411–420 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if the target uses iCloud backup, the encryption keys should also be provided with content return https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21114562/jan-2021-fbi...
That is from before opt-in end-to-end encryption was added for iCloud backups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the in-transit encryption in the world won't matter if they've pwned the decrypted client device. Every company from your device's manufacturer, OS vendor, telecom carrier, app distributors and 3rd party software providers can be compelled to help make that happen. And then there's always Cellebrite and friends.
You thinking way too deep when the whole OS including implementation of the E2EE is proprietary and could be silently and targeted exchanged for a backdoored variant if it's not by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do not . There are so many caveats in relevant part of the human rights act. > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder…
Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no…
The former includes things like how much editorial control journalists are subjected to, the right of journalists to unionize, the cost to print/distribute newspapers, whether journalists are subject to economic constraints (like being dependent on advertising money), etc.
The later is not only far more opaque in how it measures things, relying on a panel of country-specific experts, but it also more press/media related and includes things like media bias and print/media perspectives which is more about diversity of press opinion than freedom of expression (arguably, media bias shouldn't negative affect a freedom of expression index unless it is government imposed).
A more objective comparison of freedom of expression/speech would rate how the government would respond to specific instances of public and private speech - like say calling for the king/president/prime minister/etc. to be replaced, posting nudes (or going nude), blaspheme a particular religion, publishing embarrassing and reputation harming information about a celebrity/someone powerful/a judge/a religious figure, playing loud music outside, refusing to speak when ordered to by a police/judge/legislature/ruler, wearing the clothes various sexes, etc.
It might be difficult to create perfectly equivalent speech across countries, but I think one could get close enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no…
No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words. Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism. I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of…
I mean, I agree with you on that, but it's a circular argument.
My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech?
I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration!
I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue.
I personally agree that morality and territorial integrity aren't adequate reasons to restrict speech, and I'd say that a country without those restrictions has freer speech (from a legal perspective) than those with them. But again, it's a relative comparison; I wouldn't say that a country had no free speech if they did have those restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no…
Neither the World Press Freedom Index nor the Freedom of Expression Index are particularly good measures of government restrictions on individual's speech. The former includes things like how much editorial control journalists are subjected to, the right of journalists to unionize, the cost to print/distribute newspapers, whether journalists are subject to economic constraints (like being dependent on advertising mon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is from before opt-in end-to-end encryption was added for iCloud backups.
Does Apple have any better proof than a whitepaper that they don't backup the keys anyways?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagining something that you to create is something anyone can (and does) do all the time. Spending time learning how to actually create it, and then actually creating it is what makes someone an artist. The children's "own way of creation", in your own words is to imagine what they want to create, and then ask something else to try doing what they want. If it's not what they want they complain and ask the system to…
>Spending time learning how to actually create it, and then actually creating it is what makes someone an artist. Says who? Someone sold a white canvas with a banana taped to it, that a toddler could have done in 3 minutes. What's there to learn to do something like that? >I wouldn't be called an artist Pretty sure people do whatever they enjoy doing, and they don't give a f if some pretentious people call them artis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not hold up any country because there are flaws everywhere; and I don't like writing about free speech because it has different meanings for everyone. But even in our puny Slovakia raiding newspaper offices and taking peoples private data at the border is not something that would happen and didn't happen for at least the last 25 years or so, even though we had and currently have horribly bad governments. The…
There's some truth in what you say, but it's filtered through a distorted lens. Like many countries, the UK government makes the laws and the courts interpret them. The government can't ignore the courts, but can introduce new legislation. The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries, but free speech, for the most part, has broad public support. There's a lot of discussion around where…
And yet their policies are broadly right-wing conservative. Point is the government itself does not have to consist of upper-class people for the class to steer and benefit from the policies. Why is that? Well...
> The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries
We really don't know that because the population has been massaged by right-wing propaganda for (at least) decades. I remember even in the 90's reading Financial Times or something like that and the opinion articles about the EU were quite simply lying. Can imagine it was even worse in the Daily Mail etc. The result regarding the EU is well known, but I think this applies to everything; the population seems to lean conservative because the ruling class prefers it like that and the media owners oblige.
To return to the free speech/press freedom issue, it's the same again: it only works as far as the ruling class allows that. One obvious example are the past climate and current anti-genocide protests, where the government heavily abuses anti-terrorism laws to limit free speech.
edit: from today, this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/23/private-eye-ca...
Stuff like this simply does not happen here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words. Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism. I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of…
So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? I mean, I agree with you on that, but it's a circular argument. My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and…
No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law.
I believe Freedom of Expression is weasel words to obfuscate the conversation as now you have an additional legal concept in the mix, with some nebulous definition that reads like a Terms and Conditions from one of the big tech players.
That is it.
> My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech?
It is the fact that it is brought up at all is engaging in whataboutism.
Why are you even mentioning NK? Why do you care what old Kim Jong does? Really think about why you are even mentioning North Korea. I don't expect or want an answer BTW.
> I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration!
I don't care about the left/right slop politics. I don't care who the "villian of the week" is. Most politics is presented to you in the same way as Scooby Doo.
Why do you care about what Donald Trump is doing in the US? Please actually think about why you are even mentioning it. I don't expect (or want) an answer BTW.
> I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue
The very fact that you are making this argument about gradients of freedom, and everyone has restrictions etc. Is literally the issue. The conversation about it has been obfuscated deliberately.
I don't care what restrictions they have in France, NK, China or anywhere else. That is their business.
I care about the restrictions in the UK, why they exist and whether they are valid.
As for the encryption back-doors, why do you think they actually want to do it? GCHQ just happens to be looking for more developers BTW! I know this for a fact because I had one of their recruiters phone me. I told him what I thought about the British state and not to ever call me again.