3 ms·

Where is this stance coming form that Apple needs to break E2E crypto to be "able" to "E2E encrypt iCloud data"? That makes absolutely no sense. There is nowhe

Where is this stance coming form that Apple needs to break E2E crypto to be "able" to "E2E encrypt iCloud data"? That makes absolutely no sense. There is nowhere such a requirement. They could just E2E encrypt iCloud data. Point.

FabHK 5y ago
They could E2E iCloud, of course. Question is whether they could while still staying on the right side of the law.
- still_grokking 5y ago
  Is there a law requiring device manufactures to search (without any warrant!) the devices of all their customers? How do for example hard drive manufacturers comply?
matwood 5y ago
There is no requirement right now, but you only need to look at what's happening in the US, UK, and EU to see the battle setting up around E2EE. Apple may see this feature as a way to quiet critics of E2EE. Hard to know if it will be enough. But, I think it's safe to say if Apple did turn on E2EE w/o any provision for things like CSAM, it would help drive legislation that is likely more heavy handed.
- adventured 5y ago
  Even if that were true, that Apple might accelerate attempted government overreach by encrypting data end to end, the obvious better solution would be to hold the line on the status quo for as long as possible (including legally duking it out with governments around the world to hold the line to the extent they can), not to do what they're doing now. If they were badly losing on that front (such that all hope were lost so to speak), then they could attempt this new approach at that time, they could offer that up as a middle ground, and their seeming capitulation then would buy them a lot of slack. Instead, they're supposedly pre-capitulating (if you buy into that premise). Doing what they're doing now, it looks like one of a few possibilities: they're just that stupid (I'm skeptical), they're groveling for points (hey, if we give you this, maybe you'll leave us alone on anti-trust, as our size and quasi-monopolistic position is beneficial to your surveillance aims), or they're already being compelled (as they were with PRISM) and are not publicly able to reveal that.
adventured 5y ago
It is curious that particular notion keeps getting repeated ad nauseam given it makes zero sense. It's coming exclusively from Apple fans desperate to give them the benefit of the doubt on this rather epic implosion of Apple's brand when it comes to privacy. So many people hooked themselves up to the Apple-is-pro-privacy wagon. They invested into the ecosystem across the board. They've been swimming in Apple's products & services pool for years or decades. Apple just went from hero to maybe villain on privacy. So now many of those people that are getting screwed over by Apple are going to be emotional about it, irrational about it, in denial about it. It won't be used nefariously in the future. It won't be expansive, it'll remain the very limited program they say it is today. It won't be abused around the world by authoritarian governments. One of the greatest potential surveillance tools ever deployed and it won't be rampantly abused by the world's most powerful governments and agencies (all of which are hungry to spy on their citizens and or other nation's citizens). Yeah right.

FabHK 5y ago

They could E2E iCloud, of course. Question is whether they could while still staying on the right side of the law.

still_grokking 5y ago
Is there a law requiring device manufactures to search (without any warrant!) the devices of all their customers? How do for example hard drive manufacturers comply?

matwood 5y ago

There is no requirement right now, but you only need to look at what's happening in the US, UK, and EU to see the battle setting up around E2EE. Apple may see this feature as a way to quiet critics of E2EE. Hard to know if it will be enough. But, I think it's safe to say if Apple did turn on E2EE w/o any provision for things like CSAM, it would help drive legislation that is likely more heavy handed.

adventured 5y ago
Even if that were true, that Apple might accelerate attempted government overreach by encrypting data end to end, the obvious better solution would be to hold the line on the status quo for as long as possible (including legally duking it out with governments around the world to hold the line to the extent they can), not to do what they're doing now. If they were badly losing on that front (such that all hope were lost so to speak), then they could attempt this new approach at that time, they could offer that up as a middle ground, and their seeming capitulation then would buy them a lot of slack. Instead, they're supposedly pre-capitulating (if you buy into that premise). Doing what they're doing now, it looks like one of a few possibilities: they're just that stupid (I'm skeptical), they're groveling for points (hey, if we give you this, maybe you'll leave us alone on anti-trust, as our size and quasi-monopolistic position is beneficial to your surveillance aims), or they're already being compelled (as they were with PRISM) and are not publicly able to reveal that.

adventured 5y ago

It is curious that particular notion keeps getting repeated ad nauseam given it makes zero sense. It's coming exclusively from Apple fans desperate to give them the benefit of the doubt on this rather epic implosion of Apple's brand when it comes to privacy. So many people hooked themselves up to the Apple-is-pro-privacy wagon. They invested into the ecosystem across the board. They've been swimming in Apple's products & services pool for years or decades. Apple just went from hero to maybe villain on privacy. So now many of those people that are getting screwed over by Apple are going to be emotional about it, irrational about it, in denial about it. It won't be used nefariously in the future. It won't be expansive, it'll remain the very limited program they say it is today. It won't be abused around the world by authoritarian governments. One of the greatest potential surveillance tools ever deployed and it won't be rampantly abused by the world's most powerful governments and agencies (all of which are hungry to spy on their citizens and or other nation's citizens). Yeah right.