UK is like US, but worse. It seems they only left the EU to push for maximum surveillance, and no one is going to stop them.
“But what can you do, eh?” should be the motto embossed in gold letters on the front of the blue passports.
Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
651–660 of 785 posts
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#652Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone working on a trackpad all day probably isn’t doing serious work ;) see we can all make unkind generalizations.
Touché. Just seeing those laptops is frustrating. What is the point of the trackpad if you have to use a mouse?
When you need to travel between workstations I work docked all day, once in a while I need to be mobile, but it’s much easier to work on one machine vs two.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#653There was an interview with the CEO of Signal and some UK conservative politician[1]. It's a pretty infuriating interview, as both parties try to debate two complete separate issues. Meredith Whittaker of Signal, rightfully tries to debate the issues with breaking encryption and it's ramification, but the politician has that sorted. See they don't want to break the encryption, they want the apps to pick up the messag…
Honestly, Meredith Whittaker came across very poorly. She made one point well, that one can't make a safe backdoor. However, she essentially refused to answer any further topics once the conservative politician said they wouldn't require a backdoor in encrypted messaging services. Signal, Whatsapp, and iMessage threatening to leave the UK over this bill indicates to me that the bill is unreasonable. However, Meredith…
The problem is, there's not really a good way to debate "If you have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a problem." The person pushing for surveillance is going to argue in bad faith that they're the good guys, and why are you stopping them from catching the bad guys? And there's no counter argument to that because it's very hard to find specific examples of where authoritarian governments overreach and go hard on innocent civilians. I reckon when that happens, they manage it keep it very quiet, since they are authoritarian.
On top of all of that, who wants to defend child pornographers? I can see why a person wouldn't even try to engage in that back and forth. There's just no way you come out on top, because basically your side of the argument would have to come down to "Everyone has something to hide, and we should recognize and protect that." It just doesn't _sound_ good.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#654The current conservative government is on its last legs before being banished for at least a decade. It appears they already have their eyes on the lucrative private sector and are willing to vandalise the UK with little thought to public protest.
Labour are even more in favour of this than the tories are. Lib Dems, too. No mainstream party in the UK values your privacy.
You should be more like us Americans and give it up of your own volition to any private company who gives you a moment of free entertainment.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#655Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's crazy that we allow this at all. The government can't observe clandestine conversations that occur in person, does that mean they can mandate us to carry a government recording device? That people don't equally balk at requests to encumber encryption is baffling.
I like this vein of argument: assume that it is good that the government be able to snoop on your text messages. Why not in-person conversations as well? OK, let's make it so everything you say gets recorded. Eesh.
> Assume that it is good that the government be able to snoop on your text messages. Why not in-person conversations as well?
Playing devil's advocate: in most US states, the FBI can in fact plant someone with a wire to record a private conversation. They don't have the resources to record all in-person conversations, but maybe they would if they could.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#656Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the possibility of invisible and essentially free screening of private conversations, the analogy is probably more "install cameras in every home that only the government can access". But we promise, they'll be turned off most of the time.
School boards already successfully do this with 'student laptops' also known as in-home monitoring devices that cannot be switched off.
Has there been a case where a school board activated such a device to spy on the parents? That would be absolutely mental.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels pretty opposite to me. I mean sure UK is pretty privacy hostile in practice (CCTVs everywhere), but what does the US have for companies surveillance of people? How much of that data is legal for governments to buy? Maybe the US gov isn't spying on citizens, but how many 5-eyes partners are definitely sending data to them in proxy (by careful surveillance design)? I guess my question boils down to what spec…
Have a Constitution that limits government power. That said, it has become apparent to me that we need to impose further limitations because apparently the whitelist/blacklist approach we have thus far is insufficient and the Anti-Federalists were much more correct in the long run.
That only works if you have a government willing to limit government power. Otherwise the letter of the constitution will be preserved while everyone in power do basically whatever they want.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#658Earlier quoted context omitted.
It already exists. You can have a door with a steel core. It's not illegal. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/zcvwno/steel_rein...
Are the windows and walls of the said house also made of steel? In that video, why are the armed personnel so obsessed with entering through the door?
Because real life isn't an action movie, and police would rather try to ram the door for a while and hope it budges, instead of instantly going for rappelling from the rooftop or for using a ladder. Especially given how relatively uncommon steel core doors in apartments are in practice.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
It already exists. You can have a door with a steel core. It's not illegal. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/zcvwno/steel_rein...
Are the windows and walls of the said house also made of steel? In that video, why are the armed personnel so obsessed with entering through the door?
One guy climbing through a shard-lined window is easy to mow down; the first cop that dies halfway through will block access to the rest. It also disarms the guy with the riot shield.
Opening the door lets a group of them quickly file in at once to swarm the occupants.
Re: Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a Constitution that limits government power. That said, it has become apparent to me that we need to impose further limitations because apparently the whitelist/blacklist approach we have thus far is insufficient and the Anti-Federalists were much more correct in the long run.
That only works if you have a government willing to limit government power. Otherwise the letter of the constitution will be preserved while everyone in power do basically whatever they want.
That’s true of every conceivable government. Political office is ultimately a position of power and so those who have it seek to maintain and expand it, but I think we roughly have the right mix of institutions serving the right functional roles, but the powers given to Congress could use a textual update, and a right to privacy more clearly spelled out to account for technological and international diplomacy changes that have occurred since 1789.