Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 785 posts

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#401

Post by bradly »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #58
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #40

i 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.

As far as "We have never heard of PRISM", that could be true. When you receive a national security letter it isn't like they give you detailed info about the specific operation and why you are receiving it. It's more along the lines of "you're going to do this pursuant to US code section..."

Even internally at Apple is it common to work on projects that you do not know the name or details of. I was disclosed and worked on multiple projects that my own team members were not aware of.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#402

Post by kstrauser »

LoganDark wrote: post #334
kstrauser wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which backdoors does it have?

this is a backdoor that they're refusing to put into it, because it would make iMessage pointless

Huh, interesting. I interpreted OP as "Messages is pointless today, as it already has backdoors". I hadn't even considered your reading of it until you pointed it out.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#403

Post by nextmove »

RobotToaster wrote: post #82

They should just publicly publish all the messages from politicians' accounts. If they want to see our messages we should be able to see theirs, fair is fair.

Strange that you got downvoted for stating that people should have power to hold politicians accountable.

Look at the top comment and see how illogical it is:

> I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden for some things if it means supporting a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights (privacy in this case).

Morons like this actually believe taking away human rights and privacy will make them safer. News flash, the danger are people in power that can't be held accountable. Lastly, be skeptical of anything Apple says as they work together with governments to take away your privacy. Psychopaths will say anything to get you to trust them.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#404

Post by hot_gril »

wonderwonder wrote: post #78

This is a scam by the UK government, they don't care about child abuse, they are going to look into all sorts of communications to leverage people. If they cared about child abuse they would have shut down the open child prostitution rings running rampant. They openly let it continue because they are afraid of being branded racist since the gangs running them are minorities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_ch…

"Think of the children" is always the reason rights (good or bad) get taken away.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#406

Post by danShumway »

blitz_skull wrote: post #39
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights Except for right to repair... And software freedom...

Those are not human rights. Privacy, on the other hand, is.

I'll push back on this. I think that Right to Modify[0] is a human right. I think that software freedom and user agency (especially where it relates to vendor lock-in) is closely related to human rights, in the sense that it can directly impact people's ability to express those rights.

To say that right to repair in specific isn't a human right because the actual human right is agency/ownership/modification/whatever, is a bit like saying that encryption isn't a human right because the actual right is privacy and encryption is just a way to maintain privacy.

The end result is still that people aren't able to exercise rights. I would argue very strongly that having a degree of autonomy over the devices/objects that you own is an intrinsic right.

And if you look back at the history of Open Source software, you'll find that conversations about Libre/Free software have been regularly grounded in discussions of human rights from the start; from rights to ownership, to modification, to communication.

[0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-modify

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#407

Post by daveoc64 »

Roark66 wrote: post #250
laputan_machine wrote: post #32

Earlier 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.

The problem with relying on a written consititution is that it can easily be changed.

The USA is in a position where it seems to be perpetually stuck in a 50/50 split of the elected government, so it's not possible for major constitutional reform to be passed by one party.

On the other hand, the current government in the UK has a majority of 80 MPs - if there was a written constitution, it's likely they could simply pass a law to re-write it.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#408

Post by anigbrowl »

sva_ wrote: post #346
JKCalhoun wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll play Devil's Advocate (because I enjoy throwing myself into the fray — especially when arguing against a point I actually agree with). No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. The internet and its ubiquitous accessibility combined with digital image file formats has changed the landscape for those that would fight these heinous crimes. It is indeed a n…

> No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. I wouldn't call 1 on 1 chats mass sharing

You can have multiple 1-on-1 chats, and CP collectors are pretty good at finding each other online. While I'm very much against this UK legislation, people in the tech sector do themselves no favors b¥ minimizing/handwaving the CP problem.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#409

Post by leptons »

pphysch wrote: post #281
ghusto wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights Well you're _technically_ right; they do indeed have that power. However, it sounds like you're suggesting they are using that power _to_ shift policy in favor of human rights (emphasis is of importance). Whilst I can't prove that their intention has nothing to do with human rights, it's only in the same way that I can't prove the last U.S. invas…

> but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want. I agree with your comment, but I think it is naïve to assume that Apple does PR by happenstance. Effective marketing/messaging is the bedrock of their business strategy. So yes they probably did this primarily for raw profit/power reasons, but the positive PR is a close secondary.

It's not happenstance. They planned this action. But, "A broken clock is right twice a day" applies here.

Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

#410

Post by Loquebantur »

_cenw wrote: post #201
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #180

Earlier 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.

People miss the forest for the trees here. Democratic society needs a way for people to communicate freely. Those ways are dying out fast.

In modern life, people don't discuss politics in townhalls, pubs, or whatever anymore. Online communication is by now far too siloed and supervised to the point of being unusable. Media are one-way streets, pushing the agenda of billionaires.

But you need to be able to have controversial discussions about "heavy" topics without fear of being ostracised. You need to have a back-channel to give feedback to "higher ups". Etc.pp.

A society where the individual is degraded to a mere drone (even if only loosely via framing) controlled by the "hive mind", without any recourse to voice constructive criticism is a lot of things, but certainly no democracy. There looms a dystopia on our doorstep.

Post reply on HN