5 ms·

Worth noting that Apple "gets away" with more in China than most: - iMessage, one of the only end-to-end encrypted messaging systems widely available in China.

Worth noting that Apple "gets away" with more in China than most: - iMessage, one of the only end-to-end encrypted messaging systems widely available in China. - iCloud Keychain, which they've designed to work securely on "adversarial clouds"[1] (Of course this may only be because not many people actually use these features versus WeChat...) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U

cletus 8y ago
> - iMessage, one of the only end-to-end encrypted messaging systems widely available in China. And those encryption keys are stored in China because the Chinese government demanded it be so [1]. I believe it's also more subtle than that too. For example, if you (a non-Chinese iMessage user) send a message to a Chinese iMessage user the key to that exchange is now stored in China. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
- intopieces 8y ago
  But what happens if you send a "sensitive" message over iMessage? On WeChat (or even the messaging system inside Didi!) you get censored. Does it happen on iMessage?
- macintux 8y ago
  The keys are only useful if the user enables cloud storage of messages, so the user’s privacy is still achievable. That fact seems to be lost in the noise.
- Despegar 8y ago
  What? The point of end-to-end encryption is that Apple doesn't retain the keys. iMessage and FaceTime are end-to-end encrypted. And after Messages in iCloud, you get the benefit of E2E while everything stays in sync across all your devices [1]. It won't be long until this dumb narrative that ignores Apple's leverage in China goes away. Once there's a trade deal they'll be allowed to own data centers without JVs again [2]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17405420/messages-icloud-ios-11-4-imessage-syncing-apple-iphone-feature https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17405420/messages-icloud-... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sweetens-its-cloud-offer-in-u-s-trade-talks-11554976562 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sweetens-its-cloud-offer-...
- abalone 8y ago
  That’s inaccurate. iMessage, Keychain and a few other services are end to end encrypted with keys stored only in the secure elements of each iPhone. Apple cannot access this data even under subpoena and neither can anyone who controls their data centers (China). They don’t have those keys. What the article you cited refers to is more general iCloud data, including backups, which is vulnerable to subpoena/govts. They do have those keys. But it is significant that China permits iMessage to operate even though it is E2EE. More details here on what is E2EE and what is not: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
jhanschoo 8y ago
I'm of the notion that when doing business in certain illiberal regimes (and China is one of those certain ones), one still does democracy and liberalism a service if one offers, through their services, more empowerment and a less regulated or surveilled experience than what is available in their market. The primary intuition driving the response that companies should boycott illiberal regimes has three flaws. First, in a free market of money and information, a sufficiently strong boycott can have severe repercussions for the offender: consumers switch to a known competing service because. There is a problem extending this notion to an (empowering and less surveilling) company boycotting an illiberal regime; from the hypothesis I outline above, a competing service offers less empowerment or more surveillance and regulation, which in effect helps the entity being boycotted, the state; and also because of the hegemonic control of information, the entity being boycotted, the state, is unlikely to see criticism from something so minor as a company not doing business in it. Second, one argument in favor of boycott is by analogy of economic sanctions. It puts pressure on the sanctioned company. I have to say that this is true to an extent. Companies supplying goods important to national security like oil and arms can exert influence on countries. But one does not think that Apple is critical to the national security of China: everything except for the more empowering and less surveilling services provided by Apple is provided by competing services in China. Perhaps one argues that the more empowering and less surveilling practices makes life more tolerable in the illiberal regime. In that case, I do not see the problem either: many think that Twitter and Facebook do democracy and liberalism a service because they offer empowerment and a less surveilled platform in illiberal regimes. Finally, there is the question of where the line has to be drawn to be moral. Just as one argues that companies are immoral to participate in the economy of an illiberal regime, one also gets the argument that companies are immoral to participate in the economy of a liberal regime with illiberal elements, countries like the US where monied interests have outsized influence in its politics. It is on the onus of those arguing for boycott to provide a distinction for why doing business in the US in industries heavily shaped by lobbied interests is not immoral but doing business in China is, but thus far the current reasons I have heard being expressed for boycotting illiberal regimes do not work; one, of putting pressure on countries is also an argument for boycotting the US, and likewise for the other, for "refusing to stain one's hands" in participating in illiberal processes. By that dime, it would be immoral to receive federal subsidies for one's business that one thinks does the nation a disservice. For the two reasons I have put before this point, I argue that line drawn is not one between liberal and illiberal regimes, but whether or not a company is providing a more empowering and less surveilled experience to people living under any regime. Of course, under a sufficiently liberal regime, and in certain contexts, empowerment and surveillance can be tradeoffs: the presence of police surveillance empowers one to go outdoors with less fear of harm being done to themselves, but this is not relevant to the argument at hand. Unless these flaws are addressed, one is left with the case of Twitter and Facebook in illiberal regimes: they should be appreciated for their empowering and less surveilled services in illiberal regimes, rather than criticized for doing business in those regions. Thus, if what you say is true, that Apple provides a less surveilled experience, and if my argument is true, then Apple is doing democratic preconditions and liberalism a net benefit in China. I believe the same for Dragonfly by Google, if it provides a much better search experience for Chinese consumers with not significantly more censorship than other search providers in China. Of course, Apple and Google would not be wise to make this argument publicly, for doing so would paint a bright red target on their backs.

cletus 8y ago

> - iMessage, one of the only end-to-end encrypted messaging systems widely available in China. And those encryption keys are stored in China because the Chinese government demanded it be so [1]. I believe it's also more subtle than that too. For example, if you (a non-Chinese iMessage user) send a message to a Chinese iMessage user the key to that exchange is now stored in China. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...

intopieces 8y ago
But what happens if you send a "sensitive" message over iMessage? On WeChat (or even the messaging system inside Didi!) you get censored. Does it happen on iMessage?
macintux 8y ago
The keys are only useful if the user enables cloud storage of messages, so the user’s privacy is still achievable. That fact seems to be lost in the noise.
Despegar 8y ago
What? The point of end-to-end encryption is that Apple doesn't retain the keys. iMessage and FaceTime are end-to-end encrypted. And after Messages in iCloud, you get the benefit of E2E while everything stays in sync across all your devices [1]. It won't be long until this dumb narrative that ignores Apple's leverage in China goes away. Once there's a trade deal they'll be allowed to own data centers without JVs again [2]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17405420/messages-icloud-ios-11-4-imessage-syncing-apple-iphone-feature https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17405420/messages-icloud-... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sweetens-its-cloud-offer-in-u-s-trade-talks-11554976562 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sweetens-its-cloud-offer-...
abalone 8y ago
That’s inaccurate. iMessage, Keychain and a few other services are end to end encrypted with keys stored only in the secure elements of each iPhone. Apple cannot access this data even under subpoena and neither can anyone who controls their data centers (China). They don’t have those keys. What the article you cited refers to is more general iCloud data, including backups, which is vulnerable to subpoena/govts. They do have those keys. But it is significant that China permits iMessage to operate even though it is E2EE. More details here on what is E2EE and what is not: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

jhanschoo 8y ago

I'm of the notion that when doing business in certain illiberal regimes (and China is one of those certain ones), one still does democracy and liberalism a service if one offers, through their services, more empowerment and a less regulated or surveilled experience than what is available in their market. The primary intuition driving the response that companies should boycott illiberal regimes has three flaws. First, in a free market of money and information, a sufficiently strong boycott can have severe repercussions for the offender: consumers switch to a known competing service because. There is a problem extending this notion to an (empowering and less surveilling) company boycotting an illiberal regime; from the hypothesis I outline above, a competing service offers less empowerment or more surveillance and regulation, which in effect helps the entity being boycotted, the state; and also because of the hegemonic control of information, the entity being boycotted, the state, is unlikely to see criticism from something so minor as a company not doing business in it. Second, one argument in favor of boycott is by analogy of economic sanctions. It puts pressure on the sanctioned company. I have to say that this is true to an extent. Companies supplying goods important to national security like oil and arms can exert influence on countries. But one does not think that Apple is critical to the national security of China: everything except for the more empowering and less surveilling services provided by Apple is provided by competing services in China. Perhaps one argues that the more empowering and less surveilling practices makes life more tolerable in the illiberal regime. In that case, I do not see the problem either: many think that Twitter and Facebook do democracy and liberalism a service because they offer empowerment and a less surveilled platform in illiberal regimes. Finally, there is the question of where the line has to be drawn to be moral. Just as one argues that companies are immoral to participate in the economy of an illiberal regime, one also gets the argument that companies are immoral to participate in the economy of a liberal regime with illiberal elements, countries like the US where monied interests have outsized influence in its politics. It is on the onus of those arguing for boycott to provide a distinction for why doing business in the US in industries heavily shaped by lobbied interests is not immoral but doing business in China is, but thus far the current reasons I have heard being expressed for boycotting illiberal regimes do not work; one, of putting pressure on countries is also an argument for boycotting the US, and likewise for the other, for "refusing to stain one's hands" in participating in illiberal processes. By that dime, it would be immoral to receive federal subsidies for one's business that one thinks does the nation a disservice. For the two reasons I have put before this point, I argue that line drawn is not one between liberal and illiberal regimes, but whether or not a company is providing a more empowering and less surveilled experience to people living under any regime. Of course, under a sufficiently liberal regime, and in certain contexts, empowerment and surveillance can be tradeoffs: the presence of police surveillance empowers one to go outdoors with less fear of harm being done to themselves, but this is not relevant to the argument at hand. Unless these flaws are addressed, one is left with the case of Twitter and Facebook in illiberal regimes: they should be appreciated for their empowering and less surveilled services in illiberal regimes, rather than criticized for doing business in those regions. Thus, if what you say is true, that Apple provides a less surveilled experience, and if my argument is true, then Apple is doing democratic preconditions and liberalism a net benefit in China. I believe the same for Dragonfly by Google, if it provides a much better search experience for Chinese consumers with not significantly more censorship than other search providers in China. Of course, Apple and Google would not be wise to make this argument publicly, for doing so would paint a bright red target on their backs.