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

U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#271

Post by derbOac »

latexr wrote: post #229
em500 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before people immediately think the worst of Google or other corporate representatives, be aware that people working in these companies need to weight their words carefully. From The Verge's article on the issue: The UK has reportedly served Apple a document called a technical capability notice. It’s a criminal offense to even reveal that the government has made a demand. Similarly, if Apple did cede to the UK’s dema…

Which is exactly why I’m making this point. If no government had requested a backdoor, they could’ve simply answered “no”. When you have to weight your words, it means you’re not at liberty to say whatever you want. That is itself a signal, and why warrant canaries are a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

You're right to point out how carefully worded these statements are. But I suspect it's rare for companies of Google's status to not have been asked for a backdoor. It's not really an informative question to ask Google.

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#272

Post by Chance-Device »

doublerabbit wrote: post #266
Chance-Device wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the way that the UK has passed laws for a while now, make them so broad that they potentially criminalise everyone, then selectively prosecute. This is a very obvious setup for future totalitarianism. I’m surprised that the British public stands for it, but I guess they must not care.

> I’m surprised that the British public stands for it, but I guess they must not care. I can educate people but it always comes back to "I've not got anything to hide". What are we suppose to do, go out to the streets and protest? Start a petition, right to a PM who has no idea what encryption is? Mentioning Linux to my family opens a can of worms. We are naive to think protesting actually changes something, it's old…

Don’t you think maybe this attitude is part of the problem?

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#273

Post by Lio »

I don't think the UK government would try to put Apple out of business if they don't comply it's more likely that they would just get heavily fined until they do so.

The most likely outcome, I would guess, is that Apple just stop offering Advanced Data Protection as a service in the UK rather than create some kind of backdoor.

It's a weak proposition from the government because anyone with something to hide will just move it somewhere else with encryption. Honest UK consumers are the one's getting the shitty end of the stick because we're about to loose protection from criminals.

Daft waste of time.

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#274

Post by madeofpalk »

tacomagick wrote: post #270
scarface_74 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as far as we know there is no encryption back door

"As far as we know" is the most important part.

It seems apparent to me that Apple leaked this information to US press in an attempt to get the UK to back off. Wouldn't Apple also try to subvert the attempt for US intelligence to get a backdoor? Or do we think Apple has less of a leg to stand on with US and would be more likely to roll over?

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#275

Post by pentel-0_5 »

Funes- wrote: post #216

Further proof against the idea that we live in "democracies", if anyone still believes that. We're at the hands of petty tyrants. Modern societies are surveillance hellholes, and it seems to only get worse and worse. So much for "progress".

I think Technofeudalism, as Yanis Varoufakis put it, creates inverted totalitarianism where people are controlled not directly by government with guns but with corporations with access control and moderation power over apps that form the majority of the public commons, personal, and work lives. To resist this subjugation, individuals, municipalities, and groups, large and small, need to build their castles on the bedrock of non-profit co-op services in countries with strong privacy safeguards rather than on the uncertain sands of corporate shores where they will be swept away by the next wave. It's expensive, it's starting from scratch it many cases, and not going to be as immediately polished as corporate offerings, but the socioeconomic and human capital won't be as easily destroyed, manipulated, or raided by police or corporate whims.

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#276

Post by IceHegel »

Funes- wrote: post #216

Further proof against the idea that we live in "democracies", if anyone still believes that. We're at the hands of petty tyrants. Modern societies are surveillance hellholes, and it seems to only get worse and worse. So much for "progress".

Certainly this decision seems intended to defend the state more than the people.

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#277

Post by captainbland »

briandear wrote: post #267
captainbland wrote: post #129

Given recent polling, we have to assume that what is MI5's today will be Reform's tomorrow. We have to ask what our government and judiciary are doing putting our privacy in the hands of the far-right.

It’s a Labour government, not a “far right” government.

I see from your history you may have knee jerked this one. I am referencing the far-right Reform party's current polling success and how this may be reflected in our government in the future.

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#278

Post by 542354234235 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #61
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. There should no compromise on my privacy ever. We are not (yet) in a dictatorship and I’m not a criminal. Why should I suffer because governments are incompetent?

In a situation where a criminal used Whatsapp and decrypting it is needed for the conviction, why should I suffer because of your absolute views on privacy? I hold neither of the extreme views, and frankly I am baffled by anyone in either of them.

In a situation where an accused criminal used Whatsapp and decrypting it is needed to view the content which may or not lead to a conviction. This ridiculous idea that law enforcement knows people are guilty and it is these pesky rights that keep getting in the way is just false. Police regularly and consistently abuse their power to railroad people and take the easiest path to convicting someone.

Even in situations where citizen rights do “get in the way” of convicting the guilt, that is the price we pay to not be thrown in jail for crimes we didn’t commit. Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said “It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches us, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.” He also said “Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order... and the like.”

Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts

#280

Post by michaelt »

bilekas wrote: post #158
layer8 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be enforced by fining the UK legal entities (or worse, like charging their legal representatives) if they don't comply. If the UK is serious about this, the only alternative for Apple would eventually be to completely cease operations in the UK. By the way, this is similar to why for true GDPR compliance, data centers should be operated by EU companies that aren't subsidiaries of US companies, because even i…

> By the way, this is similar to why for true GDPR compliance, data centers should be operated by EU companies that aren't subsidiaries of US companies, because even if the latter operate data centers located in the EU, they would still be bound to secret orders by the US government. This is interesting, I know GDPR does not mandate data localization but I was under the impression that the requirements are a bit more…

The EU has a law saying "don't transfer data out of the EU without the right paperwork, but of course if your American sysadmins have SSH access to servers in the EU to do maintenance that's no problem, just tell them not to copy the data off it"

The US has a law saying "If our spies tell American sysadmins to SSH into a server in the EU and copy data off it, they must do it and they must keep it secret"

Post reply on HN