. Pulling out cloud
| services would be insufficient to prevent the UK authorities
| from interfering with their activities.
| bilekas wrote:
| > prevent the UK authorities from interfering with their
| activities
|
| I'm still missing how this could be enforced ? To my layman
| understanding, this reads the same as if China said : "Meta,
| Tesla, Valve etc has entities in China therefore we get to
| see all data they store in the EU and the US.
|
| The UK has Zero jurisdiction in Ireland for example where a
| lot of EU data may be stored.
| elashri wrote:
| I have lived to the day that we give an example on china
| not doing something stupid a western democracy does about
| rights and freedom. Wild times to be alive. I am also
| surprised that they demand worldwide access and not just UK
| users data or all the data stored in UK jurisdiction. But
| this is going too far.
| mathw wrote:
| And if you think China and the USA and Russia wouldn't
| want it... hey I've got this bridge for sale.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| The difference is that China and Russia have the sense to
| spy on foreign citizens with hackers, trackers, and other
| covert means. Somehow the UK feels entitled to Apple
| doing their espionage for them, and has the gall to ask
| publicly.
|
| Note that this is not China apologia: they do the same
| brazen shit locally, but they're an authoritarian regime.
| I have lower expectations for human rights there.
| shafyy wrote:
| If you, like me, didn't know where the idiom "I've got a
| bridge to sell you" comes from, here you go:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
|
| George C. Parker was a conman in NYC who multiples times
| sold the ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge to his victims.
| Among other cons.
| bilekas wrote:
| I know we're going off topic but I remember hearing about
| this, and reminded me then a similar case in Paris where
| the Eifel Tower was being sold too.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig
| guappa wrote:
| Here's a whole movie on various scams
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qJuxxUoZRw
| bluGill wrote:
| There are tensions in the US.
|
| Those who are charged with stopping cyber crime are very
| must against this. End to End encryption is one of the
| better protections they can give you against foreign
| hackers and they want you to use it.
|
| Meanwhile down the hall are people who are charged with
| investigating crimes someone in the country commits and
| they are want this. It is a lot easier to prove someone
| is involved in some crime if a warrant can get their
| data, but end to end encryption means they can only get
| random bytes. (of course they don't want warrants either,
| but that is a different issue not relevant here so they
| will specify warrants in this debate)
| jibe wrote:
| China has forced Apple to outsource iCloud in China to a
| state run company, so all data is just directly
| controlled by the government there. It's an even worse
| situation.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| That is just China's general rules around tech. Awful?
| Yes. But not a global issue. Most non-chinese companies
| are forced to have their chinese properties ran by a
| chinese company. This is shown by companies like VW
| having cars made in china with effectively a license
| model, these cars are designed and built by a third party
| with a few interesting exceptions (VW actually licensed a
| design, the Taos, back and shipped it worldwide)
|
| The insane overreach was the UK wanting data on people
| not in the UK
| guappa wrote:
| At least the CIA doesn't get it... dunno which is worse.
| csomar wrote:
| How is this worse? This only affects users in China.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| And users who communicate with users in China using Apple
| services.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| They can send encrypted PGP messages, e2e was figured out
| in 1991.
| Spivak wrote:
| We _literally_ tried to do this with TikTok. We can 't
| exactly stand on a high-horse when the highest level of
| government in the US was totally fine with it.
|
| Our noble "we can't have American data in the hands of
| our enemies," their savage "forcing American companies to
| turn over user data."
| flaminHotSpeedo wrote:
| Edit: I misread the comment tree, I thought this comment
| was equating the TikTok situation to the UK's request.
|
| I agree that the TikTok demands are pretty similar,
| though I might quibble over whether they're literally the
| same, since arrangements like that are the status quo in
| China but not in the US
|
| Original comment below:
|
| How is "remove foreign control of data on our nation's
| users" remotely the same as "give us access to foreign
| users' data"?
|
| They're not even figuratively the same, despite you
| literally misusing that word
| joshuaissac wrote:
| It's not clear which scenario you are referring to.
|
| If by "give us access to foreign users' data", you mean
| TikTok, then ByteDance is only required to sell the US
| portion of TikTok to American buyers. If you mean iCloud,
| then Apple is only required to keep Chinese users' data
| on local servers.
| flaminHotSpeedo wrote:
| Oh my bad, I misread the comment tree and thought this
| comment was a response to the grandparent.
|
| "give us access to foreign users' data" referred to what
| the UK is asking for, I thought the post i was replying
| to was equating the UK's request to the US'
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is worse than that, I never expected that most
| democracies would go back to foregone days, because
| people get sold out on populism and decided to ignore
| history lessons.
|
| As a child of Portuguese revolution, I am aware of plenty
| of stories, apparently many folks nowadays think those
| are stories to scare misbehaved kids.
| layer8 wrote:
| It would be enforced by fining the UK legal entities (or
| worse, like charging their legal representatives) if they
| don't comply. If the UK is serious about this, the only
| alternative for Apple would eventually be to completely
| cease operations in the UK.
|
| By the way, this is similar to why for true GDPR
| compliance, data centers should be operated by EU companies
| that aren't subsidiaries of US companies, because even if
| the latter operate data centers located in the EU, they
| would still be bound to secret orders by the US government.
| miroljub wrote:
| That's actually the only thing that would keep Apple
| services usable to everyone else around the world.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| The most horrible part of the discussion we're making is
| that we're arguing that UK intelligence should be able to
| access only UK related data, and not that UK intelligence
| should not undermine privacy of people
| idle_zealot wrote:
| The Overton Window has shifted.
| throw0101c wrote:
| PSA: The Overton window is the range of
| subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the
| mainstream population at a given time.[1] It is also
| known as the window of discourse. [...]
| The political commentator Joshua Trevino has postulated
| that the six degrees of acceptance of public ideas are
| roughly:[7] unthinkable radical
| acceptable sensible popular
| policy
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The Clipper Chip died a quick death back when the Clinton
| administration wanted it, as the push back against it was
| pretty strong. Now? Seems like a matter of time before
| every form of electronic communication has a dozen
| different back, side, and front doors into it.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| I don't think that was mandated to be used for every
| device though. It was also shown to perform key escrow in
| secret and had its security defeated before it launched.
| izacus wrote:
| What we're discussing here is whether a private company
| should obey laws of the country they operate in or not.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| The moral thing to do would be to resist obeying such
| laws as much as is feasible. If that fails close all your
| legal entities and continue offering services to the
| citizens of that country to the extent that is feasible.
|
| Of course it wouldn't be very profitable. So
| unfortunately you really can't expect a major public
| company to take a stand like in a case like this.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Fully agree. Imagine giving your data to company XYZ
| which promises you full encryption privacy. The company
| XYZ opens a subdivision in country CBA and all's okay
| unless CBA's law is changed to mandate all companies to
| give all their data. Now your data is lost to CBA's
| agents.
| bilekas wrote:
| > By the way, this is similar to why for true GDPR
| compliance, data centers should be operated by EU
| companies that aren't subsidiaries of US companies,
| because even if the latter operate data centers located
| in the EU, they would still be bound to secret orders by
| the US government.
|
| This is interesting, I know GDPR does not mandate data
| localization but I was under the impression that the
| requirements are a bit more difficult/stringent for
| transferring data out of the EU region ? While not
| perfect, it's a bit less 'open door' than it would be if
| it was hosted in the US.
| michaelt wrote:
| The EU has a law saying "don't transfer data out of the
| EU without the right paperwork, but of course if your
| American sysadmins have SSH access to servers in the EU
| to do maintenance that's no problem, just tell them not
| to copy the data off it"
|
| The US has a law saying "If our spies tell American
| sysadmins to SSH into a server in the EU and copy data
| off it, they must do it and they must keep it secret"
| kstrauser wrote:
| I've never worked in a company with data the gov't cared
| about that wouldn't have sirens going off. Why is Joe
| SSHing into the EU data center? And now why's he trying
| to turn off the GuardDuty rule that caught him? And why
| is he trying to delete that from CloudTrail? And why is
| the SOC 2 auditor asking why he has access to delete
| things from CloudTrail in the first place?"
|
| You'd have to get a surprising number of people to go
| along with it.
| michaelt wrote:
| That's why it's important to choose a sysadmin who has
| the authority to SSH to servers. Joe SSHes in all the
| time, it's not an anomaly.
|
| If you think a SOC2 auditor would spot something like
| this, in a company the size of Apple or Google - you've
| probably never been through a SOC2 audit :)
| kstrauser wrote:
| I wish that I had not been through many SOC 2 audits. But
| the point was just that in a sufficiently large org that
| might have cross-continent data centers, it's not common
| to have one person who can access remote data _and_ cover
| their trail _and_ turn off the alarms and all the other
| things required to do it surreptitiously. Possible?
| Maybe. Likely? _Probably_ not.
| michaelt wrote:
| In my experience, every sufficiently large org with data
| centres on multiple continents has an accretion of legacy
| systems and special exceptions.
|
| And a heuristic anomaly detection system that generates
| masses of false alarms, and enough different teams and
| documents and policies to bury an army of SOC2 auditors.
| And so many log lines almost anything can get lost in the
| noise.
|
| The janitors always have keys to everything. Especially
| when it's required by law.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Surely if the current government were dumb enough to try
| and ban Apple from the UK over something like this it
| would it would make even Truss look competent in
| comparison.
|
| Not so much because British people love their iPhones to
| such a extreme degree but because they willing to waste
| money and resources over something this stupid.
|
| IMHO Apple could bring down the government that tried
| this if they really wanted to.
| amelius wrote:
| > I'm still missing how this could be enforced ?
|
| Basically by saying that if they don't comply, they can't
| do business in the UK.
| freetanga wrote:
| It is a relatively small market, and if Apple decides to
| shut down while flooding the streets of London with
| posters saying "We are forced by your government to shut
| down in order to uphold your privacy", the UK Government
| would take a massive blow.
|
| Imagine Russian Oligarchs on android devices! Polonium
| will roll, I tell you!
| bluGill wrote:
| There are lots of different ways to do business. UK is
| unlikely to be able to ban the iphone, and I doubt Apple
| has much business in the UK. As such they can lay off all
| workers in the UK "because of legal issues" and the
| workers feel the pain. They can still sell in the UK
| through third parties, and go to the EU if you need
| warranty work
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Except perhaps for people living near the border in
| Northern Ireland, "going to the EU" for warranty work is
| a completely unfeasible suggestion. It's not exactly a
| short or cheap journey for most of us!
| patrickmay wrote:
| "Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance. Americans
| think 100 years is a long time."
| bluGill wrote:
| You don't have to go in person. Put it in the mail. In
| person can get same day service though. Next day mail is
| expensive, but you can get it (and if Apple is serious
| they can partner with the next day mail and do overnight
| repairs.). It isn't uncommon for someone to ship you are
| replacement device and then you ship your broken one back
| after the new arrives (if the old is only partially broke
| this can be useful). Apple has a lot of options to make
| this not too inconvenient.
|
| Though will Apple blink is still unknown. Just because
| they can doesn't mean they will.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| The UK public would never accept this. There's basically
| almost no interest in E2EE at all, but the idea of not
| being able to take your iPhone to the Apple Store would
| be riot-inducing. And I think the average Brit would be
| more comfortable posting their phone to the US than to
| France.
|
| If Apple really has the guts to stare this one down, then
| I would expect it's the government who blinks.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| Ireland doesn't have a single apple store in it. The
| closest thing that exists are stores in their authorised
| reseller program.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| That's really odd -- Belfast but not Dublin? Why?
| narag wrote:
| The phone itself is only a piece. Apple sells multiple
| services, without them the phone is useless. If you can't
| access the appstore, the backups, etc. what good is an
| iPhone? Now, the UK can say that UK citizens' data can't
| travel outside of the UK without the UK government
| permission.
|
| So it's still a problem. This seems like a looming PR
| battle.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| So if British voters get to chose between having access
| to iPhones or voting for a government that wants to spy
| on them at whatever the cost surely the choice must be
| clear?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > I'm still missing how this could be enforced ?
|
| By banning Apple from doing business in the UK.
|
| The US used a similar strategy decades ago to break Swiss
| Bank Secrecy laws (either Swiss banks had to give up the
| info or they were going to be kicked out of the US).
| mohamedattahri wrote:
| Yep, and the US had a lot more leverage; out of the US
| translates into no access to US dollars either directly
| or via a correspondent bank, which essentially means
| bankruptcy.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _By banning Apple from doing business in the UK._
|
| To use poker terminology: I think that if the UK made
| this bet that Apple would call.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I really hope so. I would love to see that showdown.
| Hopefully, "can't buy an iPhone in the UK and everyone
| knows why" makes the Snooper's Charter a radioactive mess
| that legislators fall all over themselves to repeal.
| elcritch wrote:
| Exactly, imagine the legislatures facing their irate teen
| daughters for bricking Apple devices.
| izacus wrote:
| Apple stockholders would never allow that.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Apple stockholders would never allow that._
|
| Then they can vote in a board of directors that agrees
| with them, and have that board fire Tim Cook.
|
| I would hazard to guess that you'll see an exodus of a
| lot of folks leaving Apple either because (a) they won't
| follow that order, or (b) in solidarity with those that
| are fired.
|
| Reminder that privacy is feature that Apple touts (how
| much you believe them is up to you):
|
| > _On January 28, 2021, Apple CEO Tim Cook delivered
| remarks at Computers, Privacy & Data Protection
| Conference: Enforcing Rights in a Changing World. The
| virtual conference -- hosted annually in Brussels,
| Belgium -- is one of the foremost international privacy
| and technology conferences bringing together leaders from
| academia, government, civil society and the private
| sector. Learn more about the features and controls Apple
| provides users to safeguard their privacy at
| http://www.apple.com/privacy_
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaLxTz1Yw7M
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HjDpPnxcP0
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YOi0r3vptQ
| izacus wrote:
| I don't know where your ideas are coming from - Apple
| easily folded and gave all data to Chinese government
| when commanded to do so under leadership of Tim Cook.
|
| Where does your thinking that they'll suddenly forget
| about revenue from UK over this come from?
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Where does your thinking that they 'll suddenly forget
| about revenue from UK over this come from?_
|
| * https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+china+revenues
|
| * https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+uk+revenues
| bluGill wrote:
| Swiss banks didn't care - they didn't have a large Us
| presence anyway. Until the US started enforcing this by
| proxy, other banks couldn't do business with you and the
| US and overall the US is more important to the world than
| Swiss banks.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Not so sure. Yeah, they didn't have a large US presence
| but they did a lot of business with US banks and
| securities markets -- that's what was threatened. It's
| wasn't the ability to have branches in the US but the
| ability to conduct business in US markets.
| christkv wrote:
| They ban Apple from doing business and watch as the uk
| stock market goes into the toilet as companies scramble
| to get out.
| bilekas wrote:
| > By banning Apple from doing business in the UK.
|
| As someone else here said, Apple would 100% call this
| bluff. And you can be certain the UK won't have the US to
| put pressure on Apple for them. All the would happen is
| the UK Apple users would be with an expensive
| paperweight.
| mahkoh wrote:
| That assumes that Apple's shareholders believe that
| Apple's privacy reputation (relative to other companies)
| is more valuable than access to the UK market.
|
| All evidence that I have seen suggests that consumers by
| and large do not care about this kind of privacy. They do
| not buy iPhones instead of other phones due to the
| privacy properties.
|
| Therefore Apple's shareholders could order Apple to stay
| in the UK market.
|
| And if not, then Apple's customers could be compensated
| with money and other UK-held assets that the government
| could confiscate.
| pmontra wrote:
| According to NASDAQ [1] the two main investors are
| Vanguard and Blackrock, but the two of them together are
| far away from 50%. There are a number of other large
| investors. I didn't do the sums but there must be
| probably 30 of them to get to 50%. Do some of them care
| about privacy of common people? Probably not. About the
| people in their boards? Probably yes.
|
| [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-
| activity/stocks/aapl/instituti...
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| This is usually true of any corp. However, Apple is the
| one big tech company that has built its reputation on
| privacy more than any other, and Cook in particular is
| very strong on that -- and he's not prone to Zuck-like
| flip/flopping, at least not so far.
|
| You may be right, of course. But if there's one tech
| company who _might_ say "no", it's Apple.
|
| Counterpoint: Apple in China.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| UK can just start fining apple billions of dollars if
| they dont want to fully kick them out of the country.
| piltdownman wrote:
| Sadly jurisdiction has nothing to do with it.
|
| https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/uk-spy-
| base-g...
|
| This is not just a case of the British intelligence
| services secretly "tapping into" Irish telephonic and
| internet traffic via land and maritime cables. Rather in
| most cases they are being provided free (or commercial)
| access to the information by companies associated with the
| use, ownership or maintenance of these cables.
|
| Post-Snowden the Irish government retroactively legalised
| it...
| pmontra wrote:
| It can be enforced in this way: police raids the local
| headquarters and jail a bunch of people because their
| company didn't comply with the law.
|
| The only way to prevent that is not having any local
| office, no employees, nothing. Sell physical objects only
| by the means of local 3rd party resellers which will import
| goods. Same thing for services. Of course they can ban
| imports and services or go after those 3rd parties. It
| depends how nasty they want to be.
| elcritch wrote:
| I suspect the UK government would back down way before
| Apple. People aren't politically active as those of years
| pass, but brick their iPhones you'd have a riot.
| hedora wrote:
| The US CLOUD act says something similar to your straw man
| (though it doesn't ban E2E encryption like the UK is
| attempting to do):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act
|
| Note that it the bar is having the ability to access the
| server, so this law is completely incompatible with most
| GPDR solutions: It's illegal to store European user data
| and then refuse to hand it over to US law enforcement,
| regardless of whether the data is stored in Europe or the
| request breaks European law.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| I imagine they would fine apple a large sum of money. If
| apple refuse to pay they send high court sheriffs to
| confiscate any property they have in the UK to pay the
| debt.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| More importantly, apple has customers in the UK. The business
| from captured apple users is more valuable than apple's
| privacy reputation.
|
| This all seems very similar to RIM and the aftermath of the
| riots in the UK. The backdoors became too obvious for
| customers to ignore. Did not go well for RIM in the market
| afterwards.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Who has more to lose though? I mean any government that
| would do something as stupid as banning Apple because Apple
| didn't allow it to spy on its citizens wouldn't be very
| popular or last that long..
|
| I mean this would be even more stupid than Partygate and
| the whole Truss debacle put together.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > More importantly, apple has customers in the UK. The
| business from captured apple users is more valuable than
| apple's privacy reputation.
|
| Is it though? I wonder how much of Apple's revenue is from
| the UK, probably around 5-6%? Apple isn't exactly as
| popular in the rest of the world as they are in the US.
|
| Would damaging their privacy reputation globally be more
| valuable than the UK market? I honestly don't know, but my
| hunch says no - they are likely to want to keep their
| reputation and dump the UK market. I think more likely is
| Apple is going to be able to get the UK to cave in. Apple
| is extremely competent with PR, and would be able to spin
| any kind of pull-out or degraded service in the UK as the
| government's choice and fault, to the ire of UK citizens.
| mrighele wrote:
| That's not even the main issue in my opinion: how can Apple do
| this without breaking laws in other countries ?
|
| I am not a lawyer, but I think that this would be illegal under
| EU privacy law.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| The same way it operates in China? I guess, China is much
| bigger market, so it's worth the effort. Not sure how it'll
| go in the UK.
| mrighele wrote:
| > a back door that allows UK security officials
| unencumbered access to encrypted user data worldwide
|
| As far as I can tell, China is asking to keep Chinese data
| in China and have access to it, but it is not asking to
| access data of American or European citizen and if it did
| we would be pissed off.
| guappa wrote:
| Probably a manouver to make them look good but also privately
| complying anyway.
| bnjms wrote:
| > the British Intelligence agencies must be bored coming up
| with new ways to make Apple look good.
|
| We know they collude with US intelligence serviceUS
| scarface_74 wrote:
| But as far as we know there is no encryption back door
| tacomagick wrote:
| "As far as we know" is the most important part.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It seems apparent to me that Apple leaked this
| information to US press in an attempt to get the UK to
| back off. Wouldn't Apple also try to subvert the attempt
| for US intelligence to get a backdoor? Or do we think
| Apple has less of a leg to stand on with US and would be
| more likely to roll over?
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryptio
| n_d...
| mdhb wrote:
| You are out of your mind if you think files in iCloud are
| somehow outside the reach of US intel.
|
| It's been publicly used in a bunch of prosecutions at
| this point.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| We all know Apple (and everyone else) gives data to law
| enforcement all over the world
| https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/
|
| You're including end-to-end encrypted content in that as
| well, like from Advanced Data Protection?
|
| > _If you choose to enable Advanced Data Protection, the
| majority of your iCloud data - including iCloud Backup,
| Photos, Notes and more - is protected using end-to-end
| encryption. No one else can access your end-to-end
| encrypted data, not even Apple, and this data remains
| secure even in the case of a data breach in the cloud._
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-gb/108756
|
| I have no opinion on whether US intel has a backdoor into
| this e2e encryption or not. It seems like the sort of
| thing where people non-chalantly state that it _must_
| happen, but of course no one ever has actual proof or a
| source.
| monooso wrote:
| We're specifically talking about files encrypted E2E
| using ADP. Can you point to any such files being used in
| prosecutions?
| yreg wrote:
| > It's been publicly used in a bunch of prosecutions at
| this point
|
| Can you give an example then? It would be major hacker
| news news if supposedly E2EE iCloud data were used in a
| prosecution.
| jachee wrote:
| Got any sources to back that up?
| talldayo wrote:
| I mean, you're right. People think "end to end"
| encryption helps them, but they forget that Apple
| controls both the server and client more than the user
| does.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Or do we think Apple has less of a leg to stand on with
| US and would be more likely to roll over?
|
| Apple has no leg to stand on at all. When the NSA comes
| to your door and demands access to everything you have
| you don't get to say no. There is no court you can appeal
| to, and they'll take whatever they want and order you to
| keep your mouth shut about it. They'll walk right into
| your headquarters and data centers, force you to move
| your employees so they can set up an office for
| themselves on your property, insert their equipment into
| your network directly and take everything just like they
| did with AT&T decades ago
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)
|
| Your only options are to comply or shut down
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit) and I'm not even
| sure the US government would allow "shut down" as an
| option in some cases. It seems likely that they'd keep a
| massive target like Apple running even if the owners of
| the company wanted to cease operations, but lets be
| honest, Apple makes a lot of people very very rich so
| they'd never walk away from that. They'll keep making
| their money and just try to convince themselves that the
| US are the "good guys" and so it must be okay.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryptio
| n_d...
|
| Obviously, Apple is going to comply with US federal law,
| given that their headquarters and employees are there, as
| well as their most profitable market. But when possible,
| they have shown themselves willing to fight against
| intrusion.
| ethersteeds wrote:
| Two things,
|
| First, that's notably the FBI and not NSA. As gp says,
| NSA has greater powers with less legal oversight on
| national security grounds.
|
| Second, a cynic might argue that Apple put up a noisy,
| principled fight that one time precisely to create the
| perception that you have here. It could be the FBI
| learned data requests to Apple are a dead end!
|
| Or the two came to a mutually beneficial understanding:
| "don't come in the front door waving a court order for
| the cameras and we'll see what we can do when our
| reputation isn't on the line, see? And maybe if we help
| out, that antitrust investigation isn't necessary after
| all!"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| FISA courts and patriot act came way before iPhone, how
| is Apple going to fight a law that is already on the
| books?
|
| A proposed law, or bill, like the one in the OP's
| article, can be fought against.
| jajko wrote:
| I can't imagine all cloud providers weren't leaned on
| heavily to provide this access long time ago. Its a
| treasure trove too juicy to be ignored. Pro quid pro of
| course.
|
| Anything else is highly illogical or outright stupid,
| imagine CIA or NSA having meeting on this decade and a
| half ago and deciding 'well if they won't give us full
| access when we asked nicely I guess that's it, we have to
| respect the law and their wish'. LOL. They don't respect
| basic human rights at all if you don't hold US passport,
| and even then the list of cases breaking laws and
| constitution is endless.
|
| Apple is good with their PR, but why do folks accept
| their every word literally and not as part of marketing
| spin to sell more services is beyond me. Rest of the
| market is not even trying to spin it that way which is
| actually more respectable behavior.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Don't you think out of the thousands of Apple employees
| that someone would leak it?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Apple is famous for keeping projects secret from its own
| employees. To be clear, I think it's unlikely that this
| has already been set up for the US, but it would be
| easiest to do at Apple.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not necessarily. There's a lot of people absolutely
| unwilling to risk loosing their salary and career. If you
| are doxxed as the leaker, what other company would hire
| you? I'm not even considering if there could be criminal
| charges involved as well.
|
| Snowden left an example of what kind of lifestyle is
| possible after leaking, and I doubt snowflakes at FAANG
| would be down for that. Or how about other examples of
| leakers that have turned up dead? That's a cheery thought
| to consider.
|
| So yeah, at this point in time, I do believe there's a
| lot of people that might not agree, but are not up for
| the task.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Snowden chose that lifestyle. If he had stayed in the US,
| he would be out of prison already, just without a
| security clearance. The longest sentence anyone ever got
| for leaking government information to the media is 63
| months, with a release after 50 months on good behavior.
| dbtc wrote:
| It's all speculation, but perhaps he was also thinking
| about how high his risk of 'suicide' would be.
| jajko wrote:
| Manning was released early from her 35 years prison
| sentence only because there was Obama who had balls to do
| it and go against extreme far right part of society and
| government employees. Not going to happen again anytime
| soon in US.
|
| I am actually surprised she survived this and wasnt
| suicided or sent to Guantanamo for water boarding till
| heart stops, I guess thats only for those without US
| passports.
| autoexec wrote:
| No. Whistleblowers are extremely rare. Snowden did it,
| but he also worked with thousands of other employees who
| had knowledge of some, if not all, of the abuses Snowden
| told us about, but not one of them came forward. This is
| pretty much always the case when it comes to
| whistleblowers. For every one who came forward there were
| many many more who knew and stayed silent and it's hard
| to blame them. Whistleblowers are harshly punished, and
| sometimes killed in retaliation.
|
| Being willing to sacrifice everything you have, including
| your career, your freedom, and potentially your life,
| just to let the public know the truth is not something
| you should expect people to do. It's a huge amount of
| risk and sacrifice while the only reward is knowing that
| you've done the right thing even though you'll be
| vilified and punished for it. That's what makes
| whistleblowers heroes.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| We know.
| hk1337 wrote:
| By collude, you mean responding to subpoenas they are legally
| obliged to respond to?
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| Of course that's a thing. However, anyone who's ever read a
| history book has a pretty good reason to be suspicious it
| ends there.
| mdhb wrote:
| Collude is such a fucking weird word to describe an alliance.
| abtinf wrote:
| Collude seems like a pretty good word for an alliance
| formed for the purpose of subverting the law.
| mathieuh wrote:
| Yes "collude" contains exactly the right connotations.
| Slimy, sneaky, against the interests of the public.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| Funny
|
| https://youtu.be/eW-OMR-iWOE
| simion314 wrote:
| >How could this even be enforced if Apple pulls out cloud
| services of the UK ?
|
| Honest question, how Apple is doing it in China? Maybe the
| exact same scheme will work for UK.
| xyst wrote:
| MI6 probably gutted the cybersec division. Probably don't have
| many viable sploits in their cache against Apple.
|
| I suppose this is _good_ but more competent and well funded
| groups out of Israel, Israeli military complex, Cyprus don't
| need to "ask" for a back door.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Cyber-related stuff is GCHQ (black/greyhat) or NCSC
| (whitehat)
| TrueDuality wrote:
| As long as Apple has a business presence in the UK, they are
| subject to the laws the UK imposes on them even if they're
| vastly overreaching and impose on other government's citizens.
| Not supporting cloud services wouldn't be sufficient to avoid
| the compliance requirement, they would have to formerly stop
| doing business in the UK.
|
| Looking at the market size that might be a decision that Apple
| is willing to make as it would most likely be a temporary
| stick. The government can spin it anyway they want, but Apple
| devices do not work basically at all without the deep
| integration of their services. A geoblock would effectively
| mean UK citizens would be left with unusable devices and I
| can't see the resulting outrage being directed exclusively at
| Apple.
|
| It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > As long as Apple has a business presence in the UK, they
| are subject to the laws the UK imposes on them even if
| they're vastly overreaching and impose on other government's
| citizens.
|
| I wonder if this means that Apple would ultimately take the
| same approach that they have in China, where the iCloud data
| and services are entirely localized within China and allows
| the Chinese government unrestricted access.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| one can't compare china and the uk.
|
| china had leverage because of the manufacturing happening
| over there and the incredible market opportunity, UK
| doesn't have much.
|
| technically i believe apple could get out of the UK market
| to provoke a backslash on the government.
|
| If they concede, other government will use the exact same
| blackmailing technique and one can say it will be the
| absolute end of their "privacy" marketing campaign they
| spent so much money into.
| dwaite wrote:
| Apple offers the same escrowed key and non-escrowed key
| (advanced data protection) features in China as far as I'm
| aware. The extra capability GCBD has would be access to
| protected at rest data like iCloud email.
| afro88 wrote:
| The decision wouldn't involve just market size, but their
| Irish tax haven as well. They're not going to pull out of the
| UK entirely.
| eric_h wrote:
| Their Irish tax haven is rather specifically _not_ in the
| UK.
| booi wrote:
| yeah isn't it in... you know... Ireland?
| nichohel wrote:
| There is the Republic of Ireland, not in UK, and Northern
| Ireland, in UK.
| martinsnow wrote:
| Go ahead and call someone from Ireland, British.
| latexr wrote:
| > When asked by The Post whether any government had requested a
| backdoor, Google spokesman Ed Fernandez did not provide a direct
| answer but suggested none exist: "Google cannot access Android
| end-to-end encrypted backup data, even with a legal order," he
| stated.
|
| No, that does not suggest none exists, it only says _they_ don't
| have access to it. They could have chosen or have been ordered to
| give the keys to the government agency but not keep one
| themselves. I'm not saying that's likely, just that it's
| important to not take these statements as saying more than they
| do. They wouldn't hesitate to use "technically correct" as a
| defence and you have to take that into account.
| JW_00000 wrote:
| But if they could give a key to the government agency, it
| wouldn't be _end-to-end_ encrypted, right? Or are you thinking
| they would have a copy of users ' keys that they gave out?
| (Which I guess is technically possible.)
| aqme28 wrote:
| They could also cripple user key-generation. E.g. they choose
| random primes from a known subset. It would make
| communication crackable while also being difficult to detect.
| jonhohle wrote:
| It would be no different from how multiple devices and users
| access the same content (chat, shared data, etc.). The
| government's keys would always be included in set which
| encrypts the real key. They don't need the users' key, Apple
| doesn't need their private keys. So technically still end to
| end encrypted, just with a hidden party involved. Users have
| no way of knowing this doesn't already happen.
|
| And when their key leaks, it's as good as no encryption, but
| still end-to-end encrypted.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| If the other end is the government, then it's kinda valid? =)
| em500 wrote:
| Before people immediately think the worst of Google or other
| corporate representatives, be aware that people working in
| these companies need to weight their words carefully. From The
| Verge's article on the issue:
|
| _The UK has reportedly served Apple a document called a
| technical capability notice. It's a criminal offense to even
| reveal that the government has made a demand. Similarly, if
| Apple did cede to the UK's demands then it apparently would not
| be allowed to warn users that its encrypted service is no
| longer fully secure._
| free_bip wrote:
| How does this work wrt false advertising laws? If I relied
| upon their end to end encryption and it turns out to be false
| advertising because there's a secret backdoor, who do I sue?
| grayhatter wrote:
| no one, you'll be in secret prison before you somehow gain
| standing
| latexr wrote:
| Which is exactly why I'm making this point. If no government
| had requested a backdoor, they could've simply answered "no".
| When you have to weight your words, it means you're not at
| liberty to say whatever you want. That is itself a signal,
| and why warrant canaries are a thing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
| derbOac wrote:
| You're right to point out how carefully worded these
| statements are. But I suspect it's rare for companies of
| Google's status to not have been asked for a backdoor. It's
| not really an informative question to ask Google.
| Take8435 wrote:
| Can you elaborate on why you say it is not informative?
| derbOac wrote:
| My guess is Google, Microsoft, Signal, Apple, Cloudfare,
| etc etc etc have all been asked if they could make
| backdoors. I expect they have all been _asked_. It 's not
| the same as asking if they have _made_ a backdoor.
|
| So I think a journalist asking an organization like
| Google if they've been asked isn't really informative,
| because they almost certainly have been.
|
| I'm not sure how it's relevant other than to say an
| answer from Google's response might seem oblique, but
| they're also being asked obliquely and that colors how
| you might interpret their response.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Presumably because the answer is "of course yes".
| latexr wrote:
| _Of course they were asked._ That doesn't matter, my
| point is the author is assuming more from the reply than
| what was said.
|
| It's like if you conspired with your brother to steal
| from the cookie jar. He stole the cookies while you
| distracted your parents. Later on your mother reports to
| your father:
|
| > When asked whether they stole from the cookie jar,
| derbOac did not provide a direct answer but suggested
| they didn't didn't know who did it: "I did not see anyone
| removing cookies from the jar," they stated.
|
| Your statement is factually correct, but it doesn't say
| what your mother concluded.
| lysace wrote:
| That concept has always sounded like tech people trying to
| hack the law without the proper real-world legal knowledge,
| IMO.
|
| _Bruce Schneier wrote in a blog post that "[p]ersonally, I
| have never believed [warrant canaries] would work. It
| relies on the fact that a prohibition against speaking
| doesn't prevent someone from not speaking. But courts
| generally aren't impressed by this sort of thing, and I can
| easily imagine a secret warrant that includes a prohibition
| against triggering the warrant canary._
|
| Lots of similar discussion on HN already, e.g. in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871541.
| bloppe wrote:
| Simply answering "no" when that's the truth could be
| illegal too. The ability to say no creates the ability to
| say yes as well. If I ask Apple whether they got an order
| and they say "no", then a year later they say "we cannot
| confirm nor deny", well then that's a yes.
|
| Kinda depends on judicial interpretations of free speech,
| but that's how warrant canaries work. Are warrant canaries
| legal in the UK? They seem to be in the US but idk how well
| established that is.
| atonse wrote:
| But they can still notify the public, through those canary
| statements. (I forgot the name commonly used).
|
| For example (a simplistic one), you can have a statement like
| "we do not have any backdoors in our software" added to your
| legal documents (TOS, etc). But once a backdoor is added, you
| are compelled by your lawyers to remove that statement. So
| you aren't disclosing that you have added a backdoor. You're
| just updating your legal documents to make accurate claims.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| Such actions, even just the act of deleting text, conveys a
| message you were ordered to not convey and the government
| is not likely to take too kindly to that.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > if Apple did cede to the UK's demands then it apparently
| would not be allowed to warn users that its encrypted service
| is no longer fully secure.
|
| One would think this runs afoul of other laws though, truth
| in advertising and similar.
|
| Its such a legal minefield, and the UKs request borders on
| violating the sovereignty of other nations I can't see Apple
| complying, but maybe that's hopium talking.
| arccy wrote:
| if google were to transfer the keys elsewhere, they would have
| (temporary) custody of the keys, granting them access, and
| invalidating the statement.
| jonhohle wrote:
| My layman's understanding is that a user's private key is
| used to decrypt a random key, which is then used to protect
| data. Shared files then only require adding key access to
| that small secret by someone who knows the original key. If
| one of the original public keys is always one held by
| authorities, Google never needs to have custody of the
| private key and can't access the data themselves making the
| statement true, but misleading.
| latexr wrote:
| > they would have (temporary) custody of the keys
|
| No, they would have _had_ custody of the keys. Meaning it
| would still be true they cannot (now) access the data.
| cesarb wrote:
| > No, that does not suggest none exists, it only says they
| don't have access to it. They could have chosen or have been
| ordered to give the keys to the government agency but not keep
| one themselves.
|
| The whole _definition_ of "end-to-end encrypted" is that
| _only_ the two ends have the keys. If anyone or anything other
| than the two ends (the one sending and the one receiving) has
| access to the keys, it 's not end-to-end encrypted.
| bux93 wrote:
| Whatsapp has had end-to-end encryption since 2016. But it
| only added encryption to cloud backups in 2021. They didn't
| share any key material with Google, just backed up the
| messages and media without any encryption to begin with.
| botanical76 wrote:
| This is so disheartening. I thought we were making progress in
| the anti-surveillance privacy narrative, but this says otherwise.
| As a UK citizen, is there anything I can do to dissuade this?
|
| edit: typo
| csmattryder wrote:
| > I thought we were making progress in the anti-surveillance
| privacy na[rra]tive
|
| What lead to to believe that? The Conservatives and
| Conservative-Continuity governments both agree that our data
| simply must be in the hands of the police, DEFRA, and your
| local council.
|
| RIPA will never be repealed and only strengthened.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I don't disagree with your analysis but i wouldn't be so
| fatalistic. This stuff _isn't_ inevitable and i think it's
| possible to win people over to our side. Things can change
| for the better, but they won't unless people who care don't
| give up
| csmattryder wrote:
| Ahh, I used to have that opinion, but I've encountered too
| many "It's fine if they want it, I've got nothing to hide"
| people. (They never give you their Facebook password if you
| ask, though. Funny, that.)
|
| Change what you can, I say, VPN on the network device.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| focus on the John Oliver dick pic argument.
|
| https://www.wired.com/2015/04/john-oliver-edward-snowden-
| dic...
|
| > When Oliver shows Snowden evidence that all typical
| Americans care about is whether the government can see
| our "dick pics," he encourages Snowden to go through a
| list of every government surveillance program and explain
| its capabilities in terms of access to "dick pics."
| chupasaurus wrote:
| One of my all-time favorites:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41595924
| snapcaster wrote:
| Yeah totally see your point, i'm just not ready to give
| up yet
| maeil wrote:
| > As a UK citizen, is there anything I can do to dissuade this?
|
| If you voted for this Tory-lite government, then you can stop
| voting for any future Tory-lite governments. If you did not,
| there's not much you can do in practice without devoting your
| life to it.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Coupd protest on weekends and holidays as a hobby, bring a
| Bluetooth speaker and blast the kinks.
| gambiting wrote:
| Well, in the UK _just planning_ a non-violent protest can
| get you 5 years in prison as many people have already
| discovered. Protesting has been pretty much made illegal by
| a very broad legislation that defines any protest that
| causes "disruption" as illegal - what "disruption" means
| is up to interpretation of course.
| bluGill wrote:
| Which just means you need a large group to protest. They
| can arrest 10,000 people no problem, but get several
| million together and you have an army. Best is to get
| some of the actually army/police with you so that when
| (not if!) they try to get violent you can make it clear
| this is a revolution they won't win.
|
| I hope it never reaches the above level, but always
| remember that remains an option.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah but to get a million people together you need to
| plan for it first, and that's where they get you :P It's
| honestly shocking the state of things in the UK in that
| regard. I'm surprised there isn't more outrage around it,
| even the people I know who used to say they _hate_ the
| Just Stop Oil protesters expressed shock that they 've
| been given 5 years for just talking about a protest, not
| actually doing it.
| foldr wrote:
| I don't support the legislation you're referring to, but
| I think you're painting an exaggerated picture
| (unfortunately a common theme of these threads on HN
| about the UK). You can easily find examples of recent
| protests in London:
| https://news.google.com/search?q=protests%20london&hl=en-
| GB&...
| gambiting wrote:
| Note how I didn't say that protests don't happen in the
| UK. They obviously do. But the problem is that now that
| effectively every protest has been made illegal due to
| the fluid definition of what "disruptive" means, the
| enforcement is arbitrary. Just stop oil protesters?
| Thrown in jail. Protesting in front of the Chinese
| embassy? Carry on. That's the problem with the broad
| legislation in the UK - government wants to have the
| power to spy on everyone, but obviously it doesn't mean
| everyone will be spied on. Just people who do something
| the government doesn't like.
| InTheArena wrote:
| Yeah know, at some point a historical review would suggest
| that the constant stream of labour led initiatives to end
| privacy might indicate that the problem is not just the
| tories.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| But the Tories are not in power. Can't labour just repeal it?
| bluehatbrit wrote:
| Labour have no problem with it, just the same as the Online
| Safety Act which is causing chaos right now. They're fine
| with the legislation and have never expressed a desire to
| see it repealed. They didn't even do much to prevent it in
| the first place.
|
| This is what the parent comment is getting at when they say
| "Tory-lite".
| robertlagrant wrote:
| What they're not getting at is that this isn't
| particularly a Tory thing.
| yunruse wrote:
| "Tory-lite" is a pejorative for Labour, the implication
| being that they are almost identical in behaviour.
|
| (I very much agree with the sentiment...)
| briandear wrote:
| Labour caused it. Why would they repeal what they want?
| Jigsy wrote:
| Which party do you think passed the "Tell us your password
| or go to prison law" to begin with?
|
| (Hint: It certainly isn't Tory.)
|
| It's also one of the reasons why I will never vote Labour
| as long as I live.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| My sweet summer child. It's a false dichotomy, like most of
| these types of issues, it has actual bipartisan support.
|
| Same thing happens in many other countries no matter how
| strongly HN users want to tell you A is literally hitler
| and B is great.
| briandear wrote:
| Wait. The Tories aren't in power yet you want to attribute
| this to "Tory-lite?" It's the Labour Party that is in charge,
| so why not put the blame on the actual perpetrators? Is it
| because you don't want Labour getting blamed? I am confused.
| The Labour Party is the one jailing people for speech, so it
| follows that they would want backdoors into iCloud so they
| can better investigate ThoughtCrime.
|
| The director of public prosecutions of England and Wales,
| Stephen Parkinson (appointed by the Labour Attorney General),
| warned against "publishing or distributing material which is
| insulting or abusive which is intended to or likely to start
| racial hatred. So, if you retweet that, then you're
| republishing that and then potentially you're committing that
| offense [incitement to racial hatred]."
|
| He added further, "We do have dedicated police officers who
| are scouring social media. Their job is to look for this
| material, and then follow up with identification, arrests,
| and so forth."
|
| This isn't "Tory-lite," this is Labour.
|
| Sources: https://freespeechunion.org/labours-war-on-free-
| speech/
|
| https://x.com/skynews/status/1821178852397477984?s=46
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Parent seems to be attempting to discredit, not protect,
| Labour by calling them "Tory-lite".
| maeil wrote:
| I'm very surprised that I got as many as three replies by
| people who interpred my comment this way! You got it
| right indeed.
|
| I'm a bit confused though, surely if I call someone
| "Hitler-lite" this couldn't possibly be inteprered as
| something positive, haha. Maybe it's just tribalist
| reflexes, or maybe I did word things strangely.
| tim333 wrote:
| This stuff started from the Online Safety Act 2023 passed
| under Rishi Sunak's Tory government.
|
| For some reason Americans, including Musk, go all partisan
| and feel the need to blame speech restriction on the lefty
| party but it's not what happened.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| No, it started with the Regulation of Investigatory
| Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), passed under Tony Blair's Labour
| government.
|
| I'll skip the same extreme partisan rant, but replacing
| Musk with Soros or whoever.
| Lio wrote:
| Which party, with a realistic chance of being first past the
| post, could you vote for that wouldn't bring this in?
|
| This is Hobson's choice as far as I can see.
|
| I don't think there's anyone you could currently vote for
| that wouldn't do this.
| maeil wrote:
| You know the answer, of course with FPTP there's only two
| parties with a realistic chance. But why do they? Because
| you keep voting on them. Your votes made e.g. Corbyn lose
| but Starmer win. What signal does this give off? A very
| different signal than if _both_ would 've lost. Would
| another Tory government would have been even worse? In the
| short term, maybe. But this kind of short-termism is what
| has got Labour (and all of the other similar parties all
| over Europe) in this exact predicament. Better to make them
| lose for picking an awful candidate that's a Tory-lite and
| bite the bullet. It's not like the Tories would have kept
| winning for decades on end with the way things were going.
| Lio wrote:
| I'm sorry but Corbyn was a terrible choice as Labour
| leader, and I vote Labour in that election!
|
| He was unelectable for a variety of reasons.
|
| Here's three:
|
| Wanting to pull out of NATO and instead appease Putin.
|
| Lying about being forced to sit on the floor of what was
| later shown to be an empty train.
|
| Basically doing nothing during the Brexit fiasco.
|
| He was just gaff after gaff.
| rvz wrote:
| > If you voted for this Tory-lite government
|
| If you agree that Brexit happened under the Tories and not
| Labour, then we can also agree that THIS order is happening
| under the newly elected "Labour Party" and not the "Tories",
| or so-called "Tory-lite" names.
|
| It's completely pointless trying to remove accountability of
| this government's illogical actions and then to immediately
| resort to blaming the previous government for bad decisions
| like this one.
|
| Just admit that this is under the Labour government.
| zahllos wrote:
| RIPA and key disclosure law came in under Tony Blair's
| labour government as well, along with https://en.m.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/Communications_Data_Bill_200..., arguably the
| precursor idea to the IPA that this notice was issued
| under.
| maeil wrote:
| Huh? You completely misunderstood what I meant by that
| moniker. In no way at all does it absolve them of blame -
| quite the opposite, it's calling them nearly as bad, so
| close that the difference doesn't really matter.
| snapcaster wrote:
| In my mind, the only way to beat these efforts for good is to
| win hearts and minds of the larger public. Currently because
| only weirdos like us care about this stuff, we have to
| constantly be on top of these things and writing letters making
| posts etc.
|
| Overall i agree with you, it is really disheartening. That
| being said, i've made progress with my family on valuing
| privacy and the dangers of surveillance. I think people might
| be changing their minds slowly but still lots of work to do.
|
| A breakthrough with my sisters was when abortion was threatened
| here in the states. Mentioned to them that it would be easy for
| authorities to enforce abortion punishments by subpoenaing data
| from menstruation cycle tracker apps. This kind of "clicked"
| for them and they became more open to the other parts (not
| given ratukan or whatever their purchase history, etc. etc.)
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Thought experiment: let's say that Trump said that he thinks
| Apple is helping hide illegal immigrants because they are
| communicating with each other over channels that ICE can't
| decrypt, how much pressure do you think he could put on
| legislatures to pass a law here?
|
| Now let's say that some Republican Senators and
| Representatives were ethically opposed to but then threatened
| to be primaried and President Musk said he would throw all of
| his money behind a potential opponent, how long do you think
| it would take a law to be passed?
|
| Even without a law, we already see that Cook will willingly
| bend a knee to Trump as will Google.
|
| Right now in my home state the governor was trying to get a
| law passed banning Western Union from allowing illegal
| immigrants from sending money overseas.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I'm not sure what the hypothesis is in your experiment, i
| agree that all that stuff is really bad
| scarface_74 wrote:
| That all it takes is the co-presidents to say that by
| giving up your freedom we can get rid of those "evil
| illegal immigrants" and enough people will give up their
| rights.
| brandon272 wrote:
| > I thought we were making progress in the anti-surveillance
| privacy narrative, but this says otherwise.
|
| I think we are perhaps the lowest point ever in terms of anti-
| surveillance efforts. There seems to be bipartisan effort among
| many (most?) western governments that the government should
| have unfettered access to all data, regardless of any
| reasonable expectation of privacy.
|
| Encryption seems barely tolerated these days. Governments are
| insisting on backdoors, they are making it illegal in some
| cases for companies to even discuss what is going on or that
| monitoring is happening.
|
| We barely know what is going on with the programs and efforts
| that get leaked to the media, much less the programs that
| operate in total secret.
| cbeach wrote:
| Let's start supporting parties that have principles.
|
| And stop making excuses for parties that don't (i.e. Labour,
| Lib Dems and Conservatives).
|
| At the moment, the UK public (and media) considers it a sport
| to disparage and smear parties like Reform, whose leaders want
| to shrink the power and over-reach of the state.
|
| We are so concerned with appearing virtuous and internationally
| generous, we cannot be seen to align with a party that wants to
| put UK citizens first (border security? deporting dangerous
| criminals back to their home nation? gasp, how could we be so
| ghastly!)
|
| This self-defeating attitude needs to change if we want a
| better future for our children.
| rvz wrote:
| > Let's start supporting parties that have principles.
|
| The problem is that there are none.
|
| The correct assessment of all these political parties is that
| by default, they all cannot be trusted. Especially both
| labour and the conservatives.
|
| > This self-defeating attitude needs to change if we want a
| better future for our children.
|
| Yes. The second problem is that the United Kingdom is
| incapable to changing itself historically and is
| fundamentally destined to _never_ be open to change.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Probably helps if the next time they try to remove the rights
| of large segments of the populace based on medical choices,
| lock people down, track them and propose vaccine passports,
| that you realize where everything is headed and oppose it
| vocally.
|
| It's always through the appearance of good intentions and a
| public that pushes for whatever narrative they're fed that they
| normalize this.
|
| People love and want more of this, not less.
| maeil wrote:
| From the macrumors thread:
|
| > So much for personal liberties. I'd like to give Labour the
| benefit of the doubt and assume this is a holdover from the last
| government knowing how fast the civil service actually works but
| given the Tory 3.0 plan they are going with I wouldn't put it
| passed them.
|
| >We didn't vote for this.
|
| You very much did vote for this, you voted for Labour under Keir
| Starmer and he did not particularly hide his being tory-lite. If
| one is surprised by this they must not have paid any attention
| before voting.
| scrlk wrote:
| Have people forgotten the authoritarian tendencies of the
| 1997-2010 Labour governments? This is nothing new.
| blibble wrote:
| quite why Labour deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything
| authoritarian I don't know
|
| Labour was behind: - forced key disclosure
| (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000), still in force
| - 72 day detention without charge (Terrorism Act 2006),
| defeated before it became an Act - national identity
| register and mandatory id cards (Identity Cards Act 2006),
| ripped up by the next Tory government - various
| attempts at removal of ancient right to trial by jury
| (partially successful)
|
| they are as bad, if not worse than the tories
| zahllos wrote:
| As I posted under another comment, https://en.m.wikipedia.org
| /wiki/Communications_Data_Bill_200... - communications data
| bill 2008 / interception modernisation programme. A precursor
| to what became the IPA.
| Jigsy wrote:
| Didn't they abolish double jeopardy and introduce secret
| trials as well?
| blibble wrote:
| yes, more Jack Straw specials
| physicsguy wrote:
| Labour are social democrats, not classical liberals...
| mistercheph wrote:
| Yeah yeah vote for the other clowns next time, they'll
| definitely roll back these totalitarian policies :)
| sharpshadow wrote:
| Question: Would it be technically feasible to make an Apple app
| which encrypts/decrypts the files used in iCloud and is able to
| use iCloud itself?
|
| As a solution to never have unencrypted files in iCloud.
| layer8 wrote:
| That's only possible for the files owned by the app. Apps have
| no access to other unrelated apps' iCloud data.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| My gf doesn't have iCloud. She makes a backup from time to time
| by connecting her iphone to her macbook, encrypts the backup
| folder with 7z, and then I store the resulting file in my
| dropbox.
|
| I follow the same procedure with my Android phone, no google
| cloud.
|
| BTW anything I upload to Dropbox is encrypted first.
| echelon_musk wrote:
| In case you don't already know, if you don't encrypt an
| iPhone backup with macOS first the backup won't contain _all_
| of your data.
|
| Apple says "Encrypted backups can include information that
| unencrypted backups don't" however the list they give is non-
| exhaustive. You might find yourself disappointed when trying
| to restore a non-encrypted backup that you've encrypted
| yourself in a disaster scenario.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Thanks, will tell her to encrypt twice. Anyway, there is no
| critical info there, mainly photos.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Apple basically already has this built into macos - you can
| create an encrypted disk image and mount it to access the
| files. I'm not sure if it is possible to open these on ios.
| fotta wrote:
| Cryptomator does this and it's on the App Store. And it's open
| source! https://github.com/cryptomator/ios
| captainbland wrote:
| Given recent polling, we have to assume that what is MI5's today
| will be Reform's tomorrow. We have to ask what our government and
| judiciary are doing putting our privacy in the hands of the far-
| right.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I never understood this kinds of arguments... both sides want
| to read your private data, but it's bad if 'the other side'
| does it? It's your current MI5/government that wants access to
| apples data.
| janice1999 wrote:
| One side wants to purge large parts of the population and the
| other one doesn't. Yes, all parties can abuse data, but their
| policies do actually matter.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I think if you value privacy this isn't the right place to
| be making distinctions between parties. This only serves to
| alienate people and isn't the core argument.
|
| I think it's more likely to get broad support when framed
| as us vs. them where "us" is normal working people
| regardless of political affiliation and "them" is our
| government elites trying to spy on us.
| captainbland wrote:
| No, sorry, I've read too much history to buy into this
| line of reasoning. Authoritarians are a concrete threat
| to people's safety and they have a long history of
| abusing sensitive information about people to do so.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I think maybe we're talking past each other. I'm saying
| that when advocating for privacy, an effective framing
| (if winning privacy rights battles is the goal) is to
| make it "us" vs. "them" instead of some kind of party
| based push.
|
| If it's associated too strongly with a specific party it
| alienates too many people to ever get mass support and
| become a fundamental value that "everyone" agrees on
| captainbland wrote:
| I do see what you're trying to say. It's just that
| authoritarian supporters of privacy are a bit of an
| internal contradiction. Either they're fooled or are
| being disingenuous.
|
| It's no good having people arguing for "privacy for me
| but not for thee", which is what it will boil down to.
| Ultimately authoritarians will use anything which gives
| them influence and control, with digital privacy
| violations being one of the easiest to rationalise (no
| violence, no physical theft).
|
| So I don't see it as worthwhile trying to include such
| individuals in such a consensus. It's like trying to
| include foxes in a discussion about how we should best
| secure hen houses.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Yeah that makes sense, can't really disagree. i'm just
| always wary of othering large swaths of the population as
| beyond hope. I think so many powerful groups are invested
| in making us all hate eachother and in my experience
| we're all a lot more similar than we think
| captainbland wrote:
| Yeah I do actually relate a lot to what you're saying. I
| should emphasise though that such individuals may still
| be worth reaching. I don't think most people stay lost
| causes indefinitely. But you have to break down the
| desire to support authoritarianism first before it makes
| sense to tackle digital privacy.
|
| Unfortunately that just means there's a lot more sticky
| work untangling the kind of tribalistic politics we find
| ourselves in today.
| snapcaster wrote:
| 100%. It's an uphill battle for sure
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| The other one isn't even voted in yet, hasn't done anything
| yet, and the current one already wants the data, that they
| shouldn't get.
|
| The current ones are already abusing their power, and the
| other one might hypothetically do something, if and when
| and if at all.
|
| This is like Alice making it legal and then punching you in
| the face and instead of you "punching back", you say "this
| is fine, but Bob is bad, because if he gets voted in, he'll
| punch harder".
| captainbland wrote:
| Generally speaking it is worse if a party who is
| ideologically inclined to do something bad to you reads it,
| yes.
| Retr0id wrote:
| One is bad in principle and the other is also bad in
| practice. Both are very bad but the latter is more likely to
| move people to action.
| botanical76 wrote:
| My interpretation is that it is an argument against trust in
| authority in privacy discussions.
|
| A: Privacy matters! B: Why should you care if you have
| nothing to hide? A: If you have nothing to hide, then give me
| the password to your Facebook. B: I don't trust you with
| that, but I trust my governments and relevant authorities.
|
| The point is that B's faith in authority is flawed as the
| "powers that be" are an eternally shifting target. By
| agreeing to government surveillance, you place trust in every
| subsequent government, even the ones you would rather not.
| captainbland wrote:
| Exactly this. What I'm talking about is just a specific
| instance of the generalised rule you've stated.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I always look at this from the other side...
|
| Side A abuses (legal, governmental) power, and instead of
| "lynching" them for that, we turn the issue into "this will
| become bad only because of side B will do the same". To me
| it looks like someone supports side A, and wants to limit
| the "badness" of whatever they did, but still can't support
| the thing, so they find the way out by claiming that the
| other side will do something bad with that data, as if the
| collecting the data (chats,...) isn't bad enough by itself.
|
| I understand your analogy with friends and facebook, and
| explaining that stuff to your grandma in this way would
| probably work... maybe even better if you used "your
| neighbor Sally works for the government, she could read
| your chats too, do you really want that?"... but on a
| technical "forum", it (to me) gives off very politically
| biased vibes.
| captainbland wrote:
| For what it's worth I don't support this Labour
| government one iota. I fully admit to being extremely
| biased against the Reform party, much in the same way
| that I'm biased against standing in front of a fully
| loaded 16 wheeler moving at 60mph.
| Oras wrote:
| Does it matter who has access to the data? It's the principal
| not the actor
| captainbland wrote:
| The actor informs the principal
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| If there were a way to magically ensure that only the good
| guys had access to the information, I'd be way less concerned
| about these measures. (There are only a few things that I
| care about being secret for the sake of secrecy, and I can
| easily keep those off of computers.)
|
| Every encryption backdoor is a huge vulnerability. Even if we
| somehow ensure that the powers-that-be remain entirely
| trustworthy (something that, historically, we can't even
| manage for a century), they're not the only people who'll
| have access to the backdoor. It's not _possible_ to make an
| encryption backdoor that only authorised parties can use: as
| they say, the laws of mathematics do not respect the laws of
| Australia.
| briandear wrote:
| It's a Labour government, not a "far right" government.
| captainbland wrote:
| I see from your history you may have knee jerked this one. I
| am referencing the far-right Reform party's current polling
| success and how this may be reflected in our government in
| the future.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Gross behavior. But not surprised. UK is a real surveillance
| state.
|
| In my honest opinion, in this specific context UK should be
| treated with the same scrutiny we treat China.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| Apple should tell those ignorant fuckwits to do one.
| ksec wrote:
| Just make TimeCapsule for iOS and iPadOS. With option to store it
| fully encrypted in AWS cold storage as Apple subscription.
| odyssey7 wrote:
| This might sidestep the current order, but the U.K.'s lawyers
| will just write a new order.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Any time someone on HN starts a reply with "Just..." you know
| they didn't think it through.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I was hoping this dreamland thinking on encryption had died with
| our last sorry excuse for a government.
|
| I thought we had grown ups running the show now. Clearly that was
| optimistic.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| It will be interesting to see if Apple will follow up on comments
| they made when this change was first floated, and remove effected
| services from the UK.
|
| > Apple says it will remove services such as FaceTime and
| iMessage from the UK rather than weaken security if new proposals
| are made law and acted upon.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66256081
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| The writing is on the wall for the UK, has been for long, and the
| Labour government is going out of the way to ensure there can
| never be any reform, even if they have no mandate. There is one
| way they want to go, and they will drag their population along
| kicking and screaming. Anyone who can should get out.
| krn1p4n1c wrote:
| The question is increasingly becoming "where?". Every place
| seems to be moving in this direction.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Probably South American somewhere.
| s_dev wrote:
| Not Ireland -- Ireland so far has been immune to any global
| veering to the right. There are efforts though -- just not
| successful.
| alkonaut wrote:
| What are you trying to say exactly? What kind of reform are you
| suggesting they make impossible? And how?
| negus wrote:
| Not surprised, considering UK's ridiculous key disclosure law
| (United Kingdom The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
| (RIPA), Part III, activated by ministerial order in October 2007,
| requires persons to decrypt information and/or supply keys to
| government representatives to decrypt information without a court
| order.) that makes anyone with high-entropy random data (which is
| undistinguishable from the crypto-container) a criminal for "not
| providing the keys to decrypt"
| Chance-Device wrote:
| This is the way that the UK has passed laws for a while now,
| make them so broad that they potentially criminalise everyone,
| then selectively prosecute. This is a very obvious setup for
| future totalitarianism. I'm surprised that the British public
| stands for it, but I guess they must not care.
| filcuk wrote:
| People here are very passive and used to being pulled around.
| It's insane how far people's rights have eroded already. No
| right to protest, no right for privacy - what's next on the
| chopping block?
| varispeed wrote:
| No right to own money. That will be taken away when cash is
| phased out.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| No right to be mean on social media, too.
| nxm wrote:
| Who defines what is mean? Oh yes, some unelected
| bureaucrat
| yesco wrote:
| Future totalitarianism? Is the UK's government restricted in
| anyway right now? What line have they not crossed yet?
| Chance-Device wrote:
| As far as I know they haven't started murdering political
| opponents yet, so that's something. But I take your point,
| the UK is today not a serious country for a variety of
| reasons.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| Are there really any political opponents any more? Al the
| parties that matter are either explicitly in favour of
| these ideas or at least behave as though they are.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > I'm surprised that the British public stands for it, but I
| guess they must not care.
|
| I can educate people but it always comes back to "I've not
| got anything to hide". What are we suppose to do, go out to
| the streets and protest? Start a petition, right to a PM who
| has no idea what encryption is?
|
| Mentioning Linux to my family opens a can of worms. We are
| naive to think protesting actually changes something, it's
| old fashion. Those with power just don't care so unless
| people attack with their wallets nothing will come from.
|
| It's not 1995 so unless you have PS for lobbying surrounded
| by people in suites there is nothing public of any nation can
| do against anyone in power.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| Don't you think maybe this attitude is part of the problem?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Not at all. We should be banding together to make the
| next best thing but people are lazy, but who can blame
| them? Easier to just press the big red NetFlix button and
| then order food on GrubEats.
|
| I'm being realistic, in the capitalist world we live in
| unless you have assets, power your worth nothing.
|
| You have no voice, no power, ever. Where's the futuristic
| project that saves the world? I'm sure the next
| JavaScript library posted on the front page of HN will be
| it.
|
| I hate to be "woke" and break it to you that in this
| reality that your just a schmuck to an entity who's
| paying you to ensure that your powering their machine
| with bare benefits; if your lucky. Many homeless folk out
| there.
|
| Heck, if you've got a job after this ML/AI fluff, you
| must be good at it. I'm 35 and above cynical at this
| point, I see no hope in this world from both people and
| those who run the show.
|
| Take it as you wish, I wouldn't hold it against mother
| earth imploding herself because of the vile the homo
| sapiens race has become. Anyway, back to our designated
| cubicles within the walled gardens we opted for.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > I'm being realistic, in the capitalist world we live in
| unless you have assets your worth nothing. You have no
| voice, no power, ever.
|
| Describe a better (on average) world and let's try it.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Less convenience, more care. More respect, less extreme
| actions. Effective penalities issued to those who break
| the rules.
|
| A fine to a $multinational company isn't punishment.
| Strip their assets from.
|
| More respect for one another would uphold so much more
| positivity in this world, but no we must judge and align
| folk in to groups. We are still divided by diversity.
| It's 2025 and we still have issues over someone being
| black, white or in-between.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I don't know how any of that would translate into a
| replacement for capitalism, except for capitalism with
| less plastic?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Capitalism isn't inherently bad. It works well with
| respect.
|
| But in this day and age capitalism has gotten so rootless
| that nothing is done when the power in question abuses
| their power. There is no respect in today's capitalism,
| upgrade respect and you'll have upgraded capitalism. we
| only go to war because of lack of respect.
|
| Turn the page of the plastic age. I'm now rate limited so
| that's my digital protesting done for today. Not that
| anyone has taken side and protested with but would rather
| point how my ideology is wrong and not contributing to
| what they would do. But I'm sure you'll be buying your
| pickets off amazon and walking around town with them only
| to be tossed aside after the rally this Saturday for them
| to do something comfy either whether it being Netflix,
| gaming or porn.
|
| But that's okay it's why I do litter picking out of civil
| respect; not enough. That way I can pick up the crap that
| people think they are fighting for as my power of
| fighting back. When you do go for a smoke, throw the butt
| on the street, spit on the pavement I'll be there
| scrubbing that too. Where's the respect? But, hey. People
| suck we know this. Companies suck more.
|
| Can you threaten class-action lawsuits? If so: Donald,
| Elon, Jeff, America, UK, Israel, Russia, Microsoft,
| Google, Apple; you name it. If $entity has treated the
| world with hurt, you have no respect. Is that what you
| want to hear? Because that's true capitalism.
|
| Sugar coated? Close your eyes and turn on the TV;
| especially the news. Pick a side and enjoy the slaughter.
| You'll be dead soon.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Sorry, I'm genuinely confused about what you're saying.
| If you think no one is worried about plastic except you I
| honestly don't know how you could possibly get that
| impression.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| You keep bringing up plastic yet I've not mentioned.
| Maybe read my first post you replied to again and
| understand the world is fucked because of faults.
|
| Turn the page of the plastic age? We all live in a
| plastic age. Everything is plastic your phone is too.
| Wars are plastic. Plastic is OLD. Turn the page.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| You agree. You did mention plastic.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| I do agree. I had edited my original topic post as I
| didn't like how I had phased my sentence. For sentence
| coherency; I do that.
|
| Is this a problem?
| 63 wrote:
| They have this power precisely because you have given up.
| Government power is derived from the consent of the
| goverened. Collective action does work and always will, but
| it needs to be coordinated. If enough people in the UK
| stopped going to work, they could affect change pretty
| quickly I reckon.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > They have this power precisely because you have given
| up.
|
| I've not given up, I just don't follow outdated methods
| of means to take back power. I use my wallet, I don't
| shop at amazon.
|
| Stop being a consumer and supporting a ego who supports
| the wars, causes your protesting against. That would be
| the next greatest thing but we are too convenienced by
| these services.
|
| Contradiction much? One where we would rather go and
| protest, head home and then go and support companies that
| do the opposite of what your fighting for. That is why
| protests are flawed. I'd rather be out on a Saturday
| picking up litter (like I do) than be at a protest and
| that's not just because I don't support the cause.
|
| I just see the it as a old-fashioned method that doesn't
| apply to today's new powers. You can't fight for power
| and then oppositely go and do the opposite nor can you
| fight when the power is to corrupt. Level the playing
| field is all you can do.
|
| Innovate, create and throw it back in their faces and
| don't sell out when the FANG bites you with your cheque.
|
| > Collective action does work and always will, but it
| needs to be coordinated.
|
| Of course, but who wants to coordinate it. Why not
| yourself, adding to who wants to be put on a hit list? I
| get executed and then what, It all goes back to how it
| was. The Boeing whistleblowers ended up dead, any
| recourse from that?
| tim333 wrote:
| Brit here. Yeah from my experience people don't care. Hardly
| anyone gets prosecuted and those who do have often done
| something bad.
|
| Most day to day complaints are they don't prosecute enough,
| often related to the bastard that snatched your phone. We
| have approximately zero people sitting in jail for failing to
| decrypt and similar.
|
| >This is a very obvious setup for future totalitarianism.
|
| No it really isn't. If they are planning a totalitarian
| takeover they are being very sneaky about it. There is a
| strong anti totalitarianism tradition here including
| elections since 1265, writing books like 1984 and bombing
| nazis.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| Today, maybe, even so it probably depends on who you ask.
|
| The thing about giving your rights away is that it's very
| difficult to get them back, and you never know who "they"
| are going to be in the future.
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm not sure "giving your rights away" quite sums up the
| process. It's more as a Brit, and probably most of us,
| weren't even aware this bill was happening - the
| government passes many pages of dull legislation - but if
| it proves a pain you can always vote for whoever offers
| to repeal it. I suspect the encryption law vs Apple is
| going to result in the government backing down to some
| extent.
|
| We did rebel over ID cards. Passed in 2006, repealed in
| 2011.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
| kypro wrote:
| Brit here.
|
| > Hardly anyone gets prosecuted and those who do have often
| done something bad.
|
| Perhaps often they've done something bad, but sometimes
| they haven't, that's the point. Obviously this is wrong and
| you shouldn't be so passive about it.
|
| > If they are planning a totalitarian takeover they are
| being very sneaky about it. There is a strong anti
| totalitarianism tradition here including elections since
| 1265, writing books like 1984 and bombing nazis.
|
| I'd argue people in the UK today like to adopt the label of
| being anti-authoritarian and anti-totalitarian, but in
| reality most people here, including our politicians, quite
| like authoritarianism.
|
| For example, people here often argue things like "I support
| free speech, but obviously insulting someone for their
| identity is wrong". So in the UK we apparently have free
| speech and I can apparently criticise religious people, but
| at the same time just this week someone in the UK was
| arrested for burning a bible.
|
| You see this hypocrisy constantly in the UK... "I'm not an
| authoritarian, but smoking is bad". "I'm not an
| authoritarian, but you can't be saying that". "I'm not an
| authoritarian, but if you're worried about mass
| surveillance you probably have something to hide". "I"m not
| authoritarian, but you can't just let people have private
| data on an encrypted device which the government can't
| access".
|
| The UK is very authoritarian these days, but unlike other
| parts of the world people here deny it while arguing in
| favour of more of it.
|
| There's nothing necessarily wrong with being authoritarian
| and wanting the government to have more control either.
| Clearly many countries find this type of government
| appealing, but lets at least be honest about it. We don't
| want kids on social media. We don't want people smoking. We
| don't want people being about to call people names on
| Twitter. We don't want people burning religious texts. We
| don't want people being free from government surveillance.
| cbeach wrote:
| I've tried to explain the issues with the UK government's
| stance on digital privacy to my friends. The responses I get:
|
| * I have nothing to hide, I don't care
|
| * Oh come on, our government doesn't care what I'm up to
|
| * The UK will never be totalitarian. I'm not scared of the
| government
|
| * The UK civil service is incompetent and could never pull
| this off (fair point, although I worry about the safety of my
| personal data in the hands of such people)
|
| Let's not forget we had a hard-left (Corbyn) socialist regime
| come close to power, whose cabinet members called for "direct
| action" against political opponents, just a few years ago.
|
| https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-john-mcdonnell-
| s-c...
|
| I don't think people realise how quickly things could go
| wrong with these surveillance mechanisms in place, and
| spiteful, authoritarian politicians taking power.
| varispeed wrote:
| This is fuelled by notion that law enforcement is incompetent
| and doesn't work.
|
| If law enforcement won't catch criminal even if you had them
| all the details, evidence, witnesses, then average person
| thinks there laws are dead anyway as there is no one
| competent to enforce them.
| trallnag wrote:
| I'm not surprised at all
| varispeed wrote:
| It seems like perfect case to make multi-container encryption
| as default. That is different data will be revealed using
| different key and there is no way of knowing how many
| containers there are in the blob of data and not possible to
| prove someone is hiding a key.
| Puts wrote:
| This would mean that they would have access to everything stored
| in Keychain too if you have that synced with iCloud... Which I
| believe probably most people have. So they will essentially have
| access to millions of peoples email accounts then.
| bflesch wrote:
| They already have
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Does it mean they already have such a backdoor on all Android
| phones?
| Funes- wrote:
| Further proof against the idea that we live in "democracies", if
| anyone still believes that. We're at the hands of petty tyrants.
| Modern societies are surveillance hellholes, and it seems to only
| get worse and worse. So much for "progress".
| pentel-0_5 wrote:
| I think Technofeudalism, as Yanis Varoufakis put it, creates
| inverted totalitarianism where people are controlled not
| directly by government with guns but with corporations with
| access control and moderation power over apps that form the
| majority of the public commons, personal, and work lives. To
| resist this subjugation, individuals, municipalities, and
| groups, large and small, need to build their castles on the
| bedrock of non-profit co-op services in countries with strong
| privacy safeguards rather than on the uncertain sands of
| corporate shores where they will be swept away by the next
| wave. It's expensive, it's starting from scratch it many cases,
| and not going to be as immediately polished as corporate
| offerings, but the socioeconomic and human capital won't be as
| easily destroyed, manipulated, or raided by police or corporate
| whims.
| IceHegel wrote:
| Certainly this decision seems intended to defend the state more
| than the people.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I think this is unnecessarily defeatist. The UK is still a well
| functioning democracy. Using scare quotes around proper
| democracy just blurs the line to authoritarians and dictators.
|
| We elect our politicians. We demand they stop serious crime and
| terrorism. When they have bad ideas about how to do that, we
| let them know that it's a bad idea. Or we don't elect them
| again. This works.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| I think you'll find that the majority of UK's citizens believe
| its government should be able to access data with a warrant.
| Whether the demos agree with your particular values is another
| matter, but this is not obviously undemocratic, unlike royal
| assent.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Thats nothing yet, just wait until we have no reals cash, just
| electronic money. This will be fun _NOT_
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Surprising that UK specifically demanded a worldwide backdoor,
| not just backdoor for UK citizens. Looks like a good workaround
| for this US gov to get info on Americans via 5 eyes.
|
| DOGE was recently unable to obtain data on Americans
| (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elon-musks-doge-
| deal...), maybe related...
| Take8435 wrote:
| > DOGE was recently unable to obtain data on Americans
| (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elon-musks-doge-
| deal...), maybe related..
|
| They had read/write data for a few days before being denied
| access https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-associate-bfs-
| federal-...
| mrcwinn wrote:
| You cannot acknowledge the existence of a request by the UK. You
| cannot tell users you implemented the proposed system. And you
| must do all of this to citizens who have no representation in
| your system, without the consent of their governments.
|
| It all begs the question, what else have they requested, and of
| those which requests were accepted secretly?
|
| Truly a pathetic example of a democracy.
| alkonaut wrote:
| There is only one way to respond to this. You just do not
| comply with this. If you are Apple you withdraw from the UK
| completely if necessary. But a better option is probably to
| just take the punishment for not complying while you appeal.
| The cost will be large regardless. But the reputational damage
| if Apple complies seems it will be larger than both the fine
| for noncompliance or the cost of losing all business in a large
| market like the UK.
|
| I think Apple has a very short window for a powerful response
| here. It should be re-using the famous Pirate Bay wording for
| maximum effect.
| gadders wrote:
| Imagine all the unfinished screenplays they will get access to.
| Lio wrote:
| I don't think the UK government would try to put Apple out of
| business if they don't comply it's more likely that they would
| just get heavily fined until they do so.
|
| The most likely outcome, I would guess, is that Apple just stop
| offering Advanced Data Protection as a service in the UK rather
| than create some kind of backdoor.
|
| It's a weak proposition from the government because anyone with
| something to hide will just move it somewhere else with
| encryption. Honest UK consumers are the one's getting the shitty
| end of the stick because we're about to loose protection from
| criminals.
|
| Daft waste of time.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| You're assuming that turning off ADP in the U.K. is sufficient
| to appease the British Government. The Investigatory Powers Act
| can also be interpreted to give the U.K. the right to ask for
| encrypted data from users outside of the U.K. (see Apple making
| this exact point in a filing here [1].) Turning off ADP in the
| U.K. doesn't end the controversy if that's what's at stake.
|
| [1]
| https://bsky.app/profile/matthewdgreen.bsky.social/post/3lhl...
| Spoom wrote:
| I mean, "Apple refuses to hand over private data to
| government at cost of UK business" is a pretty good headline.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Give me that sort of commitment to privacy and translucent
| colorful cases for future Macs and Tim Apple's got my money
| for the next five years at least.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Yes, this would be something i would love to read
| docmars wrote:
| Give Apple a big enough incentive to negotiate with and
| they may very well cave. If I've learned anything about
| corporations, it's that money and incentives always speak
| louder than their purported values.
| convolvatron wrote:
| this isn't apple weighing ethics against revenue. this is
| apple being forced to decide how much their pro-privacy
| marketing is really getting them in the market.
| hackernewds wrote:
| I will stop using a service or hardware that could grant
| peaking rights into my folders to a possible administration
| like the one currently in the US. On day 1, zero hesitation
| ForHackernews wrote:
| I have bad news for you...
| TechnicalVault wrote:
| It creates a nasty precedent doesn't it? If Apple can provide
| the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or
| China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or
| more likely dissidents in exile? I can't see on what basis
| the government thinks they're going to get to be exceptional
| here?
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Why are you using Russia and China as examples of the bad
| guys here. They're not asking for global access to
| everyones data, the UK is. The UK are the bad guys.
| outside1234 wrote:
| He is just trying to show how it would feel if the shoe
| was on the other foot.
| cbsks wrote:
| Because the UK is "on our side". We've always been at war
| with Eastasia.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| I dont think that is actually true in those cases.
|
| Relations with China were pretty cosy till they did a 180
| around the second Bush administration and started all
| that Wolf Warrior diplomacy, 9 dotted line stuff,
| Hongkong crackdowns.......
|
| Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it was
| absolutely impossible to ignore. Putin seems to think
| that he needs the west as an enemy to bolster his
| standing and power. Just remember after starting the full
| scale invasion he proudly declared "I hope I will now be
| heard" or something to that effect. In Russian mass media
| the imperial project has long been clear and accepted.
| cbsks wrote:
| It's a reference to 1984 by George Orwell. https://en.m.w
| ikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninet...
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| I know. I just dont think it fits particularly well with
| those cases.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it
| was absolutely impossible to ignore.
|
| Regarding Russia, people have cared since the Bolshevik
| Revolution in 1917. The fear of communism and concerns
| about Russia grew until the red scare in the 1920s,
| through the cold war, and continues to do this day. There
| has never been a single point in your life when "nobody
| really cared at all" about Russia.
|
| America's concerns over Russia died down a lot from what
| it was after the collapse of the USSR but never really
| went away. That said, if Putin hadn't been doing his best
| to fan the flames America would probably still be focused
| on the middle east as their new favorite boogeyman.
| sepositus wrote:
| Why did you assume the context was "bad guys?" It's a
| well-known fact that there's a lot of geopolitical
| tension between Russia/China and Western Europe. The
| comment is raising the point that by setting this
| precedent they are opening the doors for their
| geopolitical rivals to publicly do the same (we already
| know it happens through private state-sponsored cyber
| gangs).
| koiueo wrote:
| Because russia is a bag guy? (Idk about China, but
| considering they support russia...)
|
| Have you been living under a rock?
| koiueo wrote:
| I'll be explicit: russia is a terrorist state. Majority
| of russian population supports the unprovoked genocidal
| war it currently wages on Ukraine.
| SlavikCA wrote:
| Russia is no more terrorist state, than USA is.
|
| That was USA scorched Vietnam. That was USA killing
| civilians in Iraq and Afganistan. That was USA
| overthrowing foreign goverments, including Ukrainian...
| And then it preached to Russia on what to do with
| neighboring states...
| int_19h wrote:
| USA did a lot of nasty things. But since WW2, it did not
| invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them
| and forcibly assimilate their population.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with
| explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate
| their population.
|
| True but the current lunatic POTUS is essentially
| threatening that to 2 territories (Canada, Greenland),
| making noises towards part of a 3rd (Panama), and
| explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing in a 4th (Gaza).
| I think the USA's "we're not as bad as Russia" sheen is
| rapidly disappearing (which makes sense when you consider
| the two lunatics at the top are essentially considered to
| be Putin lackeys.)
| shwouchk wrote:
| Are you the speaker for the majority of the population?
|
| Or is that claim based on the election results, in a
| state where opposition leaders, journalists, war critics,
| or even simple lesbians get jailed for said "crimes"?
| koiueo wrote:
| Like any generalizing claim, mine has exceptions.
|
| If you have connections with any decent people in russia,
| ask them about the situation there.
|
| > simple lesbians get jailed for said "crimes"
|
| That's exactly the point.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| I read it as using Russia and China as the other guys,
| rather than the bad guys. The idea is to eliminate any
| pre-existing feelings of trust and illustrate the fact
| that once your data is held by anyone in the global
| intelligence community you should think of it as being
| held by everyone in the global intelligence community.
| dathinab wrote:
| > If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data,
| what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on
| UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile?
|
| nothing
|
| the first precedence of not-draft law here was Cloud Act I
| think
|
| through I would be surprised if China doesn't "de-facto"
| requires Chineese companies operating outside of China
| (including Subsidiaries) to cooperate with their secret
| service in whatever way they want
|
| and if we go back to the "crypto wars" of the ~2000th then
| there is a lot of precedence of similar law _ideas_ by the
| US which where turned down
|
| similar we can't say for sure that there aren't secret US
| court orders which already did force apple to do "something
| like that" for the FBI or similar, SURE there is a lot of
| precedence of Apple pushing back against backdoor when it
| comes to police and offline device encryption, but one
| thing is in the public and the other fully in secret with
| gag orders and meant for usage in secret never seeing the
| light of courts so while it's somewhat unlikely it would be
| foolish to just assume it isn't the case, especially if we
| go forward one or two years with the current government...
|
| Anyway UK might realize that now they have left the US they
| have very little power to force US tech giants to do
| anything _in the UK_ not even speaking about regulation
| which is a direct attack on the sovereignty of other states
| to own/control/decide about their population(s data).
|
| IMHO ignoring the US for a moment because they are in chaos
| the EU, or at least some key EU states should make a
| statement that a UK backdoor allowing UK to access EU
| citizen data would be classified as espionage and isn't
| permittable if Apple wants to operate in the EU (but
| formulated to make it clear it's not to put pressure on
| Apple but on the UK). Sadly I don't see this happening as
| there are two many politcans which want laws like that,
| too. Often due to not understanding the implications
| undermining encryption has on national security, industry
| espionage and even protection of democracy as a whole...
| Sometimes also because they are greedy corrupt lobbyist
| from the industry which produces mass surveillance tools.
| 8338550bff96 wrote:
| At what point is this just extortionary cash grab from U.S.
| tech companies?
|
| Want to fund some expensive grand program? Find a reason to
| fine U.S. companies.
| eastbound wrote:
| Why not. Their hegemony is used as a weapon of war, since
| 1998 when Microsoft was condemned-but-not-penalized for
| its monopoly. Make it costly for USA to spy & conquer.
| 8338550bff96 wrote:
| Let us see how that works out for you
| RobotToaster wrote:
| It's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes
| get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's
| citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizens the UK
| government want to spy on, and GCHQ spy on American
| citizens the US government want to spy on. So this would
| indirectly allow the US government to spy on US citizens
| (even more than it already does, anyway)
| ekianjo wrote:
| Why do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law?
| Ever heard of Snowden leaks?
| nemomarx wrote:
| one of the Snowden leaks was exactly about the five eyes
| countries coordinating in this way to dodge oversight
| though?
| 0xCMP wrote:
| Right, but the point is they went through the motions to
| attempt to follow the law. They weren't simply saying
| someone else was doing the work and then doing it
| themselves. They _at least attempt_ to follow the law
| internally. Which is not something we knew for certain or
| not in the public.
| taurknaut wrote:
| I think stuff like Parallel Reconstruction show that they
| _do_ care about the law. They care about working around
| it.
| autoexec wrote:
| That doesn't mean they care about the law, it just means
| that they care about maintaining the public perception
| that they care about the law. They're perfectly happy to
| keep up the pretense as long as they can still get what
| they want anyway, even if they have to add a couple extra
| inconvenient steps to the process. What they won't do is
| allow the law to stop them from getting what they want.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| Actually my takeaway from the Snowden leaks was that the
| government tried really hard to stay within the confines
| of the law, even if they wildly stretched the legal
| theory to get there.
|
| https://www.blankenship.io/essays/2020-07-13/
|
| Doesn't justify what they were doing, or make it legal,
| but it's an important distinction when trying to reason
| about government surveillance programs.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will
| hold up in court. You just have to have a sound bite that
| you can vomit up when someone says "Wait a minute, isn't
| that blatantly illegal?"
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will
| hold up in court.
|
| What? Why? The natural continuation of "Wait a minute,
| isn't that blatantly illegal?" is "We're going to sue you
| to make you stop."
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| At least in the context of the presidential surveillance
| program, the ACLU did sue to make them stop. But the
| program was classified which made getting evidence of the
| program's existence a crime. The supreme court ruled that
| they couldn't make a decision without evidence. Shortly
| after, Snowden leaked the evidence the supreme court had
| requested. That leak provided the ACLU the evidence
| necessary to bring the case back to the supreme court and
| win, "stopping" the program.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| So... what part of the program stopped?
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| It's in air quotes for a reason. Obama ran on promises to
| end it and protect whistleblowers like Snowden. Then he
| kept it alive under new branding and doubled down on
| vilifying whistleblowers like Snowden.
| throwing_away wrote:
| Well when you say it like that, it sounds like the
| government is an unstoppable bureaucracy that only cares
| about its own expansion.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| "We're going to sue you to make you stop" is exactly
| where you deploy the semilegal sound bite. You then use
| that as the public justification to stall, deny,
| countersue, delay, appeal, defend, depose and do
| everything you can to avoid a decision happening one way
| or the other until you've already gotten and done what
| you wanted to get and do.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| That strategy relies on courts always being slow and
| expensive though. It often feels like it, but that's not
| a universal truth of the court system. If the damage is
| high enough, courts can fast-track cases. Judges can also
| issue injunctions before the delays start, and if the
| argument is _too_ flimsy it can backfire on the
| defendant.
|
| I'll concede that if whoever's being sued is going to
| rely on secret legal interpretations like the
| NSA/intelligence agencies did with the FISA court
| rulings, then it makes things a lot trickier.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| >That strategy relies on courts always being slow and
| expensive though.
|
| It doesn't rely on them being slow and expensive, it
| forces them to be slow and expensive, or to abrogate your
| rights as a litigant in such a way that any decision they
| make will be overturned on appeal (which drags out the
| process even further). Courts can issue injunctions, and
| those injunctions can be appealed, dragging things out
| further. If the damage is high enough courts can fast
| track cases but what do you do about the 99.99% of cases
| where the damage isn't high enough, and who gets to
| decide when it is? If this doesn't work why does it keep
| working?
| kergonath wrote:
| Didn't these leaks precisely show that the agencies were
| effectively above the law? I mean, they tried to make it
| look like they were abiding by the regulations, but
| effectively tried every work around they could come up
| with. Including subcontracting domestic spying to foreign
| intelligence agencies, using the exact mechanism the
| parent mentioned? It seems you're contradicting them by
| making their point.
| palmotea wrote:
| > what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data
| on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in
| exile?
|
| Realistically: Apple is a US company (with lots of foreign
| entanglements) with US leaders, and the US and UK are close
| allies with extradition treaties and the like. I'd expect
| the US government to put _lots_ of pressure on Apple to
| prevent it from acting on such requests from Russia or
| China, and I wouldn 't be surprised if Apple execs would
| get slapped with espionage charges if they didn't head the
| warnings (especially if they "provide data on UK minister's
| phones").
| Habgdnv wrote:
| Imagine Kim Jong-un goes to a few police stations in North
| Korea. It might not work on the first try, but eventually,
| he manages to trick one officer into believing that Trump
| threatened him on Facebook. Now, the police of a given
| country can legally request Apple to provide all
| information from Trump's iCloud for an "investigation" into
| threats of violence-- even if they are completely
| fabricated.
| oneplane wrote:
| What stops them is one of two things:
|
| Option 1: they operate a separate shard in that country and
| that shared is only accessible by that country. Companies
| like Apple, AWS, Cloudflare etc. have been doing it this
| way in China for a while now. Result: they can spy on the
| stuff in their country, but the only stuff in their country
| is their own stuff.
|
| Option 2: no longer operate in an official capacity in that
| country. Have no people and no assets. Mostly works when
| the country is not a significant market. This usually means
| some things are only available grey market, black market or
| not at all. This is why certain products have lists of
| "supported countries" - it's not just ITAR stuff but also
| "we don't want to deal with their regime" stuff. Result:
| country gets nothing, no matter how loud they ask. Side-
| effect: you can't really risk your employees visiting such
| a country as they will be "leveraged".
| JusticeJuice wrote:
| There are tangentially similar precedents already, such as
| the American FACTA law. It is obviously a quite different
| context, as it just relates to financial information, not
| all information - but it's a law from the US government,
| that demands foreign companies send information back to the
| US.
|
| The wild thing is that foreign companies actually do it. To
| avoid annoying the US, a lot of other governments ensure
| that the data is reported.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Complianc
| e...
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| The key difference being that it is perfectly legal for
| the US to request data on income and gains received by US
| taxpayers while it is illegal for the US to spy (in
| certain ways) on US residents.
|
| It is completely routine for countries to exchange data
| on financial accounts [1]. The only aspect that makes
| FATCA somewhat unusual is that the US taxes US persons
| even when they are residents of other countries.
|
| [1] https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-
| manuals/international-excha...
| lmz wrote:
| It's legal in the same way this UK thing is legal -
| because there's a law justifying it. It may make more
| _moral_ sense, depending on your political persuasion.
| Miraste wrote:
| The US can get away with this through its immense power
| and economic influence (for the moment, at least). The UK
| is a small market of middling relevance, and their
| government's belief that they're a global power is an
| anachronism. I hope these decisions cause enough
| companies to break ties that they're forced to realize
| their position.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| We are watching the redefinition of the idea of territorial
| sovereignty that emerged from the Peace of Westphalia in
| 1648. We in the US see our expectations of privacy shaped
| in the UK, and the reverse.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| What if Apple just stops operating in the UK? They could
| start selling "English language" iPhones in France, let
| people go on a day trip if they wanted to buy them. There
| are ways of sidestepping this bullshit if you're an
| international company. Supposing they have any integrity, I
| mean. How far will the UK double down?
| arghwhat wrote:
| They might have to settle for it. The power of a government
| is not equal to what legislation they pass - they are heavily
| limited by the economic and publicity consequences of
| decisions.
|
| As such, any outcome where this is enforced will be a
| compromise.
| gist wrote:
| Guess what? Trump will (hopefully) come to the rescue here.
| Don't laugh at that. I'd imagine he will be helpful possibly
| even with some of the EU rules such as in particular the one
| which makes even small US companies liable (as I recal) for
| notifying users of cookies on a website.
| coolspot wrote:
| Tim Apple has been on inauguration, so very possible.
| varispeed wrote:
| Me thinks pervs connected to government want to see people
| nudes and look for crypto.
| chewz wrote:
| Don't know but from what I read current UK government is
| openly pervs friendly.
| talldayo wrote:
| They should work at an Apple store then:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-
| mult...
| sneak wrote:
| > _The most likely outcome, I would guess, is that Apple just
| stop offering Advanced Data Protection as a service in the UK
| rather than create some kind of backdoor._
|
| First, these are the same thing.
|
| Second, ADP is already off by default so approximately nobody
| uses it. It is irrelevant from a privacy standpoint whether or
| not they offer it.
| shwouchk wrote:
| ADP is a relatively new thing. it makes sense to roll it out
| gradually both from engineering POV as well as marketing.
|
| Further, as all other forms of e2ee, it makes you responsible
| for the encryption keys.
|
| As a user on the platform I am quite happy it is offered.
| Considering that these days it is quite difficult not to have
| a mobile device associated with "you" (you open links sent to
| "you" on your mobile device? consider that device compromised
| from privacy perspective), id rather it be on the platform
| with stronger protections.
| altairprime wrote:
| The UK government can't put Apple out of business; Apple can
| easily afford to simply exit all business in the UK. The UK is
| betting that Apple's greed outweighs their principles. Long
| odds.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _The UK is betting that Apple's greed outweighs their
| principles. Long odds._
|
| Three weeks ago, I would have agreed with you.
|
| Then Tim Cook wrote a check for $1,000,000.00 to help pay for
| Donald Trump's inauguration party.+
|
| In spite of what they led us to believe over the last couple
| of decades, Tim Cook and Apple are no different than any of
| the other tech companies genuflecting before the new emperor,
| whose stated goals are the opposite of the "mission, vision
| and values" lies we were fed by the tech industry.
|
| + In case you (or anyone else) missed it:
| https://variety.com/2025/biz/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-
| donates...
| altairprime wrote:
| As Apple isn't based in the UK and owes no fealty to their
| government. I don't agree that your citation is relevant
| here. Apple is a US company. Bribing local officials to
| overlook the gay founder is sensible corporate practices,
| however uncomfortable that is to consider. Revoking privacy
| guarantees globally, reversing years of public opinion
| gains overnight, is not. The UK cannot do anything to
| materially harm Apple in any way that Apple can't afford
| short of sending a double-oh to Cupertino.
| talldayo wrote:
| > As Apple isn't based in the UK and owes no fealty to
| their government
|
| Apple isn't based in China, they owe nothing to them
| either. Apple's willingness to backdoor and modify their
| services for actual authoritarianism is well[0]
| documented[1], at no point did they ever threaten to
| leave the respective markets. Every single spectator
| knows that Apple leaving these markets would be an
| admission of guilt.
|
| > Bribing local officials to overlook the gay founder is
| sensible corporate practices
|
| That hasn't been "sensible corporate practice" since
| American civil rights were instated. If that is the real
| motivation for Apple to pen their donation, it would be
| even more pathetic than a global encryption backdoor.
| It's not "uncomfortable" to consider, it's illegally
| discriminatory to a nonsense extent.
|
| What both of you are overlooking, and clearly what this
| entire thing is about, is antitrust enforcement. Tim Cook
| knows that Apple cannot survive if they are investigated
| by a fair commission, so he's trying to manipulate Trump
| into dropping the DOJ's cases, giving Apple unfair
| advantages vis-a-vis China and pressuring the EU into
| stopping their regulation. This is literally surface-
| level stuff if you even remotely understand Apple's
| commitment to shareholders and what drives their hardware
| and software margins in 2025. Everything else is
| advertisement and a chasing after wind.
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-
| russia-sta...
|
| [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754
|
| [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4d75zl212o
| Miraste wrote:
| Apple needs China. It's a big market that still
| manufactures most iPhones, despite their efforts to
| change that. The surveillance bill the UK has passed is
| in some ways _worse_ than China 's (a UK shard would not
| satisfy it), and the UK is far less important.
| Tyrannosaur wrote:
| > That hasn't been "sensible corporate practice" since
| American civil rights were instated.
|
| About that... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-equal-
| employment-opportun...
| int_19h wrote:
| One thing of note in those other cases is that they only
| required Apple to comply wrt its customers in the
| jurisdiction of the country in question. So in China,
| everything is backdoored, but it doesn't affect users
| elsewhere.
|
| In this case, the claim is that UK wants global
| backdoors, so Apple cannot comply quite so easily.
| ustad wrote:
| For $1 million, you're promised intimate access to Trump
| and his inner circle. This isn't just about tradition or
| unity-it's about buying influence and maintaining power. In
| a world where we're supposedly pushing for fairness,
| equality, and transparency, this feels incredibly
| hypocritical. It's as if we're endorsing a system where
| money talks louder than public interest or ethical
| considerations. It makes you wonder where the line is
| between modern capitalism and a system that operates more
| like an oligarchy.
| Miraste wrote:
| Of course Apple doesn't have principles, they're a for-
| profit company. What's in question here is whether they
| believe the UK is financially worth opening this can of
| worms. Following US government whims is good business for
| them in almost all cases, but that math isn't the same for
| the UK.
| hassleblad23 wrote:
| Governments have much more power than global companies, even
| though it seems that they are untouchable from the outside.
| karel-3d wrote:
| UK government wants a backdoor access to _all users, worldwide,
| irrespective of their nationality_.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| You're assuming people's actual motivations match up with their
| stated motivations. If your motivation is to be re-elected to a
| government post by appearing to be tough on terrorism and
| drugs, every possible outcome of this course of action benefits
| you. Apple leaves? They were terrorist enablers and you're
| better off without them. Apple acquiesces? You're the David who
| took on Apple's goliath and won safety for everyone (again,
| regardless of whether this actually improves safety for
| anyone). Apple ignores you? You have an ongoing feud with
| Dangerous Big Tech that you can campaign and fundraise on for
| as long as it lasts.
| mtillman wrote:
| A backdoor for one is an opportunity for many. Given the UK is
| completely incapable of outspending most of the world on
| compute, this effectively hands their enemies that data they're
| looking for.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > The most likely outcome, I would guess, is that Apple just
| stop offering Advanced Data Protection as a service in the UK
|
| Agreed.
|
| > Apple previously made its stance public when it formally
| opposed the UK government's power to issue Technical Capability
| Notices in testimony submitted in March 2024 and warned that it
| would withdraw security features from the UK market if forced
| to comply.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple...
| caycep wrote:
| I feel like the UK always tries to do this w/ encryption. I
| don't know if it's a cultural sway GCHQ has on legislators and
| such but it happens w/ every generation of cryptography.
| Weren't they the one that neutered GSM encryption such that it
| was essentially ineffective from the get go?
| st3fan wrote:
| "It's a weak proposition from the government because anyone
| with something to hide will just move it somewhere else with
| encryption."
|
| This. Whether it is an app to install on your phone or desktop
| or simply a website to use. People who need encryption to make
| sure their communication is private will _easily_ find ways
| around any kind of government snooping.
| SilasX wrote:
| >I don't think the UK government would try to put Apple out of
| business if they don't comply it's more likely that they would
| just get heavily fined until they do so.
|
| Sufficiently advanced "escalating fines until they comply" is
| indistinguishable from "putting them out of business".
| lakjsljlkj wrote:
| Sounds like you're assuming that UK's goal is to stop
| criminals. I don't think that's their goal. I think that's
| their cover story.
|
| As for Apple, their daily/hourly/whatever fines might be less
| than cost of a major ad campaign if they were to buy that
| publicity directly. Sounds like a good deal for them to refuse
| to honor the request.
| greenavocado wrote:
| It wouldn't be the first time Apple did extremely shady things
| for the government https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-
| the-top-secret-ip...
| resource_waste wrote:
| PRISM, blocking of apps in china, giving over that data to the
| CCP. I believe they did similar in Russia. The FBI hackings and
| Pegasus stuff (Although, this is more like bad security)
|
| I should emphasize that 'I personally don't care'. I find it
| more interesting that people believe there is some safety in
| Apple products because their marketing says so.
|
| When I was younger, I used to care about these people getting
| taken advantage of. Today, I wonder how I can replicate the
| formula. Sorry pals, Apple did it and people were happy about
| it. I'll make people happy too, its a Noble lie... err Paternal
| lie :)
| pastyboy wrote:
| "Stupid is as stupid does...", this is the same Home Office
| Minister, Yvette Cooper (Flipper) that says pointy kitchen knives
| and Amazon orders are the reason for knife crime epidemic in the
| UK. Next up x.com banned from the UK.
| n1b0m wrote:
| What is the reason?
| joey_spaztard wrote:
| My response would be along the lines of:
|
| "The USA fought a war in part because they did not like the use
| of general writs of assistance to allow agents of the British
| King to search peoples houses and papers where their suspicion
| chanced to fall. The UK lost that war so no way!"
| axus wrote:
| Apple Shrugged
| autoexec wrote:
| Not the strongest argument these days. There's no way that the
| US hasn't already backdoored apple's systems. They might not be
| sharing that access with your local law enforcement agencies,
| but you can bet that the NSA has a backdoor. They've likely set
| up camp inside Apple. (see
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A). It seems the US lost
| the war to stop kings from spying too.
| tempodox wrote:
| Maybe the EU should be glad that the UK is not a member any more.
| cedws wrote:
| The UK government drops the ball on just about every matter the
| public care about, but when it comes to overreaching digital
| surveillance, they're absolutely obsessed.
| talldayo wrote:
| _glances at FIVE-EYES_
|
| I wouldn't characterize the rest of the world as _not_
| obsessed, really.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42970412
| bn-l wrote:
| That is an extremely corrupt and authoritarian government.
| Malidir wrote:
| I assume its the USA using the UK to do its dirty work, as
| always?
|
| Hence why Trump was cheering on Starmer the other day, despite
| all that has gone on between them.
|
| Americans need to wake up and realise their state uses uk/israel
| to do what they don't want to be seen to be doing.
| devwastaken wrote:
| time to pull business out of the U.K. then.
| switch007 wrote:
| U.K. is as correct as U.S.A.
| octacat wrote:
| EU/UK is like: - we care about your privacy and will not allow
| censorship.
|
| And the next day this or blocking DeepSeek (in Italy).
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| In 10 years we'll all be shocked to discover this headline should
| have read "US Tells UK to Demand Apple Create Global iCloud
| Encryption Backdoor".
| brink wrote:
| Why would you suspect that the US pushed their hand on this?
| This is not out of character at all for the UK.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| Surely any moderately sophisticated group of criminals can simply
| create there own end to end encryption apps. So even if the UK,
| or other governments, get there own way they will only et to see
| the content related to the less competent criminals. Perhaps it's
| still worth it to some.
| zahllos wrote:
| As Encrochat/ANOM/Sky ECC show, not only is this possible, it
| actually happens.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| Encrochat was almost certainly a honeypot:
|
| > After the Dutch and Canadian police compromised their
| server in 2016, EncroChat turned into a popular alternative
| among criminals for its security-oriented services in
| 2017-2018. The founders and owners of EncroChat are not
| known. According to Dutch journalist Jan Meeus, a Dutch
| organized crime gang was involved and financed the
| developers.
| talldayo wrote:
| Surely they can make their own apps, but whether or not Apple
| will let them install it has always been a point of contention.
| f4c39012 wrote:
| Where is my iCloud data stored? If I visit China, is a copy
| stored there? If my phone is from China, but i live in the USA,
| where is my iCloud data? Is it replicated globally? I once asked
| in an Apple store, but no-one knew the answer
| f4c39012 wrote:
| don't know why the downvote, this is a genuine question. If i
| bought my iPhone on holiday in Vietnam and created my iCloud
| account there, but live in France, where is my iCloud?
| tredre3 wrote:
| Where your data is stored depends on the country set in your
| Apple Account. In your scenario your data will never be stored
| in China but I don't know if your USA-based account data is
| replicated in the EU, though.
|
| 1. https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754 says you can change
| your country to opt-out of GCBD.
|
| 2. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42631386 says "iCloud
| accounts registered outside of China are not affected."
| sneak wrote:
| There is already a global iCloud encryption backdoor.
|
| iCloud Backup is not end to end encrypted. iCloud Photos is not
| end to end encrypted.
|
| Apple can read all of your iMessages and see all of your photos.
|
| The governments where they operate can compel them to turn over
| this data. They can and do. Often.
|
| Operationally this doesn't really change much.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > iCloud Backup is not end to end encrypted. iCloud Photos is
| not end to end encrypted.
|
| DO NOT SPREAD FUD.
|
| If you could be bothered to spend two microseconds on a search
| engine, you would find this[1] which states IN THE FIRST
| PARAGRAPH :
|
| _For users who turn on Advanced Data Protection, the total
| number of data categories protected using end-to-end encryption
| rises from 14 to 23 and includes iCloud Backup, Photos, Notes
| and more._
|
| [1] https://support.apple.com/en-
| gb/guide/security/sec973254c5f/...
| switch007 wrote:
| Whatever the opposite of fud is, you're spreading it
| lupusreal wrote:
| Came here for your comment. Thank you for your dedication to
| the truth.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| It's pretty funny that as the US implodes, UKGOV, instead of
| grasping the opportunity to show that they're the new good option
| for your internet service needs, decides to blow not one but both
| kneecaps clean off with the doubly whammy of the OSA/Ofcom
| debacle[0] and now this farce.
|
| (I suppose the silver lining is that Starmer is merely sidling
| towards Trump as his new best mate rather than the full-throated
| slobbering that Johnson/Truss/Sunak would have given him.)
|
| [0] I know this is primarily the fault of the last lot but this
| shower of onions haven't done anything to roll it back and/or
| clarify WTF is going on.
| xyst wrote:
| Black hats love this
| stainablesteel wrote:
| well it was nice knowing you, UK
| arghandugh wrote:
| Love swinging through here to collect the latest crop of:
|
| - that's silly - they can't do that legally - this makes no
| technical sense - this is a bad idea - this will never happen
|
| The entire globe becomes Xi Jinpeng's China with American
| Characteristics after the iCloud encryption system is neutered
| and a court warrant is no longer needed.
| talldayo wrote:
| To be fair, Apple seemingly has no qualms letting the CCP
| surveil iCloud: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351
| r00fus wrote:
| Because iCloud in China is complete separate from the rest of
| the world.
|
| China is not asking to see other countries' iCloud data.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| lol the f they will
| maxglute wrote:
| Is this something UK demanded, or a FVEY loophole from other
| partners. Does US still need to fiddle with legal loop holes to
| surveille on domestic citizens after Cloud?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Why not just require all data on the icloud be sent to a server
| all unencrypted? Ain't no difference. Apple isn't gonna do it and
| Trump will tell UK to shove it
| bdangubic wrote:
| surely UK is going to give two shits what Trump says :)
| StackTopherFlow wrote:
| I'd love to see a collection of every attempt to add encryption
| back doors to apple/iPhone products. It feels like they never
| stop trying.
| lasermike026 wrote:
| How about NO. Fuck off.
| rtkwe wrote:
| It'd be nice to not have to have this fight every 3-5 years but
| privacy is antithetical to the role of the security services so
| they're never going to give it up.
| biohcacker84 wrote:
| Constitutionally guaranteed privacy and free speech have made
| America... the world leader.
|
| America used to push the rest of the world to give their people
| those rights. Used to....
| smeeger wrote:
| the UK needs to be slapped in the face. wake up man!
| nico wrote:
| If it happens, likely the main beneficiary of this would be the
| US govt
|
| Through Five Eyes the US agencies could, via the UK, get global
| access to iCloud accounts
|
| No need to change US law
| jrexilius wrote:
| So UK gov is demanding similar access as China? Not a good look
| for a supposed free democracy..
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| For years, law enforcement pushed for encryption backdoors,
| arguing they were necessary to combat crime and terrorism.
|
| In the US, after Salt Typhoon compromised telecom networks--
| including court-authorized wiretap systems--the FBI has now
| (somewhat reluctantly, I think) started advising government
| officials to use end-to-end encrypted apps like Signal and
| WhatsApp to protect _themselves_. [1]
|
| I think the UK government is running a bit behind wrt Encryption.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/17/nx-s1-5223490/text-
| messaging-...
| pmlnr wrote:
| No, the government is always exempt. Citizens shouldn't be
| allowed e2e, the government, that's ok.
| selendym wrote:
| The problem with this line of thinking is that the government
| is, of course, composed of... individual citizens.
| pmlnr wrote:
| I don't want them to be, they make themselves exempt.
|
| It's bad. It's one of the causes that triggered the French
| Rebellion in 1793: one rule for them, one for us?
| b8 wrote:
| Not surprising as the UK wants to ban E2EE too.
| renecito wrote:
| good luck with that :D
| hassleblad23 wrote:
| Complete waste of time. At this point I am not sure if its Europe
| not wanting to understand, or the lack of abilityto understand.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| I feel Apple is one of the few companies that has the market
| power to say, Fuck you, we will just not sell or offer any
| services in your market, and I suspect that would be enough for
| voters to knock some sense into their government.
| switch007 wrote:
| What makes you think they'll do that? Any previous examples?
| China maybe?
| bagels wrote:
| They probably won't, but it'd probably work
| GeekyBear wrote:
| It is what Apple publicly said they would do if the UK
| attempted this.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66256081
| switch007 wrote:
| Well that's just negotiation and PR. That's why I asked
| about previous examples - judge them by what they do, not
| say
|
| Guess we'll have to see what happens in a few months
| GeekyBear wrote:
| It' s also what they testified they would do.
|
| >Apple previously made its stance public when it formally
| opposed the UK government's power to issue Technical
| Capability Notices in testimony submitted in March 2024
| and warned that it would withdraw security features from
| the UK market if forced to comply.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-
| apple...
| cherioo wrote:
| Apple may withdraw security feature, which is unclear
| what that achieves at all. Apple will not withdraw all
| sales in a country for privacy of that country's
| citizens, as evidenced in China.
|
| UK demanding to see private information for citizens in
| other countries though..
| drawkward wrote:
| Of course companies always do what they say they will!
| localghost3000 wrote:
| This kind of thing makes me furious. I know there's the EFF but
| what can someone concerned with privacy advocacy do in the face
| of these kinds of things? Are there orgs and political movements
| that are out there already? Privacy is a human right. IMO it's
| one of the big issues of our time.
| blindriver wrote:
| The US is the only country with codified freedoms from the
| government. Every other country has rights given by the
| government to their citizens.
|
| The US may suck every now and then, but the US constitution is
| one of the best things in human history. It protects us from
| governments like the UK that don't think they have any limits to
| control their citizens.
| smodo wrote:
| How do you mean? Who upholds those codified freedoms? Many
| democratic countries have similar fundamental laws that are
| explicitly hard to change or bypass. In the end though all
| rules are either enforced by some authority or they are mere
| suggestions. The USA doesn't seem like a special case to me?
| gsk22 wrote:
| > Many democratic countries have similar fundamental laws
| that are explicitly hard to change or bypass.
|
| What exactly constitutes "hard to change"? In many countries,
| fundamental freedoms are regular legislation which can be
| overturned in the usual manner. Even a threshold of 2/3 or
| 3/4 to change is much easier to overcome than the federated
| constitutional amendment process in the US.
| trinix912 wrote:
| There are also countries that have a constitution that
| cannot be overturned like a regular legislation. It's not
| like the US is the only place that has it that way.
| gsk22 wrote:
| Right, I didn't mean to imply it was a US-only phenomenon
| -- plenty of countries have fundamental rights enshrined
| in their constitutions, with varying degrees of
| difficulty to amend. I was specifically responding to the
| claim about countries that instead have "hard to change"
| laws, since laws are typically much easier to repeal than
| constitutions.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Did the US constitution protect you from NSA conducting mass
| surveillance on all US citizens like the Snowden files showed?
| wrycoder wrote:
| Constitution, yes - but following it, not so much. I would
| really like the Federal government to improve in that regard.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| While the US does have a written Constitution that explicitly
| limits government power (notably in the Bill of Rights), many
| other countries also have codified documents or legal
| frameworks that protect citizens from government overreach.
|
| For example, Germany's Basic Law (Grundgesetz) was created
| after World War II to ensure the protection of human rights,
| including freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among
| others. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part
| of the Constitution Act of 1982 and guarantees a range of civil
| liberties. India's Constitution, too, contains an extensive
| list of fundamental rights that are designed to restrict
| arbitrary government action, such as the rights to equality,
| freedom of expression, and personal liberty. South Africa's
| Constitution is also highly regarded for its strong emphasis on
| human rights protections.
|
| Even in the United Kingdom, where there is no single written
| constitution in the US sense, many rights are protected by
| statutes (such as the Human Rights Act 1998) and established
| common law principles that limit government power.
|
| Many democracies enshrine rights in law, reflecting the widely
| accepted idea that such rights are inherent and must be
| protected against undue governmental interference, rather than
| merely being granted as privileges.
| tines wrote:
| Hello ChatGPT
| drawkward wrote:
| >the US constitution is one of the best things in human
| history. It protects us from governments like the UK that don't
| think they have any limits to control their citizens.
|
| The next 4 years will certainly prove or disprove this
| statement!
| maronato wrote:
| > The US is the only country with codified freedoms from the
| government.
|
| This is not true, both because it's not the only one[1], and
| because the constitution hasn't prevented state censorship in
| the US[2-4].
|
| > It protects us from governments like the UK that don't think
| they have any limits to control their citizens.
|
| How would it do that? The US constitution has no power over the
| UK.
|
| [1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/countries...
|
| [2]:
| https://journals.ala.org/index.php/jifp/article/view/7208/10...
|
| [3]: https://historycollection.com/10-situations-in-history-
| when-...
|
| [4]:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Sta...
| jmull wrote:
| > and because the constitution hasn't prevented state
| censorship in the US[2-4]
|
| That the constitution hasn't been upheld to a perfect
| standard all the time doesn't mean it doesn't codify
| freedoms. Also, precisely what the standard is isn't
| universally agreed upon and changes over time.
| 14 wrote:
| Well didn't Snowden reveal that is a bit of a stretch in what
| actually happens? Don't the 5 eyes just just look over each
| other citizens and report to each other? The constitution only
| protects up until a national security threat and then ignored
| is it not? Still I think the US is an amazing country with some
| of the strongest protections from the government. I just don't
| think it is as rock hard as you believe.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The US Constitution also guarantees birthright citizenship, but
| that doesn't mean the government will actually respect that
| right. The US Constitution only holds as long as people are
| willing to defend it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The US is the only country with codified freedoms from the
| government.
|
| No, its not. Plenty of other countries have written
| constitutions with codified rights against the government. Many
| of them are more explicit about how the conflict between
| explicit grants of power to the government and explicit rights
| of the people balance in conflict, which may make them seem
| superficially less strong; OTOH, the fact that the US
| Constitution has both unqualified grants of power and
| unqualified enumerated rights has led to that conflict being
| resolved by the courts, by...qualifying the rights based in
| large part on the grants of power.
|
| > Every other country has rights given by the government to
| their citizens.
|
| That's no more true of "every other country" than it is of the
| US. The Constitution itself is a deal negotiated between
| representatives of and ratified by state governments, so all of
| the rights it protects are, _ipso facto_ , granted by
| government.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| The funny thing is that anyone pointing out authoritarianism will
| get downvoted with a whole bunch of partisan arguments or
| left/right false dichotomies.
|
| Here we are, though, at the point where the government overreach
| for these "beacons of democracy" such as US and UK do this often
| and by design and we're all supposed to pretend "thing are fine,
| trust us". Next they'll push some other overreach using children,
| terrorism, drugs or some other usual excuse and people will
| defend it pretending the government has good intentions and
| largely works for the people.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I hope Apple's answer is simply:
|
| "No."
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| The complete lack of any kind of technological understanding by
| the people in power of most major governments is a huge
| existential risk. Thankfully businesses like Apple are completely
| staked on privacy, but Apple is actually big enough to give a
| middle finger to the UK. Other companies might not be able to.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| Why must the UK be like this?
| caycep wrote:
| Does apple have a canary provision in their EULA / TOS somewhere?
| rchivalry wrote:
| Encryption is encryption. Purposely breaking it defeats the
| purpose.
| rchivalry wrote:
| Encryption is encryption. If this is for dirt digging or evidence
| for police... then make the person provide it instead. Spy
| agencies just have to deal with it. Sure there are other ways of
| tapping information.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| New tariffs on UK in 3... 2... 1... ?
| joemazerino wrote:
| All of a sudden, 100 nerds start seeing the UK government for
| what it's been: tyrannical.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| > the law actually makes it a criminal offense to reveal that the
| government even made such a demand.
|
| Why is it tho ? The government has something to hide ? i mean
| it's complete bullshit, citizen have the right to privacy and
| government has the obligation of transparency and being
| accountable to its citizens.
|
| When did the UK turned into a middle east dictatorship ?
|
| > Google has enforced default encryption for Android phone
| backups since 2018. When asked by The Post whether any government
| had requested a backdoor, Google spokesman Ed Fernandez did not
| provide a direct answer but suggested none exist: "Google cannot
| access Android end-to-end encrypted backup data, even with a
| legal order," he stated.
|
| That is absolutely laughable. If the uk government couldn't
| access google data, they would have ordered google the same thing
| they did with apple.
|
| Apple theoretically can't access their user data when e2e
| encryption is enabled yet the uk government doesn't care. how
| does that differ from google ?
|
| once again, if you want your data to be safe from google, apple,
| and the others you got to avoid all cloud and resort to use good
| old hard drive with encryption.
|
| the only ones getting fcked are once again the average people who
| don't have much to hide in the first place, the pedophiles and
| terrorist they are much more aware than the old fart at the
| government on how to stay hidden.
| mistercheph wrote:
| UK is a dystopian nightmare, very grateful to the founding
| fathers for sending them back to the island.
| bsimpson wrote:
| > We do not comment on operational matters, including for example
| confirming or denying the existence of any such notices
|
| Cloaking mass privacy violations under "operational matters" is
| the most doublespeak bullshit I've ever heard.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-07 23:00 UTC)