Why does UK do this to themselves? Insisting on companies to take part in human rights violations is pure evil.
Because the UK is now a third world country.
Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
371–380 of 785 posts
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#372i simply prefer not to believe anything that any government or any trillion dollar company says about encryption and privacy. Apple: > "We have never heard of PRISM", "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers" https://web.archive.org/web/20130609061546/https://www.culto... ..some things are just not discussed on public forums.
Apple has perfected their virtue signaling game and all the simps love it. I don't really mind it either anymore, a lot of people have this hero worship fetish and they can't help painting everything in black and white, even though they're all just different shades of gray. Apple is definitively brighter on that scale then Google or Meta, but they're all corrupt multinational corporations that will do everything they…
You knowing this, by the tone of your writing, what do YOU do about it? What computer are you working on right now? Are you sure every component on it is legit? I take it you're using some for of Linux because they're not "corrupt" (well, depending on what distro as even that is a big debate).
Or do you live and operate like RMS?
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment would have been stronger if you left out the piece re: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it's an eye roller. Article 12 is: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I'm no fan of Meta or the…
> voluntarily downloading an app that's all true until an app becomes the only way to interact with certain groups of people. i certainly wouldn't call my usage of Discord voluntary. it doesn't actually matter how often i read their privacy policy and shake my head. either I break off contact with a large part of the internet that's important to me or I begrudgingly agree "voluntarily" to their terms and conditions.
This isn't compulsory, it's just personally beneficial. There are plenty of beneficial contexts you need to opt into, and include some cost or compromise.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#374The same Apple that lets the CCP operate its entire App Store in China? It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss.
In the end the choice is simple: follow local laws or drop features or devices.
The calculation is going to be different in each country, but there is no hypocrisy here.
The Chinese government messing with Chinese servers affect the Chinese market, which makes a lot of money so there is a strong incentive to remain in it. The UK backdooring FaceTime compromises it for the rest of the world and would actually put Apple in jeopardy in other jurisdictions with stronger privacy and data protection laws, for a comparatively minor market. It’d be more significant if the issue was with the EU or the US (both scenarios can realistically happen in the next few years, unfortunately). All they are saying is that they will comply if the regulations are put in place. Also, the British government is known for making noises along these lines before quietly dropping the whole project when it turns out that it’s actually not that simple. Different countries will lead to different risk assessments.
So yeah, there is no inconsistency, it’s just a matter of how you stay on the clear side of the law.
> It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss.
A company is not sentient, it does not have a stance. Its policies have no value except when they are decided and enforced by people. It’s dangerous to talk of corporations in terms of ideology, because these things can change and often cash trumps good intentions. In the end all that matters is how much the company and our interests align. The best way to have a company behave over the long term is if it makes sense for it to do so from a business point of view.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#375The same Apple that lets the CCP operate its entire App Store in China? It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss.
You don't think there's a prospect of financial loss? They literally just said they would pull their products. Ecosystem features like those are huge contributors to platform retention. And if the cynic in you doesn't believe that, just ask yourself why they burn the money to keep staffing development and maintenance teams for iMessage and FaceTime - they aren't doing it out of kindness right?
They said they would pull two services and not all their products. I know you didn't say "all products", but was just clarifying.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#376An interesting narative, but there are alternative perspectives to consider as well. It's not necessarily a matter of whether or not the UK needs Apple to break their encryption. In fact, they may not need to do so at all. Companies like certain Israel-based firms specialize in selling a myriad of cyber tools, often at quite reasonable prices, that can potentially bypass the need for direct encryption breaking.
It often feels like these public back-and-forths could be theatrical performances, designed to shape public perception more than anything else. State-level actors generally operate with a much wider set of tools and resources at their disposal than what is commonly understood. The fact that the UK is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance is also noteworthy here. This alliance allows for expansive information and resource sharing. The reach and depth of these resources can often surpass the need for individual corporate cooperation.
It's essential to look beyond surface narratives and remember the complexity of global surveillance practices and cyber strategies. Yes, a company's commitment to privacy is admirable and crucial, but it's equally important to stay aware of the many other methods that state actors have at their disposal for obtaining information.
Edit: Fixed typo
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Labour are even more in favour of this than the tories are. Lib Dems, too. No mainstream party in the UK values your privacy.
I wonder if the UK ever decides to have a written constitution. On one hand they've been doing fine without one for centuries. On the other if this law passes the parliament that's it. There is no "constitutional court" to strike it down. No "president" to "not sign it". Etc.
> There is no "constitutional court" to strike it down.
The Supreme Court exists for this very purpose, although it is subject to Parliamentary Sovereignty[0].
> No "president" to "not sign it".
Bills do not become law until given Royal Assent by the King. The King may refuse to give Royal Assent to any bill, although this has not been done since 1708.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent#United_Kingdom
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, Meta has said the same thing re: WhatsApp, so while Apple deserves _some_ credit here for sticking to their principles, they're not exactly leading the pack. Which brings home the point that if _Meta_ isn't onboard with your privacy-obliterating proposal then you know you've really lost the plot...
In even more fairness, Meta has literally skipped the EU for Threads instead of increasing privacy. In their case, it's just a careful balance of virtue signaling, it had no qualms about pushing their spyware to hundreds of millions of people, violating basic human rights in the process. Check Article 12: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
And in even more fairness, privacy was not the reason Threads didn’t launch in the EU. It is in violation of the digital markers act, not GDPR. The leveraging of market power in one platform to boost another platform is what is at fault, and seeing the meteoric rise of Threads on the back of Instagram’s popularity the stratagem worked.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never really understood what people mean by this. For me, iMessage is indistinguishable from SMS, except for the color of the messages, and the fact that I can use iMessage over WiFi.
Group messages. If I send an SMS message to a group of people, they all see a message from me. They don't know who else got it. And if they reply, they reply only to me. Is your experience different? WhatsApp (and I think iMessage) allow me to create a group with a name/purpose and send messages to the group and receive replies to the whole group. (P.S. I went from dumb-phones to Android and have limited exposure to…
> If I send an SMS message to a group of people, they all see a message from me. They don't know who else got it. And if they reply, they reply only to me. Is your experience different?
Does MMS not exist in your country?
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#380Good, more companies need to fight back crazy UK demands. Blocking MS Activision deal, because they think they are a global superpower.
Why shouldn't the deal be blocked? Whatever services MS want from Activision they can purchase on an ongoing basis without blocking others like Sony just to block the competition. Who wants Call of Duty to go xbox only like Halo? Microsoft is a platform provider, the content creators that use their platform should be free to publish to any platform. Otherwise Microsoft bump the prices and say take it or leave it but…
Because patches to military software could be "delayed". What operating system does military hardware run on?