9 ms·
Apple now requires a judge's consent to hand over push notification data
- heavyset_go 3y agoIn my opinion, it shouldn't be up to the whims of companies to decide who they share your private data with if they don't have your explicit permission, or a valid warrant, subpoena or court order, to do so.
- 7e 3y agoDoesn’t the third party doctrine and/or ECPA only require a subpoena, especially for old, partially delivered notifications? It seems like Apple and Google are daring law enforcement to sue so that they can establish a stricter precedent.
- chmod775 3y agoYou're asking for something like the GDPR.
- foepys 3y agoIt's incredibly confusing to me that so many American tech workers were ranting on HN how the GDPR is the biggest mistake ever and will sink the EU tech scene, only to discover that GDPR is a citizen's tool against total government surveillance.
- dns_snek 3y agoUnfortunately GDPR carves out exemptions for government and law enforcement purposes. They would never willingly impose additional restrictions onto themselves. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/
- cherryteastain 3y agoGDPR won't protect you from law enforcement, let alone intelligence agencies. The legal mechanisms these organizations use have broad carve outs from GDPR. Before GDPR, there already were other protections against domestic three letter agency surveillance. As Snowden showed us, this was easily circumvented by getting UK to spy on US citizens instead and sending over the data (and vice versa).
- morelisp 3y agoAlthough GDPR doesn't restrict the activities of law enforcement, it does restrict what other companies have and therefore what LE can request of them. The biggest issue is not that LE can investigate specific things, it's that they have easy access to such a massive self-perpetuating dragnet of everything.
- jeroenhd 3y agoThe GDPR may not protect you from law enforcement, but it's not like you're free to send over whatever you wish to the police without following the proper process, either. If you have information on someome the police asks for, there are strict processes that need to be followed. Sharing information with the police at a mere request, like what happened in this case, may even force you to inform the people whose information you have provided. Unless law enforcement can demand confidentiality, they're a normal party in the eyes of the law. For example, when the police requests security camera owners for footage in a wide area around where a crime took place, sharing that footage may be illegal without blurring or cropping if other innocent people not matching the suspect's description are in clear view, or you may need to inform those people that you have provided the police with footage they're visible in. This very much depends on where the camera is located and where it's pointed at, and I doubt anyone had ever filed a GDPR complaint with their DPA about it, but without following the proper legal process, the police is as valid a party to share information with as any other person or organisation. In this case, where the police asked Apple but did not fully utilise their investigatory powers (because Apple could've demanded a warrant), a GDPR-like law would've made it harder for governments to spy on people. It's not like warrants are hard to come by for spy agencies, but such warrants would at least produce a paper trail of some kind in the case of a witch hunt.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 3y agoBut those companies would say they do have your permission. Because users explicitly click on the Agree button when they signup.
- cma 3y agoIt is crazy the level of care we have in wiretapping laws for domestic phone calls, while almost nothing for digital communication if the company volunteers it.
- thfuran 3y agoYeah, the third party doctrine is complete crap in the modern era. At the very least, what constitutes voluntarily turning over information to a third party needs to be far more narrowly defined, but I think the entire premise is a bit shaky.
- _heimdall 3y agoIt actually seems understandable to me. Many politicians in the US are former lawyers, judges, etc. They could easily have learned lessons of how much privacy protections can get in the way of "real" investigations. They're also part of a government that has been handed more and more power for the better part of 60 years, privacy laws are a problem if your honest view is that the government is there to protect us by whatever means are necessary.
- kergonath 3y agoThese terms should be null and void. You cannot give informed consent as you have no clue what could happen in the future. Consent should be given on a case by case basis. Also, not hidden in 100 pages long EULAs that you have to agree to in block in order to do anything. There cannot be informed consent with coercion and deception either. Personal data are as private as medical records.
- jeroenhd 3y agoThis is why the GDPR demands explicit consent in many cases (even though many companies don't follow the law, unfortunately). The EULA is not a defence for a lot of data sharing anymore. In my opinion, the USA deserves a similar law to protect its citizens from this type of crap. Unfortunately, privacy protection doesn't seem to be a very popular topic in American politics.
- matwood 3y agoYou're asking for legislation, but what we have seen coming out of the government are laws looking to make it easier to get access to data. Unfortunately, companies are all we have right now.
- john_the_writer 3y ago100% so many governments of the world spend time drafting laws to make it easier. "protect the children."
- vmfunction 3y agoWe shouldn't be storing ANY personal stuff on company CLOUD. We all ought to have OUR own data, usb online.
- kennywinker 3y agoHard to believe apple’s postering about privacy when it takes this showing up in the media for them to harden up their policies. Seems like they only care when people know about it…
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wilg 3y agoThe uncynical take is they just didn't realize this was an issue and changed it immediately when they found out it was.
- cryu 3y agoNah. I was with Apple for the better part of a decade; Apple care[sd] about user privacy only insofar as it gave them something else to bash Google about[1] [1] Getting into a knock-down-drag-out with the new honcho overseeing CoreOS about us "doubling down on user privacy" was one of the last straws for me. Everybody in the audience was source-disclosed (and some of us had even read the relevant parts :), and the guy had the audacity to claim a certain thing was impossible when we knew that particular thing was not only possible but was being uploaded to the mothership ...
- JimDabell 3y ago> Apple care[sd] about user privacy only insofar as it gave them something else to bash Google about Apple have done a lot of work in relation to privacy, and I am struggling to think of times they have bashed Google in relation to that work. It’s rare for Apple to refer to competitors at all. For instance, here’s Apple’s documentation on tracking prevention in WebKit: https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ This is clearly the result of privacy work spanning many years. I can’t think of a time Apple have bashed Google in relation to any of this functionality. This goes for pretty much everything I can think of where Apple is clearly working on privacy-improving measures. If the only reason Apple works on privacy is to bash Google, where is all the Google bashing? Because I can see a lot of privacy work, but I can’t see a lot of Google bashing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kergonath 3y agoGood. It should have been that way since the beginning. It’s infuriating that companies feel that they can do this sort of things without any form of consent.
- 5350-uiop-1130 3y agowe treat them as "personal" devices but they are really not. it is a snitch in your pocket broadcasting everything you do to unknown parties constantly. being able to install spyware on a phone is an intrinsic function of the device. not a bug or flaw imo.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- eimrine 3y agoThe nobody-watch-the-watcher situation.
- DeathArrow 3y agoWhy does Apple even have access to push notifications?
- whartung 3y agoApple routes all of them. Company sends message to Apple. Apple sends the message to your phone. App on phone delivers the message to you.
- DeathArrow 3y ago> Apple sends the message to your phone. The "send" part I understand. What I don't understand is the "store" part. And is the Apple's routing even needed? Web push notification don't need Apple, Google, Microsoft or Ubuntu between the web app and you. Can't app push notifications work in the same way?
- ben-schaaf 3y agoWeb Push uses a browser provided "push-service", so if you're using the push API your notifications are already going through Apple.
- kyelewis 3y agoWeb push notifications do need and use Apple, Google… between the web app and you.
- jasode 3y ago>Web push notification don't need Apple, Google, Microsoft or Ubuntu between the web app and you. They do. To implement "web push", each web browser vendor has their own backend server to handle notification subscriptions[1][2]. - Mozilla Firefox uses their server at "push.services.mozilla.com" - Google Chrome uses their server "fcm.googleapis.com" - Apple Safari uses "api.push.apple.com" - MS Edge uses their Windows Notification API server [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53169001/web-push-do-they-use-public-servers-like-google-etc/53378967#53378967 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53169001/web-push-do-the... [2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48683770/how-are-web-push-messages-delivered/48684217#48684217 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48683770/how-are-web-pus... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38430226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38430226 The web push architecture requiring middleman servers in between the website and the browser is similar to native iOS apps requiring the APNS server (Apple Push Notification Server): [4] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17262511/how-do-ios-push-notifications-work/30617904#30617904 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17262511/how-do-ios-push...
- whartung 3y agoThe fundamental problem is accumulation and correlation of, for lack of a better term, “public private data”. Phone records, credit card statements, toll road data, cell tower data, etc. is not “our” data, it’s the assorted companies data. It just happens to be directly related to private activities even if in public places. So authorities route around principles of privacy and such by engaging in entities who are not us. There’s nothing stopping authorities from talking to a neighbor. “Did you see anything? Were they home last night?” “Oh, you’re a delivery person, did you deliver something to that house? Do you know what it was? Can you describe who answered the door? What time was that?” Technically, that’s what the investigators are doing. No different from long standing investigation techniques. The problem is scope, volume, ease of access, detail of the data, and, most important, how long it’s kept. Wouldn’t surprise me if the phone companies have my travel history for the past several years. The concentration, resolution, and time span of the data makes the “Enemy of the State” movie more and more real. But it’s all using fundamental investigative techniques, policies, precedents and such that police services have been using for 100 years. It’s just cranked up way past 11. Those old court rulings and such, and concepts about what privacy means today need to change, or we’ll never be able to leave our houses.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- knallfrosch 3y ago> putting the iPhone maker's policy in line with rival Google So while Apple touted privacy as a core feature, it opened a firehose of private data – something the other part of the phone duopoly, Google, hasn't done. At least their marketing works.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Xelbair 3y agoLovely, now that there was spotlight on invigilation through push messages, Apple suddenly decided to close that loophole.(it is still better than what google did - nothing) But why it was open in the first place? why were they even stored? Why weren't they E2E encrypted?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- arn7av 3y agoFrom Wired's reporting, Google already required judicial approval, and Apple gave it without them. "Google confirmed to WIRED that it receives requests for push notification records, but the company says it already includes these types of requests in its transparency reports. The company says requests from US-based law enforcement for push notification records require court orders with judicial approval." [1] > putting the iPhone maker's policy in line with rival Google this quote from the linked article further strengthens that point - Apple had to catch-up, not Google. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-s...
- teekert 3y agoIs this only for American citizens?
- ksjskskskkk 3y agoit's only for some American citizens. i.e. currently in America. not in some secret list. etc. the usual.
- sneak 3y agoCorrect. FISA Section 702 still requires Apple conduct warrantless surveillance on the vast majority of their customers (including all not in the US). Apple’s transparency report says they turn over data on around 70,000 users per year to the US government without a warrant. FISA Section 702 is set to expire at the end of this year, but the proposed renewal actually expands the scope and makes it way, way worse: https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1734305434721210564 https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1734305434721210564
- okamiueru 3y agoDo you know how this relates to non-US customers in... non-US? I.e. everyone else, everywhere else? And, whatever applies to Apple in this sense, I assume also applies to Google. If the US government knows when my laundry is done, because my local HomeAssistant instance uses google play services to send a push notification...
- nicce 3y agoApple is US based company. So even if they break the local law, US has upper hand on enforcing Apple to provide information if they don't care about diplomatics.
- jeroenhd 3y agoAs a foreigner, protection from the American government is the exception, not the rule. This lack of suitable protection is what nuked the GDPR agreement between the USA and the EU (twice). The current iteration of this framework, which I can only think of as part of a war of attrition against Max Schrems, is largely the same and will likely be invalidated in the future for the same reasons. This isn't only an American issue, of course; every country or economic bloc wants to keep its citizens' data within their borders but also wants the ability to exploit intelligence for foreign parties. If you want the legal protections you enjoy at home, avoid foreign products and services. If you have to pick a foreign service, pick one from a region that's least likely to cause trouble for you.
- arcza 3y agohow does on prem Exchange ActiveSync send notifications to iOS?
- mcny 3y agoI would have never guessed the answer. Looks like the answer is the classic "it depends" which I expected but the most likely answer is What is Microsoft 365 or Office 365 Push Notification Service? From https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/configuring-push-notifications-proxying-for-owa-for-devices-exchange-2013-help https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/configuring-push-... How do I enable push notifications? In order to enable push notifications, the on-premises Exchange 2013 servers must connect to the Microsoft 365 or Office 365 Push Notification Service to send push notifications to iPhones and iPads. Exchange 2013 on-premises servers route their update notifications through the Microsoft 365 or Office 365 notification services to remove the need for enrolling developer accounts with third-party push notification services. So it goes like 1. Your server 2. Microsoft server 3. Apple server 4. Device So this begs the next question: does Microsoft require warrants to disclose these notifications?
- arcza 3y agoi know it might sound like something from an alien movie but my setup is 100% on premise with no Azure or O365. I did some googling which says an "HTTP PING" is kept going like a long running socket essentially. I think I'd still need to pcap the Exchange cluster to determine what happens before and after a notification fires.
- jeroenhd 3y agoI'm not sure if long running sockets are allowed on mobile phones these days. They were pretty normal for a couple of years, but phone battery life has increased substantially since Apple and Google started streamlining the notification system and basically sleeping background services that would otherwise poll for notifications through sockets. You'll still get your notifications, but (hours) late. You may instead want to pcap a mobile client to see where the notification is coming from, I bet the server still phones home somehow. It's possible Apple exempted themselves from their notification policies and integrated their Exchange push services into the OS power manager like they did their APN service, but I'm not sure if I'd expect them to put in that much work for what's essentially a competitor. As a side note, because it's not made clear during setup: the Outlook app for mobile phones will keep a copy of your email on Microsoft's servers (and a partial copy on the device); if you use that app, Microsoft will poll for updates the normal way and likely still push the notifications through Apple's servers, despite you not having set up any direct connection from your server to the cloud. This isn't the case for the built-in email clients, of course, but the Outlook app seems to be quite popular for Exchange accounts.
- kristofferR 3y agoThank god for Ron Wyden, one of the few senators interested in privacy.
- rambambram 3y ago"Apple now requires..." euh, no. The law requires.
- skygazer 3y agoIf Apple was previously more accommodating to law enforcement requests than legally required to be, then surely they can update their internal response threshold to reflect minimum necessary compliance.
- rambambram 3y agoDon't get me wrong (my fault for giving such a short statement without explanation), I agree wholeheartedly, but the wording in the title sounds a bit like Apple has a final say in this kind of thing. And maybe they have...
- colechristensen 3y agoIn many cases the law doesn’t require. People and corporations have a lot of freedom to give information to law enforcement willingly when asked. Warrants are required to force you, but if you’ll say yes if asked nicely there are many fewer protections.
- jeroenhd 3y agoThe law requires a warrant to force a company to hand over data. In many cases, companies (and people) are free to cooperate with law enforcement of they choose to. Apple seemingly chose to hand over data when asked, no warrant needed. If a police officer comes to your door without a warrant, you can still tell them "hello, please come in and look around the house". I'm not sure why you would, but you have the freedom to do so. Perhaps it creates some goodwill between you and the police officer, as it might between Apple and the American government.
- rambambram 3y ago> If a police officer comes to your door without a warrant, you can still tell them "hello, please come in and look around the house". I'm not sure why you would, but you have the freedom to do so. Nice example. I also work as a legal advisor and had that two times with a client. Second time my client invited them in, because my client doesn't want the neighbors to hear about it (he'd rather have them guess). Police know how to play this game. ;) Another game they played every time is this: one officer talks with the client, the other police officer is listening and suddenly interrupted him with some minor detail. They do everything to bring you off balance. They never brought the so-called 'problem' to trial. It's just about letting him know they're paying attention and showing up at his doorstep (although they have his phone number). It's a shame they never did something with the false complaints against my client. And yes, me and my client are from The Netherlands. ;)
- roody15 3y ago"The new policy was not formally announced but appeared sometime over the past few days on Apple's publicly available law enforcement guidelines. It follows the revelation from Oregon Senator Ron Wyden that officials were requesting such data from Apple as well as from Google, the unit of Alphabet (GOOGL.O) that makes the operating system for Android phones." This sums up Apple's view on privacy. So essentially they were fine handing over the data without warrant until this was exposed. Now that it has gone public they are "revising" the process to make it inline with their competitor Google.
- badkitty99 3y ago[dead]
- brookst 3y agoI mean, what do you want? Should they dig their heels in and stick with the old policy out of some kind of refusal to admit mistakes? Companies get things wrong. Apple got this wrong. But, as they say, the best time to fix a mistake is before you make it, and the second best time is now.
- nerdjon 3y agoI feel like this is quite an over simplification. They can care about privacy all they want but if they are legally required to hand something over what are they realistically going to do? Really their only solution is to make everything end to end encrypted so it is impossible to comply (which they have been slowly making more and more components E2E), but that takes time to do. I honestly din't know how notifications could realistically be E2E since the source is not an Apple device so they can control it, but maybe it would be possible?
- zagrebian 3y agoHow about requiring end-to-end encryption? Would that not be a better solution?
- ynniv 3y agoThe metadata is all you need: find a few messages in an interesting e2e chat, ask Apple which accounts received push notifications at those specific times, find intersection.
- brookst 3y agoI’m not sure how E2EE would work for notifications. The ISV sends the notification but the OS displays it. I suppose some key exchange between each ISV and each device?
- keep_reading 3y agoPushover.net does it just fine. https://support.pushover.net/i46-are-messages-notifications-encrypted https://support.pushover.net/i46-are-messages-notifications-... My understanding is that Pushover encrypts the message with your device's public key (from the app) and delivers it through Apple/Google. On iOS you need a special permission from Apple to "filter" push notifications and this is the hook they use to capture and decrypt it before displaying it on your phone
- graphe 3y agoCan it hide or obscure the metadata at the time sent and received? Signal says they do that for their chats but you can also download an archive.
- keep_reading 3y agoI don't know, but I would assume not.