Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption • Hacker News Board

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

#741

Post by jen20 » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 1:16 PM UTC

jonhohle wrote: post #630

jen20 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it makes people look like pathetic muppets. If you mean "Fuck Joe Biden", say "Fuck Joe Biden", don't clutch your damn pearls about it.

When the majority uses vulgarities, how does not using vulgarity make one a muppet? I’d also consider the Muppets rather avant-garde for their time, so maybe you mean it as a complement as in Gonzo, Fozzy, or Beaker (or any other pathetic Muppet).

If you think the _words_ are the vulgar part of modern right wing ideology, I don't even know what to tell you.

That said, I am perhaps guilty of the same offence there - per the BBC America article "10 British Insults Americans Won't Understand" [1], a muppet is "someone who’s stupid, gullible and incapable of independent thought" - unfortunately the pearl clutching tends to extend to the typical four letter word I would use for such people.

[1]: https://www.bbcamerica.com/blogs/10-british-insults-american...

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

#742

Post by cvwright » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 1:44 PM UTC

Cub3 wrote: post #712

cvwright wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most amazing psy op I’ve ever seen is this convincing the public that it’s people who use encryption who are the perverts, and not the people who literally want to creep on other people’s private photos of their kids / spouses / romantic partners. This is exactly the opposite of how it works in the real world.

Do you change with the curtains open? Or, better, do you shit with the door open?

Defensive arguments like this are good, too.

But it feels like to really achieve successful political pushback on something of this magnitude, it really requires going on offense.

Like, why are all the headlines not "Dudes in law enforcement demand access to millions of young women's intimate photos"?

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

#743

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 2:12 PM UTC

throwmeback wrote: post #424

hiatus wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're really complaining about is that other people will not follow your choices. If your relations have such a hard line that a single app is "the only way to interact with certain groups of people", they are the ones to blame, not the maker of the app.

I'm afraid life (at least mine) is way more complicated than that.

[deleted]

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

#744

Post by kwhitefoot » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 2:32 PM UTC

stuart78 wrote: post #739

kwhitefoot wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mail and Telephones were never at any point perfectly private In principle they were not private but in practice they were because in most places the police had to realize that there was a conversation of interest, get a warrant, and use scarce resources. Now the authorities are able to use machines to monitor traffic patterns for almost all communication the cost of interception is much lower.

The FBI has a history of illegal wiretapping as old as the organization itself. To keep it relevant to one of this weekend's big film openings, you can read all about how illegal recordings fed the hearings that stripped Oppenheimer of his security clearance. And the tradition extends to many other prominent figures including Martin Luther King. And today, this kind of surveillance continues through through more mode…

Oppenheimer was an obvious target, you and I are much less likely to be listened to when resources are scarce. So in Oppenheimer's time my communications would most likely have been very secure.

But now resources are less scarce and the task is easier so blanket surveillance and recording is more nearly practical.

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

#745

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 3:21 PM UTC

doublerabbit wrote: post #265

ben_w wrote: post #247

Makes me glad that I left the UK. I wonder what happens when all the Conservative Party MPs discover that this sort of legislation means even more of their internal party conversations — currently on WhatsApp but who knows what they'll use next — get leaked?

Nothing. They know, they don't care. It's simple as that. Politicians will flail, but the inner-circle won't even shrug. The Conservative party is in a nose-dive which will continue to be until the next couple of generations kick the bucket. Those who are in the their 60's want the UK to be just like it was before EU. Those who are in their 40's, 50's accept that brexit was a eff'up, many are in denial that it was a…

I was 34 when I emigrated to get away from all that nonsense.

It's not been easy, but it has been worth it.

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

#746

Post by alfiedotwtf » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

datalus wrote: post #589

ashton314 wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah... the crux is should electronic conversations be afforded the same rights, and by extension are they assumed rights for all communication? Where to draw the line? It's definitely murky.

> Where to draw the line?

That line is called the Third Party Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

"The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant"

... but if you really want true privacy:

"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself" -- George Orwell, 1984

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

#747

Post by justcurioustoo » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

grammers wrote: post #607

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.

The EU has their own plans with Chat Control, on par with the UK proposal.

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

#748

Post by r00fus » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

urbandw311er wrote: post #676

r00fus wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it'll die in this generation itself. The UK with Brexit are starting to find out very quickly how insignificant their nation is and how easy it is to route around the oversized egos of their so-called leaders.

British citizen here. I didn’t vote for Brexit. But would you mind perhaps not insulting my country?

Most governments deserve a good helping of scorn including my own, despite our best efforts to persuade them otherwise. I find most people in the UK quite agreeable. I recommend not taking criticism against your government personally.

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

#749

Post by IIsi50MHz » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

itronitron wrote: post #601

datalus wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... the crux is should electronic conversations be afforded the same rights, and by extension are they assumed rights for all communication? Where to draw the line? It's definitely murky.

By analogy, what if I have multiple pairs of tin cans, where each pair of tin cans is connected by a string, and sell those pairs of cans to people so that they can have private conversations at a distance from one another. If I provide privately owned physical infrastructure for protecting those strings and facilitating the routing of the strings am I obligated to make that available to the government for eavesdropp…

Wellll…by default, they're available. High-speed cameras (and possibly lasers/lidar?) can read the string. Maybe shroud it?

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

#750

Post by smolder » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

defrost wrote: post #700

smolder wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, in theory, a society with much less privacy could work, as long as there is information symmetry, not a panopticon controlled by a few. We're not building an open society, though. The asymmetry is the point. If we ignore the open society angle and assume surveillance would be one sided: Competition is needed for healthy capitalist economies. Competition doesn't work well with great power imbalances. To the e…

> I think, in theory, a society with much less privacy could work... I suspect what many forget or were perhaps unaware of is the in practice society with near zero privacy existed for the vast bulk of actual human history. Before the car and the radical change in individual human movement that came about for those parts of the world privileged enough to have a car for every family the majority of people lived within…

> Before the car and the radical change in individual human movement that came about [...]

The lack of privacy in a local town is surely quite different in its effect on society than a centralized and wide reaching dragnet surveillance program. That local lack of privacy was limited in reach, not automatic nor persistent, and mostly symmetric... which doesn't present the same potential harms.