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

261–270 of 438 posts

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

#261

Post by dmix »

andybak wrote: post #244
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…

> 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.

I guess no one ever claimed authoritarianism was imposed on the British unwillingly. Seems to have lots of defenders.

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

#262

Post by tolien »

yesco wrote: post #260
tolien wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do expand on that point then. Edit: If I remove the reference to Brandenburg, I'm not sure my point substantially changes: Incitement is an offence in the UK and also in other countries. You can argue whether that should be the case or not but that's completely orthogonal. Gathering a whole lot of offenses which happened to include online activity to produce a big number of people who you can claim were prosecuted fo…

You're playing a shell game with definitions to justify authoritarian speech laws. > lumping together arrests for stalking, incitement to violence and other forms of harassment to produce a big scary number But that's exactly the problem - the UK defines "incitement" and "harassment" so broadly that ordinary political speech becomes criminal: UK "Harassment" includes: - Misgendering someone online - Posting offensive…

> There ARE thousands.

And here you're getting in on the dishonesty.

How many of those were examples of "hurt feelings" and not "put a whole lot of foreigners at risk of their lives" or any of the other classes of "online posts"? We don't know because in their rush to say "the UK's arresting 30 people a day for posting things online", the Economist didn't bother breaking that down.

> NONE of these would meet Brandenburg's standard in the US.

None of them happened in the US so that's irrelevant. My misunderstanding of the precedent around incitement isn't central to my point.

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

#263

Post by scarface_74 »

dvtkrlbs wrote: post #157
lenkite wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the local EU services/products all have Brussels Mandated encryption back-doors and permit free decrypting of your private data, I will bet there will be a surge back to non-EU services. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/eu-pushes-for-backdoors-in-...

I mean a lot of EU would prefer EU backed backdoor to US backed backdoor. EU backed backdoor still sucks but I don't get this argument

There is no such thing as an “EU backdoor”. Once you have any kind of backdoor it will be exploited by spy agencies worldwide through hacks

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

#264

Post by yesco »

tolien wrote: post #262
yesco wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're playing a shell game with definitions to justify authoritarian speech laws. > lumping together arrests for stalking, incitement to violence and other forms of harassment to produce a big scary number But that's exactly the problem - the UK defines "incitement" and "harassment" so broadly that ordinary political speech becomes criminal: UK "Harassment" includes: - Misgendering someone online - Posting offensive…

> There ARE thousands. And here you're getting in on the dishonesty. How many of those were examples of "hurt feelings" and not "put a whole lot of foreigners at risk of their lives" or any of the other classes of "online posts"? We don't know because in their rush to say "the UK's arresting 30 people a day for posting things online", the Economist didn't bother breaking that down. > NONE of these would meet Brandenb…

'We don't arrest people for speech, we arrest them for crimes we've defined as speech' is not the defense you think it is.

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

#265

Post by immibis »

cryptoegorophy wrote: post #178
HPsquared wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12k a year?!? That is a staggering number. I wonder what the stats were in East Germany (though they may have had harsher punishments.. that can be ratcheted up later though once the system is in place)

Per gpt: Estimates vary, but roughly 250,000–300,000 people were imprisoned for political reasons over the GDR’s 41-year existence—an average of ~6,000–7,000 annually. Just wow. I wonder if we will study this in history textbooks about downfall of UK

It depends what you count as political reasons. Plausible bullshit could be generated to support the idea that arrest for any particular crime is political, or just as easily, to oppose that idea.

I draw the bar for "political arrest" at somewhere like "arrested for opposing the incumbent in an election". I don't think "arrested for saying it's time to gas the muslims" - which is the sort of thing happening in the UK and getting counted in these numbers - should be called "political arrest". That's just called committing a crime. That would only become a "political arrest" if gassing the muslims was a politically acceptable viewpoint, equal in value to not gassing them.

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

#266

Post by immibis »

yesco wrote: post #248
tolien wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

The US has about the most extremist speech laws on the planet. They are a significant outlier, and shouldn't be used as a benchmark.

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

#267

Post by immibis »

yesco wrote: post #264
tolien wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There ARE thousands. And here you're getting in on the dishonesty. How many of those were examples of "hurt feelings" and not "put a whole lot of foreigners at risk of their lives" or any of the other classes of "online posts"? We don't know because in their rush to say "the UK's arresting 30 people a day for posting things online", the Economist didn't bother breaking that down. > NONE of these would meet Brandenb…

'We don't arrest people for speech, we arrest them for crimes we've defined as speech' is not the defense you think it is.

The USA doesn't arrest people for speech, but for crimes it's defined as speech, right?

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

#268

Post by immibis »

aunty_helen wrote: post #207
tolien wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muddying the "simple argument" would be lumping stalkers in with people inciting violence against foreigners and posting nasty comments about the Prime Minister, to make some kind of point about the police. That would be ridiculous.

Stalking: Already a Crime Inciting Violence: Already a Crime Posting nasty comments: Not a crime. Glad I could clear things up for you.

Except, in some countries, it is a crime. Why do you think it's not one? Are you familiar with UK law?

In Germany there are even stricter laws. Insulting someone is a crime, even if the things you say are factually true.

And then you have repressive dictatorships, like the UAE, USA and China, where you can't disagree with the government on anything. It's definitely a crime there, to say the president looks like Winnie the Pooh.

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

#269

Post by EasyMark »

ok123456 wrote: post #115
jjani wrote: post #102

> Apple did not respond to a request for comment. “We have never built a back door or master key to any of our products, and we never will,” Apple said in February. This must be some "technically correct" weasel words bullcrap, as without at least equivalent access there is no chance Apple would be operating in China.

"We have never built." ok, so then who built it?

Is it a big deal though? Context matters. Everyone knows you don't do business in China without bending a knee to the government in all things. If you don't you are shut down completely if you're lucky, imprisoned if not. Of course CCP has access to every device in China approaching very close to 100%

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

#270

Post by EasyMark »

gtirloni wrote: post #188
jonplackett wrote: post #6

I assumed they’d only have asked for it if they’d already OKed it with the US, and that it was probably part of a plan to give US access too via 5-eyes sharing. Turns out it was not 4D chess after all…

> Turns out it was not 4D chess after all… It never is. I'm guilty of thinking there's a secret master plan sometimes and there never is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

For me it's not so much a conspiracy as the natural flow as a society becomes more fascist (as most Western government are leaning) and more "police state". It's inevitable, they want to be able to spy on every aspect of our lives and keep it recorded indefinitely as technology and public sentiment will allow. Cops want to make their jobs as easy as possible, politicians want to be able to get as much dirt on everyone as they can.
Post reply on HN