Apple says it'll remove iMessage and FaceTime in UK rather than break encryption

Post by lozenge » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #494

vbo wrote: post #419

I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…

> I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The USA is still doing pretty good but the UK and the EU are staunchly anti privacy. They're pretty good on consumer privacy but don't believe that privacy from the government should exist.

Post by qwezxcrty » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

hot_gril wrote: post #439

yankput wrote: post #202

Hm, I wonder what they do in China. In China they are running their own infrastructure on servers owned by party-affiliated businesses. I wonder how strong their encryption is over there? China blocks many services with strong encryption but it doesn’t block iMessage.

Seems nobody uses iMessage in China. The stats I can find don't even list it. Maybe they're ok with leaving it as a way for visitors to talk to people at home.

Post by LightBug1 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 9:01 PM UTC

guy98238710 wrote: post #638

Someone should bring up lawyer and doctor privilege as an argument. Phones are intimately personal devices that people take to their homes and use for a lot of very private stuff. Phones cannot fulfill their job as a personal device and be a police snitch at the same time just like lawyers cannot advise their clients and inform the police at the same time. There needs to be a personal computer privilege.

Post by prmoustache » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 9:18 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #520

hellojesus wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that why we pay gov agents to hang out in the seedy parts of the web? If CP consumers are able to find each other with relative ease, I'm sure agents impersonating them can find them too. Then it's up to them to locate them, likely by exploiting an opsec failure along the way. I see no reason the give the gov eyes on everything when they have a perfectly valid route to investigations.

I'll also play Devil's advocate even though I'm a very vocal advocate for data privacy in real life. These government agents are people as well, and as people they'll suffer to wade through the dark corners of the web to locate a minuscule part of all the CP data available worldwide. These people will inevitably require mental care to deal with the trauma of looking at GiBs and GiBs of small kids being raped, that's…

Post by garfieldnate » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 9:22 PM UTC

nonameiguess wrote: post #632

ashton314 wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this vein of argument: assume that it is good that the government be able to snoop on your text messages. Why not in-person conversations as well? OK, let's make it so everything you say gets recorded. Eesh.

I don't believe encryption should have intentional backdoors, but more because of the technical impossibility of doing this without introducing security risk. Your analogy doesn't really work, because what governments are arguing they should be able to do is break encryption and snoop only when given a warrant. They can snoop on in-person conversations when they get a warrant and the general public doesn't oppose tha…