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

761–770 of 785 posts

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

#761

Post by soupbowl »

gloryjulio wrote: post #723
nvm0n1 wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many levels of meta-irony in this thread. You're laughing at a non-existent strawman you've been fed by the media. The people saying Let's Go Brandon are perfectly happy to say Fuck Joe Biden. That's how the whole thing started. A large crowd at a televised NASCAR race started chanting it in unison whilst the winning driver called Brandon was being interviewed. The words they were saying were perfectly audible, bu…

Keep living in your small political world, you guys are just a joke. You know there are ppl don't care about politicians;)

Nvm0n1 gave a good explanations of the meme nature of "let's go Brandon". Not sure why you are being rude. You clearly live in a small political world and don't understand the meta.

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

#762

Post by recursivequine »

cvwright wrote: post #742
Cub3 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

What a poetic headline

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

#763

Post by danShumway »

blitz_skull wrote: post #755
danShumway wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Sure, I'll agree they're closely aligned but software freedom and "user" agency (I'm guessing as opposed to general human agency?) require software to be relevant and therefore I wouldn't say they're universal human rights. Important? To be sure. Just not "rights".

I sort of see where you're coming from but I would somewhat disagree, I think that software is just an expression of device ownership and modification rights more broadly. Maybe that is kind of what you're getting at, that right to repair is a higher-level concept on top of a more universal human right? It's software-specific in the sense that software makes it harder to use those rights, but I also think I should have the freedom to take apart my toaster or to modify a shovel that I buy. But...

I don't know, I don't want to argue too much, and I don't want to give you a pedantic reply when we seem to be in agreement that privacy, agency, repair are all important and whether you or I would stick them in a specific category probably doesn't change much about that or necessarily mean that we actually disagree on anything practical related to those concepts.

I think it's bad that Apple isn't willing to fight for right to repair or user agency, but it is good that Apple is willing to fight for privacy regardless of its motivations. I don't think Apple is a universal advocate for human rights and I don't like deifying the company and I don't think its positions on privacy excuse its positions on repair or agency. But it's pretty objectively good for Apple to make a statement that it will pull these products out of the UK rather than comply, and it would be silly for anyone to say that the statement is meaningless just because Apple has bad positions on other freedoms. Apple's positions on right to repair do not make it any less good for Apple to have issued that statement about encryption.

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

#764

Post by hakavlad »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #653
bhelkey wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

>who wants to defend child pornographers?

What is "child pornographer" btw? Is it the one who produces? Is it the one who distributes? Sharing CP != child abuse. Viewing CP != child abuse. Storing CP != child abuse. I want to defend CP viewers. Children can suffer during production (but not always: teenagers can film themselves, for example, i.e. make home videos just like adults). But no one suffers directly during the storage, viewing and distribution of files.

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

#765

Post by xp84 »

jjav wrote: post #756
xp84 wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> special-case mechanisms to violate that privacy (e.g. search warrants, targeted spying)… go through a process with some checks and balances. I don't have any objection to this type of spying I think this is why it’s such a hot issue though. E2E Encryption is a “get out of all surveillance free card.” Even a mildly trained criminal or terrorist can easily guarantee that his communications will never be intercepted.…

> E2E Encryption is a “get out of all surveillance free card.” That's the misdirection the pro-surveillance agencies use but it's not true at all. People still ultimately exist in meatspace (as it used to be called). If you get a warrant based on legitimate suspicion to follow someone, you can assign detectives to follow them, plant bugs in their home, wire up collaborators and all the endless techniques that were us…

> all the endless techniques that were used before the internet was around

Ok that’s another fallacy though. Before, authorities could get a warrant to wiretap phones and to check the outsides of your envelopes (a “mail cover.”) Only an idiot criminal would ever make a phone call or mail a letter today for anything even remotely related to crime because e2e encrypted calls and chat apps are a thing now, removing lots of risk (nobody can do anything short of getting in the room with one party and peeking over his shoulder, which is not just hard for “lazy” cops, it would be hard for elite international spies). That’s a whole new thing, and a big deal if your job is say, stopping and apprehending human trafficking rings or organized crime.

Again though I’m not saying “and that’s why we should have a back door for cops.” I’m not and we shouldn’t. Just that people who say things have changed in a very impactful way are not being hyperbolic or dishonest.

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

#766

Post by j45 »

brasic wrote: post #138
j45 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp was a little late to the encryption party

What do you mean? WhatsApp rolled out E2E encryption between 2014 and 2016. It’s by far the largest messaging service that is e2e encrypted by default. I think it’s more than fair to call it ahead of the curve for a service of its size. https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://blog.whatsapp.com/end-to-end-encryption

It's a very easy search and might surprise ya.

As recent as 2021, there's been questions: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-...

But, let's go to the start - WhatsApp started in 2011.

Encryption arrived in varying degrees until there was some pressures to change the amount of privacy messages had for advertising purposes.

Lots in the news at the time.

2018 "Another point of disagreement was over WhatsApp’s encryption. In 2016, WhatsApp added end-to-end encryption, a security feature that scrambles people’s messages so that outsiders, including WhatsApp’s owners, can’t read them. Facebook executives wanted to make it easier for businesses to use its tools, and WhatsApp executives believed that doing so would require some weakening of its encryption."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-fou...

2018 "Acton said he tried to push Facebook towards an alternative, less privacy hostile business model for WhatsApp — suggesting a metered-user model such as by charging a tenth of a penny after a certain large number of free messages were used up." https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/whatsapp-founder-brian-act...

2018 "WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum quits over privacy disagreements with Facebook" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/30/jan-koum-...

2018 WhatsApp co-founder: "I sold my users' privacy" to Facebook "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-acton-whatsapp-on-faceboo...

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

#767

Post by webinvest »

zarzavat wrote: post #292
paxys wrote: post #207

The 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…

Furthermore, Apples phones are made in China. Apples phones are not made in the UK.

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

#768

Post by webinvest »

abigail95 wrote: post #631
zarzavat wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, the UK is a democratic country that is voting to reduce privacy. A massive company in a foreign country affecting the laws of your own is anti-democratic. Democracy doesn't mean privacy.

Are you sure the UK is a democratic country?

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

#769

Post by jjav »

xp84 wrote: post #765
jjav wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E2E Encryption is a “get out of all surveillance free card.” That's the misdirection the pro-surveillance agencies use but it's not true at all. People still ultimately exist in meatspace (as it used to be called). If you get a warrant based on legitimate suspicion to follow someone, you can assign detectives to follow them, plant bugs in their home, wire up collaborators and all the endless techniques that were us…

> all the endless techniques that were used before the internet was around Ok that’s another fallacy though. Before, authorities could get a warrant to wiretap phones and to check the outsides of your envelopes (a “mail cover.”) Only an idiot criminal would ever make a phone call or mail a letter today for anything even remotely related to crime because e2e encrypted calls and chat apps are a thing now, removing lots…

> Before, authorities could get a warrant to wiretap phones

So basically, before the invention of phones, no criminal was ever caught?

Clearly that's not true. It is entirely possible to follow and spy on people in person and that's how it was always done before the 20th century.

Just because new technologies exist does not justify using them to inifinitely augment surveillance powers of the state.

> a big deal if your job is say, stopping and apprehending human trafficking rings or organized crime

You don't succeed at human trafficking or organized crime if you never leave the house and spend all your day just chatting on signal. You have to actually go out into the real world and do the crimes. As soon as you step out of the house you can be followed and monitored and caught in the act.

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

#770

Post by LightBug1 »

urbandw311er wrote: post #677
LightBug1 wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about as simple as going for a walk with a friend and having a conversation ... without anyone listening in. That's how my phone should feel.

But it’s never been that way in the UK. If you were suspected of planning a murder/bombing/atrocity/etc they could bug your phone even 50 years ago. And personally I’m quite glad about that!

Weird that that's your default ...

What if, you know, you're not planning a murder/bombing/atrocity/etc., like, erm, you know, normal people.

I get it ... nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, right?

Post reply on HN