U.K. demand for a back door to Apple data threatens Americans, lawmakers say

Post by fransje26 » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 5:52 PM UTC

jeroenhd wrote: post #12

Shank wrote: post #5

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…

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…

Post by giobox » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 5:54 PM UTC

quesera wrote: post #85

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that? Similarly to the UK, USA has a process to force companies to add back doors. For all we know it might the USA wanting access and using its five eyes allies to get it done.

Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution. Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation. If there is more recent news or legislation, perhaps I'm not remembering it?

Post by fransje26 » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 5:57 PM UTC

sieabahlpark wrote: post #63

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that? Similarly to the UK, USA has a process to force companies to add back doors. For all we know it might the USA wanting access and using its five eyes allies to get it done.

Point to the law that requires them to do it and keep quiet about it. The US law. I'll wait.

Post by giobox » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

quesera wrote: post #117

giobox wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution... Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation. I'm not sure this is how the San Bernardino case actually panned out: "Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to h…

Yes, in this case: successfully used this argument to delay until the FBI gave up. If it had gone to court, the argument was considered strong, but of course no one knows until a verdict is reached and appeals are exhausted.

Post by parasense » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

hnlmorg wrote: post #90

wonderwonder wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a government that believes in thought crimes. They will likely arrest people for having illegal memes on their phones or for texting messages to friends of which the government does not approve. If there was prequal to 1984, it would look something like this.

I really don’t like the UK governments stance on cyber security / counter-terrorism / et al either. In fact, as a UK citizen I’ve actively campaigned against a great many of their policies. However this “thought police” and “arrested for posting memes” comment that often gets pointed on here is itself a nonsense meme. What actually happened was people were arrested for instigating riots. This is no different to what…