Live data from Hacker News

Signal to leave Sweden if backdoor law passes

swedenherald.com

281–283 of 283 posts

Re: Signal to leave Sweden if backdoor law passes

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Signal are doing here, they could have refused to do business (at least, with iCloud) in that country. That's a far bigger pushback than simply capitulating to removing a relatively unknown feature. To be clear, if they did this and the UK gov called their bluff, it'd affect me personally, but I'd rather that than swinging open the backdoors

You believe that the Apple Board of Directors would allow their CEO to do that? Who do you think would make that decision?

If it's the board that makes that decision, it's the board that holds responsibility for it. Nobody said anything about a specific person at Apple doing anything, just Apple as a company.

Would they? Of course not, but the question was what else could they do, and this is something they could (and if their fundamental motive wasn't purely profit above all else, perhaps should) do.

Re: Signal to leave Sweden if backdoor law passes

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Testimony under oath can be compelled

Yes but people can genuinely forget the exact words they spoke time ago, even one minute ago, or a whole conversation. Examples: Who did I talk to yesterday? Did I met that neighbor of mine yesterday or was it the day before? I don't know.

I think generalizing forgetting information ignores that certain conversations would likely have a better chance to be remembered

Re: Signal to leave Sweden if backdoor law passes

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe that the Apple Board of Directors would allow their CEO to do that? Who do you think would make that decision?

If it's the board that makes that decision, it's the board that holds responsibility for it. Nobody said anything about a specific person at Apple doing anything, just Apple as a company. Would they? Of course not, but the question was what else could they do, and this is something they could (and if their fundamental motive wasn't purely profit above all else, perhaps should) do.

The board can't make a decision like that. They would be ousted by activist shareholders.

I'm trying to help people understand that there is no actor that can make these decisions they want them to.

Post reply on HN