[flagged]
As a Brit I feel you may have a point there.
U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#472Constitutionally guaranteed privacy and free speech have made America... the world leader.
America used to push the rest of the world to give their people those rights. Used to....
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any specific whacky examples?
Something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_Australia...
I started reading and it talks about something where a warrant and a case are required to request interception on each case. Is that whacky? You don't think it helps you know fight crime and stuff? Or you have an actual specific example?
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#474[dead]
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
It creates a nasty precedent doesn't it? If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile? I can't see on what basis the government thinks they're going to get to be exceptional here?
It's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizens the UK government want to spy on, and GCHQ spy on American citizens the US government want to spy on. So this would indirectly allow the US government to spy on US citizens (even more than it already does, anyway)
Why do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law? Ever heard of Snowden leaks?
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#476In 10 years we'll all be shocked to discover this headline should have read "US Tells UK to Demand Apple Create Global iCloud Encryption Backdoor".
Why would you suspect that the US pushed their hand on this? This is not out of character at all for the UK.
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that turning off ADP in the U.K. is sufficient to appease the British Government. The Investigatory Powers Act can also be interpreted to give the U.K. the right to ask for encrypted data from users outside of the U.K. (see Apple making this exact point in a filing here [1].) Turning off ADP in the U.K. doesn't end the controversy if that's what's at stake. [1] https://bsky.app/profile/matthewdgreen.b…
It creates a nasty precedent doesn't it? If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile? I can't see on what basis the government thinks they're going to get to be exceptional here?
> what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile?
Realistically: Apple is a US company (with lots of foreign entanglements) with US leaders, and the US and UK are close allies with extradition treaties and the like. I'd expect the US government to put lots of pressure on Apple to prevent it from acting on such requests from Russia or China, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple execs would get slapped with espionage charges if they didn't head the warnings (especially if they "provide data on UK minister's phones").
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#478Earlier 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
Simply answering "no" when that's the truth could be illegal too. The ability to say no creates the ability to say yes as well. If I ask Apple whether they got an order and they say "no", then a year later they say "we cannot confirm nor deny", well then that's a yes.
Kinda depends on judicial interpretations of free speech, but that's how warrant canaries work. Are warrant canaries legal in the UK? They seem to be in the US but idk how well established that is.
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizens the UK government want to spy on, and GCHQ spy on American citizens the US government want to spy on. So this would indirectly allow the US government to spy on US citizens (even more than it already does, anyway)
Why do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law? Ever heard of Snowden leaks?
one of the Snowden leaks was exactly about the five eyes countries coordinating in this way to dodge oversight though?
Re: U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By banning Apple from doing business in the UK. As someone else here said, Apple would 100% call this bluff. And you can be certain the UK won't have the US to put pressure on Apple for them. All the would happen is the UK Apple users would be with an expensive paperweight.
That assumes that Apple's shareholders believe that Apple's privacy reputation (relative to other companies) is more valuable than access to the UK market. All evidence that I have seen suggests that consumers by and large do not care about this kind of privacy. They do not buy iPhones instead of other phones due to the privacy properties. Therefore Apple's shareholders could order Apple to stay in the UK market. And…
This is usually true of any corp. However, Apple is the one big tech company that has built its reputation on privacy more than any other, and Cook in particular is very strong on that -- and he's not prone to Zuck-like flip/flopping, at least not so far.
You may be right, of course. But if there's one tech company who _might_ say "no", it's Apple.
Counterpoint: Apple in China.