71–80 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like the EU overreach on privacy. Whether it’s for a good cause or a bad one, these sorts of overreach are to be opposed.
It'd be kinda like GDPR if the EU has demanded that non EU companies apply GDPR to non EU citizens As described by the parent post it's nothing like EU "overreach" on privacy (whatever that even means)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A similar law passed in Australia a few years ago; various Australian law enforcement agencies can request or even demand companies to make changes to their code (read: introduce backdoors). Until people and companies start treating Australian-made software as dangerous to the extent that it affects the economy, other countries will probably follow with similar laws. That should include being hesitant to use American…
Current state of this, as far as I can tell: https://www.firstattribute.com/en/news/eu-data-boundary-for-... Note that it's seemingly unclear whether it's OK for EU companies to store data even on EU servers of US parent companies. Although very little has actually been done about this and everyone, governments included, is still using Microsoft 365.
I’m also not sure there’s so much practical difference between a company headquartered in the EU vs USA. The relevant thing would seem to be where operations happen, and what legal and practical hooks each side has into the company, including physical location of servers and the people who operate and write code for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be kinda like GDPR if the EU has demanded that non EU companies apply GDPR to non EU citizens As described by the parent post it's nothing like EU "overreach" on privacy (whatever that even means)
How am I supposed to put up a website intended for US citizens onto the world -wide-web, without worrying about GDPR?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a dramatic overreach of authority. Well, the rest of the world lives with the USA constantly doing this. Hopefully you dont support that as well.
The US does not require Apple to make a backdoor to its encryption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies cannot really stand up to governments. Unless another government gets involved, Apple will have to follow UK law if they want to keep doing business in that country. By the way, the US is not a stranger to that kind of overreach, either (e.g. CLOUD act).
A large part of what enables huge multinational companies like Apple to be successful and resist stuff like this is a friendly administration and threats by the largest economy in the world. Apple is being sufficiently friendly with the current administration that lawmakers are going to go to bat for them and prevent this sort of stuff from happening. Apple is a pawn on a global stage and the governments are the true…
What do the map companies call the Islas Malvinas? Or the East Sea? How about the Gulf of California? Or the Sea of Cortez? How about Mt Everest?
If a Mexican mapping tech company wants to call it the Gulf of Mexico, that’s their right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the BBC report on the matter: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g288yldko It applies to content stored using ADP, Apple's E2EE tech. A backdoor into that would mean applying a backdoor into iOS on the phone itself, which is a much larger attack surface than anything centralised. All of which highlights the clownish nature of these regulations. They are so easy for bad actors to circumvent (eg using their…
I'm entirely against what the UK government wants, however I would say: Although you're right that tech people would still be able to choose secure encrypted options, the fact is that the majority of criminals by pure numbers are not very sophisticated - so while this sort of backdoor obviously wouldn't be a guarantee that every criminal conversation could be snooped on, it would work on the 90-99% (I'd guess towards…
Once the government starts mining data from iPhones, criminals will quickly adapt while every law-abiding citizen gets caught in the crossfire. It opens the door for abuse: officials could easily spy on their partners, dig up dirt on rivals, or target those they dislike without breaking any laws. Meanwhile, cybercriminals will have an easy target since every phone comes with this built-in vulnerability.
This system is likely to snag small-time offenders, not the real masterminds behind organized crime. This isn’t a smart solution for crime. It just sacrifices our privacy for a few token arrests.
How does this political story stay up but not the ones about DOGE? What gives?
There was a huge story with 1600 points three days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42981756 We don't need new stories daily. And stories about encryption back doors are as much technological as political.
I think this is an unquestionable overreach on the UK's part. If you live in any country that isn't the UK, you should feel the threat from this: the UK government believes that it is entitled to a backdoor on your hardware, even if you've never stepped a foot on UK soil or intend to. Mass surveillance is a threat to everyone, but this is not an instance of that, which has guards against it, like encryption. This is…
Here's the BBC report on the matter: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g288yldko It applies to content stored using ADP, Apple's E2EE tech. A backdoor into that would mean applying a backdoor into iOS on the phone itself, which is a much larger attack surface than anything centralised. All of which highlights the clownish nature of these regulations. They are so easy for bad actors to circumvent (eg using their…