[HN Gopher] Apple takes UK to court over 'backdoor' order
___________________________________________________________________
Apple takes UK to court over 'backdoor' order
Author : latexr
Score : 264 points
Date : 2025-03-05 18:07 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| ohgr wrote:
| I am very glad they are doing this as a UK based ADP user.
| Waiting to see how long before they forcibly turn it off for
| existing users. I will of course just remove everything from
| iCloud at that point.
| kennysoona wrote:
| It's not like you can use an alternative without facing jail
| time if you don't give up the keys.
| ohgr wrote:
| Indeed. But you can of course say _" show me the court
| order"_ and defend yourself.
| kennysoona wrote:
| Is a court order explicitly needed in the UK to demand a
| key?
| blitzar wrote:
| A warrant is required - can be issued by the Secretary of
| State.
| ohgr wrote:
| Yes there has to be magistrate approval and you can
| challenge a notice with legal representation.
| OsrsNeedsf2P wrote:
| Not in the UK. In fact there's precedence they can arrest
| you for not unlocking your devices, without a warrant[0]
|
| [0] https://www.independent.co.ug/activist-convicted-uk-
| terror-o...
| ohgr wrote:
| They can arrest you for anything. I've been arrested
| twice. And questioned once. And apologised to twice.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| apologised?!
|
| Surely you're joking!
|
| No way that really happened or it was an empty apology
| like.
|
| > I'm sorry you made yourself suspicious
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| He didn't even explain why he was arrested or what he was
| suspected of
| gambiting wrote:
| If you are stopped at the border then you don't have such a
| right. British border force can just demand you give them
| keys to all your devices and hold them for 7 days, no court
| order needed.
|
| Watch this if you're curious how that looks like:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=991kRp8KUmo
| lucb1e wrote:
| The part that stood out to me, copying from the automatic
| transcript:
|
| > they're sitting there with these like blank A4 Bits of
| Paper writing down everything I'm telling them like you
| know bits of interest and it's exactly the same thing the
| Russians did when they interrogated me [...] to be honest
| interactions with the Russians have been pretty much the
| same as inter with the British government
|
| I didn't do my research before going to the UK for the
| first time two months ago and just went with my gut
| feeling, that is, deleting files from my phone that I
| don't want to end up in a government system through
| Cellebrite's "accelerated justice" or whatnot. Never done
| this for any other country before (I cross borders on a
| weekly basis). Seeing this video and the Ugandan article
| from the sibling comment, that was definitely the right
| move
| Marsymars wrote:
| I don't know of any country where border guards _don't_
| have the authority to seize your device if you're trying
| to cross.
|
| I just use devices with ephemeral storage for crossing
| borders to save myself from having to do any research on
| any particular country's device privacy practices.
| ohgr wrote:
| I get bagged and tagged at least once a week when I go
| shopping in the UK in the last 50 years. You don't want
| to come here at all. I'd rather hang around in Russia
| these days.
|
| Facetious comment aside the only time I've had problems
| with border security anywhere is getting a large carpet
| back home from Azerbaijan. This was very interesting and
| required them to examine every square centimetre of it.
| China, US, UK, Europe all really boring. Russia was
| incompetent. They didn't even check anything at all
| (2012)
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Imagine you're a citizen and say no.
|
| Are they arresting you?
|
| Because they have to let you in.
| ben_w wrote:
| That's still a big improvement. A backdoor can be exploited
| by criminals who want personal gain, not just used as
| intended by police.
| cpressland wrote:
| This is correct - but I'd rather my law enforcement had a
| pre-existing reason to investigate me rather than just
| stumbling upon something in random hidden searches. Innocent
| until proven guilty is key here.
|
| I have nothing to hide, but I'm still not giving you access
| to my photo library.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Why would they be searching if they didn't have a pre
| existing reason?
| willk wrote:
| Because they can.
| bdamm wrote:
| You seem to think that the indexing and searching happens
| only if there is a reason. Why do you think that? There
| are all kinds of cases where government agents were found
| to have abused access to data for reasons that had
| nothing to do with illegal or immoral behavior by a
| target.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| The penalty for not giving up keys is max 2 years in prison.
| Most offences that they're trying to use the encrypted data
| to use as prosecution evidence (for example, child
| pornography), have penalties that are way more than 2 years
| in prison.
|
| If you're genuinely innocent, the 2 years is horrid. If
| you're actually guilty, it's a cheap way to serve your time.
|
| It's a weird and perverse law that shouldn't exist, but it's
| likely in time the government will need to move the needle
| one way or the other, as habitual criminals are getting used
| to doing the maths.
| aryan14 wrote:
| As they should. You can't throw an ultimatum for something that
| benefits nobody but the govt. and kick everyone around.
|
| Would like to see other companies who were affected by similar
| situations also take this to court
| aryan14 wrote:
| How well it'll do in court is debatable, could go for either
| side, but regardless of the outcome it's always good to see
| resistance and pushback
| immibis wrote:
| Apple will lose, because the government didn't break any law.
| basisword wrote:
| Can't see much coming of this. At the very least the largest two
| parties are all for this kind of encryption backdoor and
| regardless of what the 'court' decides parliament can just
| legislate around it.
| Defletter wrote:
| Yup, the Courts are ultimately there to fulfil the will of
| Parliament: if there's a clear power granted by Parliament to
| do this sort of thing, and there's no compelling objection from
| other areas of law, then this is more just a delaying tactic.
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm not sure that's entirely true, the UK government gets
| sued regularly and loses a fair amount.
| Defletter wrote:
| Sure, but that's because the government acted in ways
| contrary to what Parliament willed.
| krona wrote:
| Essentially true however judicial review can expose legal
| flaws, incompatibilities, or breaches of higher legal
| principles (e.g. the Human Rights Act 1998) essentially
| compelling (not forcing) the government to amend or adjust
| legislation.
|
| A notable example being section 23 of the Anti-terrorism,
| Crime and Security Act 2001.
| switch007 wrote:
| Fun facts about the UK supreme court:
|
| - It was created by an Act of Parliament
|
| - It is a government department
|
| - It can not overturn primary legislation
|
| - Parliament could dissolve the court if it so wished
| ohgr wrote:
| Apple will do it for the attention, PR and to hurt the idea
| generally even if they lose. Mindshare and ire towards the
| government are as strong as any legal judgement over time.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Mindshare and ire towards the government are as strong as
| any legal judgement over time.
|
| Much stronger.
| blitzar wrote:
| It will be good to have a test of the legislation, the last
| government spat out some horrifically written legislation, so
| it might not even say what they think it says.
| aeim wrote:
| I wonder if this case will be dropped by the uk, now that it's
| more clear that trump/ us gov serves (or is aligned with...)
| russia
|
| The global landscape has changed significantly since (last
| week) this case began
| Frederation wrote:
| If Apple had the wherewithall, theyd give up on the UK and be
| done with it. Should they not prevail legally. Pipe dream, I
| know.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I hope for the same. Likely not for the same reason as you, but
| we are together in hoping.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Isnt that their soft plan? They plan on just removing the
| encryption for all UK users to make the point moot domestically
| if this gambit doesnt bare fruit. If they want to continue to
| push that they want it for all users globally, Apple can
| attempt to leave the market fully.
|
| Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security
| row (bbc.com) - 1769 points , 1105 comments
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43128253
| ohgr wrote:
| I never get this perspective. Firstly we do give them a crap
| load of revenue. Secondly it'd probably trash any of their non
| US business almost immediately as people start looking for
| contingency in case they pull out of other countries. Thirdly
| they didn't pull out of China. And fourthly there are a lot of
| Apple engineering staff here in the UK - it'd cripple them
| because they won't move to the US.
|
| They will comply with the law and make a lot of noise and not a
| lot else.
| wil421 wrote:
| How can a company the size of Apple be crippled by employees
| in the UK?
| ohgr wrote:
| Literally a large chunk of the ARM core team are in
| Cambridge including most of the GPU folk and there are a
| ton of infra and software team in a couple of other UK
| locations.
|
| On top of that, a big chunk of the follow the sun on call
| engineering (SRE) are here that look after global infra and
| most of the European support operation are in Northern
| Ireland.
| theshackleford wrote:
| Define a "crapload." My understanding is that it's actually a
| number that could be walked away from.
| ohgr wrote:
| 8000 staff including very high level engineering and
| technical.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| The Apple engineer staff can keep their jobs.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| What happens when Australia blocks this next? Then Japan? Then
| Brazil? Then Sweden? Then the US?
| autoexec wrote:
| "What if every country on Earth violated everyone's rights"
| isn't really much of an argument against standing up to
| countries that try. If that actually happens then we're all
| screwed anyway. Until it does actually happen, why roll over
| and allow it to happen without even trying?
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| If Apple gives in, it will certainly happen in dozens of
| countries. China alone would be a dealbreaker.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Apple gave in to China years ago. Apple gave operation of
| iCloud servers to a chinese company.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| See, I don't see just withdrawing from the country as
| 'standing up to'. It's just giving up in a more disruptive
| way, especially when It seems very likely to me that other
| countries will start demanding the same.
|
| Actually taking them to court and objecting seems more
| productive to me.
| autoexec wrote:
| > I don't see just withdrawing from the country as
| 'standing up to'. It's just giving up in a more
| disruptive way...actually taking them to court and
| objecting seems more productive to me.
|
| "objecting" alone does nothing. Objecting + lawsuits or
| objecting + withdrawing might accomplish something.
|
| I'd agree that lawsuits are a good idea but they are also
| entirely dependent on the courts (of the same country
| that already wants to violate people's rights) to do the
| right thing. If the lawsuit works and the government
| forces the government to back off it's a good thing, but
| if not a company keeps the power to take their technology
| and leave. They can choose to do that regardless of what
| the laws or courts of another country thinks.
|
| Walking away might be seen as a company "giving up" on
| the corrupt country that wants to violate people's
| rights, but it's certainly not a company giving up on
| their principles. A nation full of people angry that they
| won't be able to get highly sought after products and
| services can change policy too.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I wish they placed a red warning on every phone instead: "Your
| government is forcing us to weaken your security because it
| wants to snoop on you."
|
| One of the problems of digital surveillance is that is doesn't
| feel intrusive, indeed it can be fully hidden from the users.
| With a message like this displayed every time you unlock your
| phone, plenty of people would start asking questions.
| cakealert wrote:
| > red warning on every phone instead
|
| This is silly. The average consumer will just avoid Apple
| products.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > "Your government is forcing us to weaken your security
| because it wants to snoop on you."
|
| They're not allowed to actually tell you about the UKGOV
| order. That's the point of it being a secret order.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| I think that the people who want to use encryption should use
| their own software for encryption, which is separate from the
| cloud service. (This alone might not do, because you also need to
| implement other security, but it will be one thing to do.)
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| Remember software can be banned or regulated via export
| control.
| 14 wrote:
| Exactly. Just like the pirate bay.
| kjsingh wrote:
| at least Apple should provide a way of inserting a module to
| encrypt decrypt files. and say, we just store the bytes user
| provide us.
| dylan604 wrote:
| This is the issue. If you encrypt your own, then the software
| will not be able to use it as it's not a file it expects. So
| all of the software that you want to use your encrypted files
| will need to have this type of module.
|
| At that point, I feel like we've opened pandora's box. If
| every single app had to be able to decrypt/encrypt with your
| personal key, we just know someone will roll their own and
| fuck it up for everyone else.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| It depends on where you put that module.
|
| In NT you can have modules that sit between various
| operations on the file system. It's how AV works without
| having to hook into every single application that reads and
| writes from storage.
|
| There's no technical reason why this kind of approach
| couldn't be applied by Apple for encryption. But it would
| require relinquishing some control over their platform, so
| it would never happen.
| immibis wrote:
| Microsoft gets that excuse, because it lets you run anything
| at all on your computer. Apple doesn't, because it only lets
| you run things approved by Apple. Instead of "why did you
| make this encryption system we can't break into? Trillion
| dollar fine!" it'd be "why did you let XYZ Corp install this
| encryption system we can't break into? Trillion dollar fine!"
| Nevermark wrote:
| You are suggesting people be able to insert an encryption
| module into other services?
|
| Or that everyone has to constantly manage a non-default set of
| tools, and deal with all the interoperability issues of all the
| mish-mashes of choices others make?
|
| Or, ...?
|
| Personally, I cannot see a safe online world that doesn't have
| hard privacy.
|
| Why not give people easy ways to report "very bad behavior"
| online, to authorities that build up a reputation of responding
| responsibly. Including bounties for the most egregious stuff.
|
| Then every recipient of anything rotten becomes a honeypot for
| the criminals.
|
| Breaking everyone's privacy is going to attract every nefarious
| and security conscious actor in the world to the buffet. Every
| state actor, "good" or "bad" is going to want to have access to
| everything that can theoretically be accessed. Worst possible
| kind of honeypot.
| 5kg wrote:
| "In 2021: No (IPT) cases were found in favour of the
| complainant":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Tribunal#...
| bsimpson wrote:
| This sounds like something Douglas Adams would have written
| about.
| gred wrote:
| Good. Even if they lose, they should make as much noise as
| possible before giving up on the UK market. Maybe it will start
| to turn the tide of public perception.
| 2-3-7-43-1807 wrote:
| any qualified opinions here on tresorit? i'm using them now for
| about three years and the service is alright and reliable afaiac.
| supposedly they don't have the private key. that makes using it
| sometimes a little slow compared to other options. but i decided
| to go with them after reading numerous horror stories about
| dropbox et al.
| krunck wrote:
| How do we know there are not back-doors already in Apple's cloud
| storage (that the 5-eyes cult has access to)? This fight may just
| be theater the goal of which is to legitimize the view that
| Apple's cloud storage is secure and free from government
| snooping.
|
| Trust, then verify. No ability to verify? No trust.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| This fight is about providing encryption to the masses. If you
| want to use your own open source security solution, you should
| definitely do that (really!). But you will be one of a small
| number of people doing so. And a society where only a small
| number of "wizards" have freedom isn't a free society at all.
|
| I am very sympathetic to the idea that more components should
| be open source, and Apple's systems should be much more open
| (particularly backup.) But at the end of the day _if Apple is
| compromised_ there is no open source solution that can save
| you. They design the silicon.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Is the society that relies on everyone else to make the
| decisions that serve their best interests free either?
| Cypher wrote:
| Apple should be celebrating Stammer for his proud tradition of
| freespeech not taking him to court.
| muscomposter wrote:
| smells like PR/marketing
| Jaydeep7 wrote:
| Do you have office hours next week?
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| It's completely disgraceful what the U.K. is doing to freedom of
| expression. Very happy to see Apple like this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-05 23:00 UTC)