Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 438 posts

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#241

Post by LightBug1 »

belter wrote: post #195
miohtama wrote: post #164

What could go wrong? The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. > Now every force in the country has a team sifting through people’s posts trying to determine what crosses an undefined threshold. “It is a complete nightmare,” one officer admits Britain’s police are restricting speech in worrying ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... From The Economi…

> The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. I though it could not be true, but actually it is...WTF? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-0022...

Always good to peel away at least the surface layer ... and ideally more ...

https://archive.ph/xBtFI#selection-3249.145-3249.167

A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services. “They may also be serious domestic abuse-related crimes. Our staff must assess all of the information to determine if the threshold to record a crime has been met. “Where a malicious communications offence is believed to have taken place, appropriate action will be taken. Our staff must consider whether the communication may be an expression which would be considered to be freedom of speech. While it may be unacceptable to be rude or offensive it is not unlawful — unless the communication is ‘grossly offensive’.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#242

Post by Spooky23 »

Silhouette wrote: post #166
Spooky23 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing extraordinary about the implications of what was said.

There is nothing extraordinary about a claim that multiple commercial organisations routinely and reliably defeat the security of modern devices on behalf of law enforcement - something that would clearly undermine numerous public claims about the security and privacy of those devices made by their manufacturer? You and I have very different ideas of what is extraordinary!

Multiple vendors advertise and sell devices and software to crack iPhones, they have for years. In the US, any decent size city or county sheriff has access to one. State level forensics labs probably have several types.

The manufacturer provides the means to bypass many of the cheaper tools, but few people use them.

There are more exotic tools that can bypass security controls. These are more niche and not generally available to law enforcement. There may be some crossover when counter-intelligence interfaces with law enforcement. (Ie. FBI, DEA, RCMP, ICE, etc)

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#243

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kstrauser wrote: post #45
lenerdenator wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's associated with Palantir. He can't be pushing for privacy.

Sure he can. In an ideal world (from the US gov't's perspective), all communications everywhere would be encrypted, and only they'd have the workarounds to access the data anyway. I'm not being sarcastic. For real, what major government wouldn't want that in their favor?

> they'd have the workarounds to access the data

That is the opposite of privacy.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#244

Post by andybak »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #223
tolien wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"? You've definitely missed some context. For example, and fairly significantly: > Connolly previously admitted intending to stir up racial hatred. If you plead guilty to a charge, there's not much defense left. The offence she admitted to doesn't even take account of whether it's committed online - it's law that was passed in 1986. An aggravating factor that…

So the context: she posted similar things online multiple times, she pleaded guilty, and the law in question can apply to offline activity as well -- all right, but all this still literally translates into "arrested for online posts". She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. This alone makes free speech proponents upset, re…

> it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term.

Are we really going to have to have the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" conversation?

I think there is some nuance to the conversation about this woman - but you are avoiding it with incredible agility.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#245

Post by atmosx »

bsimpson wrote: post #89
scarface_74 wrote: post #26

I’m by no means a Trump fan. But I thought it was negligent how the Biden administration didn’t fight for American tech companies internationally and how the prior administration was actively hostile to them. Then people wonder why tech embraced Trump.

This is my fundamental problem with Elizabeth Warren et. al.. They act like the choices are omni-powerful US tech companies, or a plethora of small companies building utopia. They say "we need to hamstring our most successful companies to make space in the market for smaller players." The problem is that it isn't making space for smaller players; it's making space for countries with worse perspectives on human rights…

Did this approach ever actually work out in the history of humanity? Like, we're fine with massive corporations spying on us because otherwise the Chinese/Russian/Aliens might? In the name of protecting freedom, we're violating it ourselves and we brag about it?

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#246

Post by wkat4242 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #237
wkat4242 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they make money so they don't subsidise it. They get paid for it but through our data. Which is what we don't want here in Europe anyway.

Subsidy in this context was meant to convey that all the bandwidth and infrastructure that allows for global communication for billions of people is paid for by the advertising Meta sells, money that obviously disappears if Meta disappears.

That doesn't mean we won't have money to pay for it though. All that advertiser money comes from the consumer too. Companies pay it to sell things, and to make a profit they factor it into the price. We're paying for it, we just don't pay Meta directly.

If meta would disappear we would either buy less and have more money to pay for communication (and doing more towards saving the planet as well!). We'd probably choose things to buy more on actual need and quality rather than marketing BS.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#247

Post by andybak »

Ray20 wrote: post #215
slater wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 12k a year?!? That is a staggering number. (i think OP might be speedrunning a "what opinions, mfer?" goose meme thing. i bet the reason is "for posting right-wing nationalistic garbage likely to incite hatred", or similar)

[flagged]

> as far as I understand

If you're going to post about something so contentious, then bring receipts. We've all got things we vaguely remember that confirm our prejudices. But posting them without fact-checking oneself is crossing a line on topics like this.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#248

Post by yesco »

tolien wrote: post #231
alexey-salmin wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the context: she posted similar things online multiple times, she pleaded guilty, and the law in question can apply to offline activity as well -- all right, but all this still literally translates into "arrested for online posts". She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. This alone makes free speech proponents upset, re…

I wasn't saying the context I gave was an exhaustive list, I was suggesting that having Googled her name and maybe skimmed a couple of news articles, you might need to do some more reading before forming too much of an opinion. > She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. Your contention seems to be that incitement shouldn't…

> That's at odds with legal systems all over the world, including the US

Not true. The US has a much higher bar for prosecuting speech than the UK.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - 395 U.S. 444

- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107965/brandenburg-v-o...

- Speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"

- AND "likely to incite or produce such action"

- General statements like "burn them all" typically fail both prongs

The "imminent" requirement is key. Connolly's Facebook post lacked:

- Specific targets or locations

- Timeframe for action

- Direct instructions to specific individuals

- Any indication people were prepared to act on her words immediately

Here are cases with far more explicit threats that were protected:

United States v. Bagdasarian (2009)

- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/221261/united-states-v...

- Citation: 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011)

- Posted that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head" with racial slurs

- Result: Conviction reversed as crude political statement, not true threat

United States v. Turner (2013)

- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/904120/united-states-v...

- Citation: 720 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2013)

- Posted that three federal judges "deserve to die" with their photos and addresses

- Result: Conviction overturned as protected political hyperbole

Connolly's "set fire to all the hotels" would likely be viewed as angry hyperbole in the United States, not meeting Brandenburg's strict standard.

The distinction: The US prosecutes actual incitement (directing a mob to attack a building RIGHT NOW). The UK prosecutes offensive speech that merely might inspire someone, somewhere, someday. Your Brandenburg citation actually proves this difference rather than refutes it.

You want thousands of examples? Check Twitter during any US political crisis - they're not prosecuted precisely because Brandenburg protects them.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#249

Post by andybak »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #221
miohtama wrote: post #164

What could go wrong? The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. > Now every force in the country has a team sifting through people’s posts trying to determine what crosses an undefined threshold. “It is a complete nightmare,” one officer admits Britain’s police are restricting speech in worrying ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... From The Economi…

We need to apply sanctions, and end all intelligence sharing with the UK until they stop this nonsense.

Or we need to do a tiny bit more research before jumping to conclusions.

UK law in this regard is far from perfect but this thread is mainly uninformed knee-jerking.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#250

Post by andybak »

dev_l1x_be wrote: post #127
setgree wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is explicitly about how J.D. Vance (age 40) & others at the White House are forcefully advocating for preserving E2E encryption. Arguably not for the right reasons, but still. I'm not sure what you mean by "more" but what you are asking for is in fact happening.

And also about who is really running the show in the UK.

And who is that?
Post reply on HN