The interesting thing is that the government can have access to your conversations today. They just need to get judge order and search your phone (end-to-end encryption doesn't help if you don't delete messages). Same things as knocking on the door with a judge order. But the government doesn't want to deal with judges. They want unlimited access 24/7. That's the key difference and this is why this is bad for all the citizens.
Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
521–530 of 785 posts
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#522I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
> The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim Traditionally, couldn't they with texts? And with all the major social media players? Isn't stuff like Signal they can't track relatively new and getting outlawed in many places?
It's not just about encryption and privacy. That's missing the forest for the trees.
For a democracy to function, people need to be able to have free and candid discussions about any topic without the fear of being ostracised, persecuted or whatever. Only that way can ideas be exchanged and people get a hunch of what others think about stuff of relevance. Only that way can people partake in sensible democratic decision-making. Framed opinions pushed onto you by one-way media are no substitute. That's dictatorship in disguise.
"Classic" ways of public communication, like town halls, pubs, marketplaces or whatnot, cannot fill that role any longer. But online, places like Twitter, Reddit and some chat services that closed the gap now get killed off, too. This dystopia cannot be let come to pass.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#523I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
[flagged]
If the definition of free speech doesnt feel over inclusive then its not free speech.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#524I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
[flagged]
Cmon who is saying that?
Plenty of people believe in limits to free speech but very very few would draw the line there.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#525I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
[flagged]
Wait, do you think there are people who think “Let’s Go Brandon” is anything but a hilarious conservative self-own?
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#526Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#527The 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.
The UK and China are not comparable. China is the worlds most populous country (for now). The UK has a population of under 70m. China is a totalitarian regime where even an imperfect freedom is preferable to no freedom at all. The UK is a democratic country which should be upholding the right to privacy. If Apple weakens crypto for the UK, it affects people in other countries as well. iMessage is not exactly popular…
> The UK and China are not comparable. China is the worlds most populous country (for now). The UK has a population of under 70m.
You say they are not comparable, and then compare them in a way that backs up the point you're trying to argue against. It _is_ two-faced of Apple to give China a pass here, undoubtably in large part due to the massive loss of sales were they not to comply and be removed by the Chinese regime.
> China is a totalitarian regime where even an imperfect freedom is preferable to no freedom at all.
If the Chinese gov't has the keys to unlock "private" conversations, how is this "imperfect freedom" in any way different from WeChat or other state-sanctioned messaging systems?
> The UK is a democratic country which should be upholding the right to privacy.
I mean sure, but Chinese people should have the same rights of privacy as anyone else. It's not suddenly less-bad because their government is totalitarian.
> If Apple weakens crypto for the UK, it affects people in other countries as well. iMessage is not exactly popular in the UK, so it is disproportionately used for transatlantic communication compared to WhatsApp. If Apple complies with the law, they are violating the privacy of users in the US as well.
How is this any different than what Apple currently does when an iMessage user outside China messages someone inside China? My understanding is that it acts precisely as you describe, but I could be wrong. And likewise, from what I understand iMessage is likewise unpopular in China so cross-country communications would potentially be a major source of iMessage activity as well? ( I don't see any statistics on this)
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People should read actual documentation Then they should read the leaked government documents from around the world that contradict what Apple says themselves. Failing that, they should at least be able to read the actual code to corroborate its security, but that's not an option either.
> Then they should read the leaked government documents from around the world that contradict what Apple says themselves. On what specifically? > they should at least be able to read the actual code to corroborate its security, but that's not an option either. Why does that matter? You're already trusting Apple hardware. Public access to source code doesn't make security systems safer. I'm not sure what a journalist…
> On what specifically?
For starters, PRISM and XKeyscore. Both are damning indictments of the state of surveillance a decade ago, and are so damaging that pretty much every FAANG company denies knowledge of their existence. PRISM was about the outreach the US government has with domestic companies, and XKeyscore showed just how far those connections could be abused.
Simply the fact that these leaked documents exist and Apple denying them is a contradiction. Everything else is speculation, but my brain can imagine a lot happening over those past 9 years.
> Why does that matter?
Accountability purposes.
> You're already trusting Apple hardware.
Ideally I don't do that either. I'm not a fan of closed firmware interfaces and if possible, I'd like to audit the code for those as well.
> Public access to source code doesn't make security systems safer.
The majority of networked servers online today beg to differ. Over time the industry actually found that it's much safer to use an open and transparent OS than it is to trust a black-box with UB that may-or-may-not be fixed.
> I'm not sure what a journalist or even 99% of webshits on this forum would do with trying to audit crypto.
This speaks to a lack of either experience or imagination, I can't tell which.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#529Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#530I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
> The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority I'd like you to back up that claim because from what I had seen about surveillance and terrorism most people supported it(even the patriot act had popular support in the polls). Only people smart enough to know about encryption oppose this. Most people who don't understand tech pretty much assume the government is already looking at messages. Lo…
Anti encryption? Not sure most people support that specifically.
But generally speaking, I dont think you’ve emphasized it strongly enough. People arent just supportive of trading privacy and freedom for the promise of safety. They are literally begging for it.