14 ms·

The Apple letter to customers couldn't happen under proposed UK law

471 points by J-dawg 11y ago

Smircio- 11y ago
I can't believe the USA is being shown up by UK on the topic of government corruption. We gotta step up our game. Time to vote Trump.
- fixxer 11y ago
  Yeah, totally. The dems have such a great record on privacy! /s
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    This is a good discussion to have if everyone can keep our feels to ourselves. Why do some people seem to have the opinion that authoritarianism (anti-privacy) is a feature of one political party (or ideology) more than another. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of congresspersons who are strong protectors of the fourth amendment. Amash - R, Wryden - D, Rand Paul - R, Ron Paul - R, Udall - D. and a few others. Most just follow whatever the party whip tells them to do, and then there are a handful of very authoritarian troublemakers: ie: Pete King - R and Dutch Ruppersberger - D, et al.
    - fixxer 11y ago
      I think many people are more focused on party affiliation than actually paying attention to what their party is doing. Identity politics.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      > Why do some people seem to have the opinion that authoritarianism (anti-privacy) is a feature of one political party (or ideology) more than another The parties market themselves as anti-authoritarian to their own base, while (correctly) characterizing the other party as authoritarian. The marketing propaganda plays off peoples' varying desires for specific freedoms, and whips them into an aggressive fervor bent on taking away freedom from the other team. The politicians are then free to implement the authoritarian policies purchased by their respective sponsors.
- sklogic 11y ago
  You're too far behind. Trump does not even fuck pigs. It's really hard these days to match the UK.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    That allegation was never proven.
    - sklogic 11y ago
      And yet, Trump does not even have any unproven allegations. A long way to go to match our beloved leader Cameron.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's not as if the Clinton Dynasty ever attempted to mandate the use of "clipper chips" (encryption chips with a government backdoor) in mobile phones, or tried to ban strong encryption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151119/18032932868/hillary-clinton-joins-make-silicon-valley-break-encryption-bandwagon.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151119/18032932868/hilla... FYI, the primary political folks promoting encryption were small government, libertarian republicans. (These folks mostly don't exist anymore.) John Ashcroft was fairly prominent among them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#As_U.S._Senator_from_Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#As_U.S._Senator_... Kids these days don't even remember the 90's.
  - grosstacos 11y ago
    Clipper was horrible, that said: John Kerry and John Ashcroft were two of the most prominent opponents of clipper. It is dishonest and inaccurate to claim that the Republicans were against it and the Democrats were for it, both sides were split. Similarly, it's a bit of a reach to claim that "the Clinton dynasty" tried to mandate usage. The NSA offered the chip without royalties, and Bill Clinton endorsed it and proposed it be added to the NIST crypto standards. It was a strong nudge to make it available for free; but it never really approached the level of an attempted mandate. Clipper was a horrible horrible idea; and there were (and still are) members of both parties who think that these sort of backdoored crypto schemes are a good idea. Clipper (and similarly flawed proposals) don't typically originate from a politician; they typically originate from the military-industrial complex and are expressed through a politician. Partisans always have trouble remembering history though... they forget when "their side" does wrong, but they remember clearly the wrongs of the "other" side. And vice versa for good things.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      During the 90's I started off as a Clinton-supporting democrat. At that time, support for encryption was primarily a position held by the "black helicopter" crowd. ("Black helicopters" refers to allegedly paranoid fantasies by right wing militias that federal agents will come for them in black helicopters.) Note that I'm not attempting to promote any particular party - note that I said the folks who promote encryption don't really exist anymore.
fit2rule 11y ago
The more the UK slips down the hole of tyranny and fascism, the more despondent I become - even though I'm not a UK citizen. The reason is, I just don't know of any way that the British people can claw their way back up out of this hole - their tyrannical government seems to be 10 steps ahead of every effort to reign it in. So I feel like I'm witnessing, helplessly, the decline of the UK as a power, and as a nation of free peoples, and the despair comes from knowing that as time goes on, the likelihood of non-violent solutions to the oppression of the British people are ever-more unlikely.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  The worst thing is that though another government could be elected and clean up some of the mess, it wouldn't have time to undo 30 years of damage, and it wouldn't even try to make the desperately needed constitutional reforms to prevent more of this happening in future.
- luwbdascb 11y ago
  k
- bapbap 11y ago
  It's worrying how much mileage "think of the children" and counter-terrorism gets.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    And ISIS are both terrorist and pedophiles (what happens to Yazidi girls is not for the faint of heart).You can kiss all of your civil rights goodbye the moment there is ISIS inspired attack on british soil.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Well, today IDS has told us that the entire EU is a terrorist threat that we must be rid of, because the children. Also paedophiles.
    - 11y ago
iofj 11y ago
This is already the case. Wiretapping orders in Europe can come from a large number of organisations, including any police force, interpol, a few UN departments, some branches of the EU itself, ... there is no judicial review. The wiretap orders do not mention a court case, there is no way to appeal them, and telling anyone about any order, even in general terms, is punishable by jail time (for the person who does it, not the person responsible for them. In other words, technically if you're an engineer at a telco and you tell your boss why you're spending hours without telling anyone anything, technically that's 2 years). There's no appeal, no information about a court case linked (because there may not even be a linked court case, e.g. when a kid I knew ran away I know the police tapped her phone to find her. There never was anything more than an investigation). And of course, the government is under no obligation to even pay for the time spent doing the wiretap, nor does it pay for the equipment and upgrades needed to make them happen (for instance cisco's "lawful intercept" licences, which run in the thousands of euros per device, alcatell, lucent, etc. have similar stuff). The one positive is that it's a huge mess, and many police departments have no idea how to use these laws. But I find it hard to believe that there aren't a few police departments that are actually capable and using these rules for personal gain.
- pascalmemories 11y ago
  In the UK wiretap (and any other surveillance) orders can come from local council officials (and hundreds of other public and some non-public bodies) and have been used for such major crimes as dog fouling and placing your child in the local school [1]. Councils have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds following innocent people for months using these powers. It did lead to some changes but did not actually remove these powers from minor petty officials. The new bill is reintroducing far reaching powers which were originally rejected from the first RIPA legislation and extending the powers already there by very significant levels (beyond where they were originally before being rolled back). PI are highlighting that in the US, Apple were at least able to publicly disclose what they believe is an egregious over-reach by a law enforcement body. In the UK, Apple execs would currently be facing significant jail time for what they have done. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/police-ripa-powers-journalists-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/police-ripa-pow... [edit: grammar, sorry]
ikeboy 11y ago
The court order was public. Apple didn't reveal anything not already known. This article seems unaware of that fact. Also, there's NSLs in the US as well.
- sehugg 11y ago
  Yes, and in a bizarro twist it was Apple who asked that the warrant be filed under seal (according to NYT).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - balaclava9 11y ago
    yeah i think that's an important point that this article should have mentioned: rather than a company trying to embarrass the government for asking, it's the government trying to embarrass a company for not complying! -- the opposite situation from what's addressed by the UK Law.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  That wouldn't make a difference here in Airstrip One - the court order can be public, but you're still not allowed to respond, or even mention it, as while it's a matter of public record, it's also secret. There's a whole bunch of stuff like this. Turn up at a classified government site and ask to see the silos, and watch a press officer do impressive mental gymnastics.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... The first section referenced in OP says: >A relevant telecommunications provider who has been required under this Part to provide assistance in giving effect to a targeted equipment interference warrant, and any person employed for the purposes of the business of the relevant telecommunications provider, may not, without reasonable excuse, disclose to any person— (a) the existence and contents of the warrant >(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is, in particular, a reasonable excuse if the disclosure is made with the permission of the person who imposed the requirement. So the fact that the FBI made it public is a reasonable excuse to talk about it. The second section says: >A person to whom a relevant notice is given, or any person employed or engaged for the purposes of that person’s business, must not disclose the existence and contents of the notice to any other person. We have >In this section “relevant notice” means— (a) a national security notice under section 188, or (b) a technical capability notice under section 189 while > But a national security notice may not require the taking of any steps the main purpose of which is to do something for which a warrant or authorisation is required under this Act. So the first category couldn't have included this, which required a warrant. The second category seems like it could apply (although there's some ambiguity over whether it applies to entities outside the UK which I haven't dug through), but it's for general "maintain ability to comply". >The only steps that may be specified in a technical capability notice given to a person are steps which the Secretary of State considers to be necessary for securing that the person has the practical capability of providing any assistance which the person may be required to provide in relation to any relevant authorisation So a specific warrant would not fall under that. I don't see how any section that the OP refers to would apply.
geographomics 11y ago
The purpose of the non-disclosure sections of this law is to prevent the suspect being wiretapped (or similar) knowing that they're being wiretapped. It's not exactly very useful if someone under active investigation finds out that they're being watched, and changes their communications behaviour as a result. In this case, it wouldn't need to be applied as the suspect is dead.
- tankenmate 11y ago
  Unfortunately your conjectures are not in the bill; what is in the bill is broad and vaguely worded as to what applies (just about any security related request), but very precise and forceful about what is not allowed to be communicated (nothing is allowed to be said about the request; ever).
- mtgx 11y ago
  If you read the Parliamentary Commission's criticisms of the IPBill, it looks like the spy agencies intend to use a lot of "bulk collection" capabilities, even with "targeted" warrants, which means there will be more than one person "wiretapped" at any given time. So in practical terms, this will never be disclosed because everyone will be wiretapped, and disclosing it would mean "endangering the wiretap".
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
We (and our governments) need to recognise that there is no such thing as secrecy anymore, just as there is no privacy anymore. So just as we as individuals need to adjust to a world where our love affairs are known to our telcos and smartphones before our spouses, we need to require our governments to adjust to an open-by-default world where most of what they want to keep secret is just out there. this is the idea that a city watched over by CCTV is a police state if only the police can view the cameras. If everyone can view the cameras it's a free but different society
- GordonS 11y ago
  > So just as we as individuals need to adjust to a world where our love affairs are known to our telcos and smartphones before our spouses Wait, what? Why should we simply accept mass, indiscriminate surveillance that has an incredible potential for misuse now and in the future?!
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    Because the upsides, properly managed, outweigh the down. My lifestyle, as a piece of anonymised health data, along with my genome can benefit medical research as well as my own health choices who I meet or converse with, who is nearby, who is willing and able to purchase the same product as I locally to gain discounts, who is looking to hire someone with my skill sets, who is looking for sex. So many options exist once We all place our digital life up on a publically readable board that it is hard to imagine we will refuse it. But there are about four options 1. Police state. The only people with access to my digital life are the police. China is currently looking at a digital credit score, incorporating party loyalty amoungst other things. 2. Private walled gardens. AOL, Facebook, health insurers, driving insurers. All of these private companies collect my digital life right now. Some of not all can or are compelled to give the data secretly to 1. Above. Even if they were not, the total utility of the data is dramatically reduced in walled gardens plus why is trusting Facebook more sensible than trusting my government with the same data. 3. Anonymised and public. So no walled gardens but lots of open protocols for sharing data, and anonymising that data. This means my weight and most recent meal can be used by medical researchers. However, anonymising data sets sucks - there is little chance I will remain as anonymises as the idea of "privacy" indicates 4. Totally open. Just stick the raw data up and let cottage industries come tell me something interesting. It's most probable that "good" societies will find a balance between 3 and 4. Some my even be the societies currently seen as developed democracies, but there is no guarantee. The advantages of data are such that a society built around the right precepts for big data will win big time - like a society that wrote down its precepts 250 years ago, "we hold these rights ..." The only protection against being blackmailed for being gay in the military is to not make homosexuality a criminal offence and then have all the gays in the military come out. This is the same protection we have against all the mass surveillance - that we know everyone's business. Is it going to be really hard to manage? Yes, and that's why some Socities will make it and many won't. Most have not grasped modern democracy.
DanBC 11y ago
There's some useful, informed, discussion in the UK Crypto mailing list. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2016-January/002590.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2016-Ja...
mtgx 11y ago
You know what this would lead to in the UK? The spy agencies would gag companies to even tell their customers they got hacked, if it happens to be because of a vulnerability they created for the spy agencies. So people will continue to have their accounts hacked more and more and everyone will keep quiet about it.
kintamanimatt 11y ago
Isn't this close to the essence of NSA letters, that have in-built-in gag orders?
cmurf 11y ago
If only it were so easy to use party affiliation to identify adversaries on this topic. Those in favor of government power to compel Apple to commission software, laws to weaken encryption or safeguards such as rate limiting, and spending public funds to aid closed research to crack encryption have one thing in common. They are statists. They believe in the absolute authority of the state. Guess again if you think it's a dysfunction of government when parties disagree. Extra scrutiny is required when they agree.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  Well when people want the government to step in and pay for everything, enforce their personal rights to have other people pay for stuff, why would they not expect the same government to limit their privacy at the same time? Really do they think the piper is not going to get paid? Keep asking the government to do stuff for you, step on people you don't like, and it will one day do it to you.
- teacup50 11y ago
  That's a blanket, incorrect generalization. I'm strongly opposed to government crypto backdoors. Cryptography is protected expression under the first amendment. However, there's no participation award for weak crypto systems; you don't get immunity from lawful search under the fourth amendment because you tried (or claimed) to implement strong crypto. If a legal search is possible because you intentionally backdoored your crypto system by giving yourself access to tamper-resistent key derivation hardware on the devices your customers own, then that legal search is ... still legal. The All Writs Act, and this application of it, has been held up by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, much more demanding requirements have repeatedly been supported by the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_... The DoJ stated this quite clearly in their response to Apple's public efforts to obfuscate the issue: "... iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple ... Just because Apple has sold the phone to a customer and that customer has created a passcode does not mean that the close software connection ceases to exist; Apple has designed the phone and software updates so that Apple's continued involvement and connection is required." If Apple didn't hold keys that trump the owner of the device, Apple couldn't aid the government. They do hold those keys, however, and the fourth amendment still applies: they get to assist with a reasonable search.
formatkid 11y ago
Are there any precedents where the UK has placed a gag order on a foreign company, and successfully extradited and imprisoned a CEO for violating said gag order?
- pjc50 11y ago
  That's a privilege reserved for America, but the nearest I can think of is the Matrix-Churchill fiasco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq ) in which the directors were very nearly jailed by the customs authorities for doing things which they were ordered to do by the intelligence services.
  - formatkid 11y ago
    That is interesting. I honestly believe America wouldn't extradite or even convict a CEO like Tim Cook but in this climate who knows. @pjc50 Could you imagine a trade embargo between tech companies and the UK OR a ban on the sale of phones that do not adhere to the newly proposed laws?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      There was the whole John Delorean weird business, although that was allegedly plain old cocaine dealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial and there's allegations of someone else having their business destroyed for refusing to cooperate with surveillance but I cannot remember the name. I can't imagine the UK having a tech embargo that affected iPhones; that's the kind of stupidity that brings down governments. However, I should note that the ARM TrustZone technology that's critical to the iPhone security is developed in the UK...
      - formatkid 11y ago
        "that's the kind of stupidity that brings down governments" - Do you know who David Cameron is? That John Delorean is some weird business. Not sure how it pertains to extradition re: gag orders. I think when it comes to laws around murder, drugs, and other organised crime it quickly becomes clear that cooperation is important and most countries would support a mutual extradition. I believe that when it comes to laws surrounding political issues; freedom of speech, privacy, removal of encryption (for all phones without warrant or guilt) etc., some foreign companies may not feel obligated to partner up as it were. And rightly so. You can say 10% of the phone is created in China with 30% of the R&D in Poland and 5% design in LA and so on. That division of labour doesn't really matter and it's not really the point. If the company that owns and sells the product remains outside of the UK then I very much doubt the gag order portion would be enforceable. In fact, you would just need to schedule technology to prevent the sale of none compliance. We do that in all other industries and it would be the easiest way to go. You could argue that tech companies would still comply with warrants and you could even argue that the they could eventually add backdoors BUT you can't say the gag order would be enforceable. Companies like Samsung and Apple sell to countries other than the UK. tldr; UK Gov demands a backdoor in the iPhone. Apple reject the gag order and backdoor. Why should the UK demand foreign companies weaken foreign technology sold domestically that would globally affect not only the sale of the product but the trust of consumers in other countries where privacy is paramount. And how or whom do they arrest when nobody complies? ;)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kevinprince 11y ago
Probably gone amiss in this whole thing. Apple technically could post this letter under the proposed legislation because they are not a "telecommunications provider" which is a specific term in UK law referring to those companies who provide telecoms services usually mobile operators, BT etc. Apple is not a licensed telecoms provider as they would never of been able to provide iMessage in the UK as it lacks any ability for real-time intercept a requirement on telecoms providers.
mmmBacon 11y ago
The UK lacks a formal Constitution with something like the 1st Amendment. Instead it has something called the Human Rights Act which includes all kinds of exceptions to free speech. The US 1st Amendment is not absolute but it's the closest thing we have to an absolute right here. The infringement of free speech is possibly the single most controversial aspect of US National Security Letters. It's generally very difficult to limit a person's free speech because of the 1st Amendment. While in UK it seems like they can easily add exceptions like not being able to discuss a court order.
- wfo 11y ago
  The FBI use NSLs fairly freely and nobody really seems to object. The first amendment doesn't really seem to help us here. I think the only reason this wasn't done under a gag order is the FBI wants to use public response to win this case since it's about a terrorist attack (IIRC, they tried the exact same request about a Meth dealer and it was refused) so they can set a precedent. You can't set a precedent for open court and rally the public behind you if it's all secret.
  - mmmBacon 11y ago
    Most gag orders can be challenged and have to serve a benefit of some kind and be of limited duration (like to guarantee a fair trail). A NSL gag order can be challenged. In December 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that some of the NSL gag provisions were unconstitutional, in part because they limited judicial review of the gag orders and forced courts to defer to the government’s assertions about the necessity of a gag order and also thwarted the ability of recipients to challenge a gag order. [source:] http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ And more gag provisions were overturned in 2013. https://www.crowelldatalaw.com/2013/04/gagging-the-fbi-the-unconstitutionality-of-national-security-letters/ https://www.crowelldatalaw.com/2013/04/gagging-the-fbi-the-u... I think the overturning of these provisions of the NSL gag order she the power of the 1st Amendment a show the US judiciary tend to be skeptical whenever the government attempts to limit free speech.
msravi 11y ago
Apple did not want to make this public, and would have been quite happy to give the FBI what it wanted under seal. It was the FBI that actively wanted to make this public, ostensibly to establish legal precedent. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131866

471 points by J-dawg 11y ago

I can't believe the USA is being shown up by UK on the topic of government corruption. We gotta step up our game. Time to vote Trump.

fixxer 11y ago
Yeah, totally. The dems have such a great record on privacy! /s
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  This is a good discussion to have if everyone can keep our feels to ourselves. Why do some people seem to have the opinion that authoritarianism (anti-privacy) is a feature of one political party (or ideology) more than another. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of congresspersons who are strong protectors of the fourth amendment. Amash - R, Wryden - D, Rand Paul - R, Ron Paul - R, Udall - D. and a few others. Most just follow whatever the party whip tells them to do, and then there are a handful of very authoritarian troublemakers: ie: Pete King - R and Dutch Ruppersberger - D, et al.
  - fixxer 11y ago
    I think many people are more focused on party affiliation than actually paying attention to what their party is doing. Identity politics.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    > Why do some people seem to have the opinion that authoritarianism (anti-privacy) is a feature of one political party (or ideology) more than another The parties market themselves as anti-authoritarian to their own base, while (correctly) characterizing the other party as authoritarian. The marketing propaganda plays off peoples' varying desires for specific freedoms, and whips them into an aggressive fervor bent on taking away freedom from the other team. The politicians are then free to implement the authoritarian policies purchased by their respective sponsors.
sklogic 11y ago
You're too far behind. Trump does not even fuck pigs. It's really hard these days to match the UK.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  That allegation was never proven.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    And yet, Trump does not even have any unproven allegations. A long way to go to match our beloved leader Cameron.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's not as if the Clinton Dynasty ever attempted to mandate the use of "clipper chips" (encryption chips with a government backdoor) in mobile phones, or tried to ban strong encryption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151119/18032932868/hillary-clinton-joins-make-silicon-valley-break-encryption-bandwagon.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151119/18032932868/hilla... FYI, the primary political folks promoting encryption were small government, libertarian republicans. (These folks mostly don't exist anymore.) John Ashcroft was fairly prominent among them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#As_U.S._Senator_from_Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#As_U.S._Senator_... Kids these days don't even remember the 90's.
- grosstacos 11y ago
  Clipper was horrible, that said: John Kerry and John Ashcroft were two of the most prominent opponents of clipper. It is dishonest and inaccurate to claim that the Republicans were against it and the Democrats were for it, both sides were split. Similarly, it's a bit of a reach to claim that "the Clinton dynasty" tried to mandate usage. The NSA offered the chip without royalties, and Bill Clinton endorsed it and proposed it be added to the NIST crypto standards. It was a strong nudge to make it available for free; but it never really approached the level of an attempted mandate. Clipper was a horrible horrible idea; and there were (and still are) members of both parties who think that these sort of backdoored crypto schemes are a good idea. Clipper (and similarly flawed proposals) don't typically originate from a politician; they typically originate from the military-industrial complex and are expressed through a politician. Partisans always have trouble remembering history though... they forget when "their side" does wrong, but they remember clearly the wrongs of the "other" side. And vice versa for good things.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    During the 90's I started off as a Clinton-supporting democrat. At that time, support for encryption was primarily a position held by the "black helicopter" crowd. ("Black helicopters" refers to allegedly paranoid fantasies by right wing militias that federal agents will come for them in black helicopters.) Note that I'm not attempting to promote any particular party - note that I said the folks who promote encryption don't really exist anymore.

fit2rule 11y ago

The more the UK slips down the hole of tyranny and fascism, the more despondent I become - even though I'm not a UK citizen. The reason is, I just don't know of any way that the British people can claw their way back up out of this hole - their tyrannical government seems to be 10 steps ahead of every effort to reign it in. So I feel like I'm witnessing, helplessly, the decline of the UK as a power, and as a nation of free peoples, and the despair comes from knowing that as time goes on, the likelihood of non-violent solutions to the oppression of the British people are ever-more unlikely.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
The worst thing is that though another government could be elected and clean up some of the mess, it wouldn't have time to undo 30 years of damage, and it wouldn't even try to make the desperately needed constitutional reforms to prevent more of this happening in future.
luwbdascb 11y ago
k
bapbap 11y ago
It's worrying how much mileage "think of the children" and counter-terrorism gets.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  And ISIS are both terrorist and pedophiles (what happens to Yazidi girls is not for the faint of heart).You can kiss all of your civil rights goodbye the moment there is ISIS inspired attack on british soil.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Well, today IDS has told us that the entire EU is a terrorist threat that we must be rid of, because the children. Also paedophiles.
  - 11y ago

iofj 11y ago

This is already the case. Wiretapping orders in Europe can come from a large number of organisations, including any police force, interpol, a few UN departments, some branches of the EU itself, ... there is no judicial review. The wiretap orders do not mention a court case, there is no way to appeal them, and telling anyone about any order, even in general terms, is punishable by jail time (for the person who does it, not the person responsible for them. In other words, technically if you're an engineer at a telco and you tell your boss why you're spending hours without telling anyone anything, technically that's 2 years). There's no appeal, no information about a court case linked (because there may not even be a linked court case, e.g. when a kid I knew ran away I know the police tapped her phone to find her. There never was anything more than an investigation). And of course, the government is under no obligation to even pay for the time spent doing the wiretap, nor does it pay for the equipment and upgrades needed to make them happen (for instance cisco's "lawful intercept" licences, which run in the thousands of euros per device, alcatell, lucent, etc. have similar stuff). The one positive is that it's a huge mess, and many police departments have no idea how to use these laws. But I find it hard to believe that there aren't a few police departments that are actually capable and using these rules for personal gain.

pascalmemories 11y ago
In the UK wiretap (and any other surveillance) orders can come from local council officials (and hundreds of other public and some non-public bodies) and have been used for such major crimes as dog fouling and placing your child in the local school [1]. Councils have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds following innocent people for months using these powers. It did lead to some changes but did not actually remove these powers from minor petty officials. The new bill is reintroducing far reaching powers which were originally rejected from the first RIPA legislation and extending the powers already there by very significant levels (beyond where they were originally before being rolled back). PI are highlighting that in the US, Apple were at least able to publicly disclose what they believe is an egregious over-reach by a law enforcement body. In the UK, Apple execs would currently be facing significant jail time for what they have done. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/police-ripa-powers-journalists-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/police-ripa-pow... [edit: grammar, sorry]

ikeboy 11y ago

The court order was public. Apple didn't reveal anything not already known. This article seems unaware of that fact. Also, there's NSLs in the US as well.

sehugg 11y ago
Yes, and in a bizarro twist it was Apple who asked that the warrant be filed under seal (according to NYT).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- balaclava9 11y ago
  yeah i think that's an important point that this article should have mentioned: rather than a company trying to embarrass the government for asking, it's the government trying to embarrass a company for not complying! -- the opposite situation from what's addressed by the UK Law.
madaxe_again 11y ago
That wouldn't make a difference here in Airstrip One - the court order can be public, but you're still not allowed to respond, or even mention it, as while it's a matter of public record, it's also secret. There's a whole bunch of stuff like this. Turn up at a classified government site and ask to see the silos, and watch a press officer do impressive mental gymnastics.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... The first section referenced in OP says: >A relevant telecommunications provider who has been required under this Part to provide assistance in giving effect to a targeted equipment interference warrant, and any person employed for the purposes of the business of the relevant telecommunications provider, may not, without reasonable excuse, disclose to any person— (a) the existence and contents of the warrant >(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is, in particular, a reasonable excuse if the disclosure is made with the permission of the person who imposed the requirement. So the fact that the FBI made it public is a reasonable excuse to talk about it. The second section says: >A person to whom a relevant notice is given, or any person employed or engaged for the purposes of that person’s business, must not disclose the existence and contents of the notice to any other person. We have >In this section “relevant notice” means— (a) a national security notice under section 188, or (b) a technical capability notice under section 189 while > But a national security notice may not require the taking of any steps the main purpose of which is to do something for which a warrant or authorisation is required under this Act. So the first category couldn't have included this, which required a warrant. The second category seems like it could apply (although there's some ambiguity over whether it applies to entities outside the UK which I haven't dug through), but it's for general "maintain ability to comply". >The only steps that may be specified in a technical capability notice given to a person are steps which the Secretary of State considers to be necessary for securing that the person has the practical capability of providing any assistance which the person may be required to provide in relation to any relevant authorisation So a specific warrant would not fall under that. I don't see how any section that the OP refers to would apply.

geographomics 11y ago

The purpose of the non-disclosure sections of this law is to prevent the suspect being wiretapped (or similar) knowing that they're being wiretapped. It's not exactly very useful if someone under active investigation finds out that they're being watched, and changes their communications behaviour as a result. In this case, it wouldn't need to be applied as the suspect is dead.

tankenmate 11y ago
Unfortunately your conjectures are not in the bill; what is in the bill is broad and vaguely worded as to what applies (just about any security related request), but very precise and forceful about what is not allowed to be communicated (nothing is allowed to be said about the request; ever).
mtgx 11y ago
If you read the Parliamentary Commission's criticisms of the IPBill, it looks like the spy agencies intend to use a lot of "bulk collection" capabilities, even with "targeted" warrants, which means there will be more than one person "wiretapped" at any given time. So in practical terms, this will never be disclosed because everyone will be wiretapped, and disclosing it would mean "endangering the wiretap".

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

We (and our governments) need to recognise that there is no such thing as secrecy anymore, just as there is no privacy anymore. So just as we as individuals need to adjust to a world where our love affairs are known to our telcos and smartphones before our spouses, we need to require our governments to adjust to an open-by-default world where most of what they want to keep secret is just out there. this is the idea that a city watched over by CCTV is a police state if only the police can view the cameras. If everyone can view the cameras it's a free but different society

GordonS 11y ago
> So just as we as individuals need to adjust to a world where our love affairs are known to our telcos and smartphones before our spouses Wait, what? Why should we simply accept mass, indiscriminate surveillance that has an incredible potential for misuse now and in the future?!
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  Because the upsides, properly managed, outweigh the down. My lifestyle, as a piece of anonymised health data, along with my genome can benefit medical research as well as my own health choices who I meet or converse with, who is nearby, who is willing and able to purchase the same product as I locally to gain discounts, who is looking to hire someone with my skill sets, who is looking for sex. So many options exist once We all place our digital life up on a publically readable board that it is hard to imagine we will refuse it. But there are about four options 1. Police state. The only people with access to my digital life are the police. China is currently looking at a digital credit score, incorporating party loyalty amoungst other things. 2. Private walled gardens. AOL, Facebook, health insurers, driving insurers. All of these private companies collect my digital life right now. Some of not all can or are compelled to give the data secretly to 1. Above. Even if they were not, the total utility of the data is dramatically reduced in walled gardens plus why is trusting Facebook more sensible than trusting my government with the same data. 3. Anonymised and public. So no walled gardens but lots of open protocols for sharing data, and anonymising that data. This means my weight and most recent meal can be used by medical researchers. However, anonymising data sets sucks - there is little chance I will remain as anonymises as the idea of "privacy" indicates 4. Totally open. Just stick the raw data up and let cottage industries come tell me something interesting. It's most probable that "good" societies will find a balance between 3 and 4. Some my even be the societies currently seen as developed democracies, but there is no guarantee. The advantages of data are such that a society built around the right precepts for big data will win big time - like a society that wrote down its precepts 250 years ago, "we hold these rights ..." The only protection against being blackmailed for being gay in the military is to not make homosexuality a criminal offence and then have all the gays in the military come out. This is the same protection we have against all the mass surveillance - that we know everyone's business. Is it going to be really hard to manage? Yes, and that's why some Socities will make it and many won't. Most have not grasped modern democracy.

DanBC 11y ago

There's some useful, informed, discussion in the UK Crypto mailing list. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2016-January/002590.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2016-Ja...

mtgx 11y ago

You know what this would lead to in the UK? The spy agencies would gag companies to even tell their customers they got hacked, if it happens to be because of a vulnerability they created for the spy agencies. So people will continue to have their accounts hacked more and more and everyone will keep quiet about it.

kintamanimatt 11y ago

Isn't this close to the essence of NSA letters, that have in-built-in gag orders?

cmurf 11y ago

If only it were so easy to use party affiliation to identify adversaries on this topic. Those in favor of government power to compel Apple to commission software, laws to weaken encryption or safeguards such as rate limiting, and spending public funds to aid closed research to crack encryption have one thing in common. They are statists. They believe in the absolute authority of the state. Guess again if you think it's a dysfunction of government when parties disagree. Extra scrutiny is required when they agree.

Shivetya 11y ago
Well when people want the government to step in and pay for everything, enforce their personal rights to have other people pay for stuff, why would they not expect the same government to limit their privacy at the same time? Really do they think the piper is not going to get paid? Keep asking the government to do stuff for you, step on people you don't like, and it will one day do it to you.
teacup50 11y ago
That's a blanket, incorrect generalization. I'm strongly opposed to government crypto backdoors. Cryptography is protected expression under the first amendment. However, there's no participation award for weak crypto systems; you don't get immunity from lawful search under the fourth amendment because you tried (or claimed) to implement strong crypto. If a legal search is possible because you intentionally backdoored your crypto system by giving yourself access to tamper-resistent key derivation hardware on the devices your customers own, then that legal search is ... still legal. The All Writs Act, and this application of it, has been held up by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, much more demanding requirements have repeatedly been supported by the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_... The DoJ stated this quite clearly in their response to Apple's public efforts to obfuscate the issue: "... iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple ... Just because Apple has sold the phone to a customer and that customer has created a passcode does not mean that the close software connection ceases to exist; Apple has designed the phone and software updates so that Apple's continued involvement and connection is required." If Apple didn't hold keys that trump the owner of the device, Apple couldn't aid the government. They do hold those keys, however, and the fourth amendment still applies: they get to assist with a reasonable search.

formatkid 11y ago

Are there any precedents where the UK has placed a gag order on a foreign company, and successfully extradited and imprisoned a CEO for violating said gag order?

pjc50 11y ago
That's a privilege reserved for America, but the nearest I can think of is the Matrix-Churchill fiasco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq ) in which the directors were very nearly jailed by the customs authorities for doing things which they were ordered to do by the intelligence services.
- formatkid 11y ago
  That is interesting. I honestly believe America wouldn't extradite or even convict a CEO like Tim Cook but in this climate who knows. @pjc50 Could you imagine a trade embargo between tech companies and the UK OR a ban on the sale of phones that do not adhere to the newly proposed laws?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    There was the whole John Delorean weird business, although that was allegedly plain old cocaine dealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial and there's allegations of someone else having their business destroyed for refusing to cooperate with surveillance but I cannot remember the name. I can't imagine the UK having a tech embargo that affected iPhones; that's the kind of stupidity that brings down governments. However, I should note that the ARM TrustZone technology that's critical to the iPhone security is developed in the UK...
    - formatkid 11y ago
      "that's the kind of stupidity that brings down governments" - Do you know who David Cameron is? That John Delorean is some weird business. Not sure how it pertains to extradition re: gag orders. I think when it comes to laws around murder, drugs, and other organised crime it quickly becomes clear that cooperation is important and most countries would support a mutual extradition. I believe that when it comes to laws surrounding political issues; freedom of speech, privacy, removal of encryption (for all phones without warrant or guilt) etc., some foreign companies may not feel obligated to partner up as it were. And rightly so. You can say 10% of the phone is created in China with 30% of the R&D in Poland and 5% design in LA and so on. That division of labour doesn't really matter and it's not really the point. If the company that owns and sells the product remains outside of the UK then I very much doubt the gag order portion would be enforceable. In fact, you would just need to schedule technology to prevent the sale of none compliance. We do that in all other industries and it would be the easiest way to go. You could argue that tech companies would still comply with warrants and you could even argue that the they could eventually add backdoors BUT you can't say the gag order would be enforceable. Companies like Samsung and Apple sell to countries other than the UK. tldr; UK Gov demands a backdoor in the iPhone. Apple reject the gag order and backdoor. Why should the UK demand foreign companies weaken foreign technology sold domestically that would globally affect not only the sale of the product but the trust of consumers in other countries where privacy is paramount. And how or whom do they arrest when nobody complies? ;)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kevinprince 11y ago

Probably gone amiss in this whole thing. Apple technically could post this letter under the proposed legislation because they are not a "telecommunications provider" which is a specific term in UK law referring to those companies who provide telecoms services usually mobile operators, BT etc. Apple is not a licensed telecoms provider as they would never of been able to provide iMessage in the UK as it lacks any ability for real-time intercept a requirement on telecoms providers.

mmmBacon 11y ago

The UK lacks a formal Constitution with something like the 1st Amendment. Instead it has something called the Human Rights Act which includes all kinds of exceptions to free speech. The US 1st Amendment is not absolute but it's the closest thing we have to an absolute right here. The infringement of free speech is possibly the single most controversial aspect of US National Security Letters. It's generally very difficult to limit a person's free speech because of the 1st Amendment. While in UK it seems like they can easily add exceptions like not being able to discuss a court order.

wfo 11y ago
The FBI use NSLs fairly freely and nobody really seems to object. The first amendment doesn't really seem to help us here. I think the only reason this wasn't done under a gag order is the FBI wants to use public response to win this case since it's about a terrorist attack (IIRC, they tried the exact same request about a Meth dealer and it was refused) so they can set a precedent. You can't set a precedent for open court and rally the public behind you if it's all secret.
- mmmBacon 11y ago
  Most gag orders can be challenged and have to serve a benefit of some kind and be of limited duration (like to guarantee a fair trail). A NSL gag order can be challenged. In December 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that some of the NSL gag provisions were unconstitutional, in part because they limited judicial review of the gag orders and forced courts to defer to the government’s assertions about the necessity of a gag order and also thwarted the ability of recipients to challenge a gag order. [source:] http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ And more gag provisions were overturned in 2013. https://www.crowelldatalaw.com/2013/04/gagging-the-fbi-the-unconstitutionality-of-national-security-letters/ https://www.crowelldatalaw.com/2013/04/gagging-the-fbi-the-u... I think the overturning of these provisions of the NSL gag order she the power of the 1st Amendment a show the US judiciary tend to be skeptical whenever the government attempts to limit free speech.

msravi 11y ago

Apple did not want to make this public, and would have been quite happy to give the FBI what it wanted under seal. It was the FBI that actively wanted to make this public, ostensibly to establish legal precedent. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131866