6 ms·
It's baffling to me that any sane, healthy person would advocate for invasion of not just one person's privacy (in the case of known or highly suspected crimina
by hatwd 2y ago
It's baffling to me that any sane, healthy person would advocate for invasion of not just one person's privacy (in the case of known or highly suspected criminal activity), but a whole country's people's privacy. (In this case, at least, the privacy of all Apple users in the UK.)
Where does this problem start? Is it a basic education thing that valuing one's own and others' privacy needs to be taught to kids from a young age?
For instance, in the meetings in which these ideas are proposed, why are they not considered a serious, fireable offence, like bringing up racist or sexist comments?
- talldayo 2y ago> Where does this problem start? It starts with UK citizens buying iPhones and expecting their data to be private at all.
- alt227 2y agoIt starts with ALL citizens buying iPhones and expecting their data to be private at all.
- hatwd 2y agoIs it any different with Android phones? From what I've read it doesn't seem so. My comment applies just as much to the people working at Apple and Google as to the folks in the UK government.
- talldayo 2y agoIt is, Android handsets are not prevented by Google from selecting an entirely different operating system if they distrust the one installed by the OEM. It is expressly the choice you would make if you expected userland encryption to be mandated broken. It doesn't protect against every attack (eg. Stingray or evil maid) but it absolutely would protect you from a situation like the one in the OP. Breaking your encryption can only work if the OEM controls your phone more than you do.
- freedomben 2y agoI tend to agree but I'd generalize it a bit more by changing it to: "It starts with UK citizens buying [phones from most tech companies] and expecting their data to be private at all."
- ulrikrasmussen 2y agoWell, except that Play Integrity will effectively prevent you from using any banking, payment or government ID app using a non-OEM operating system. I am writing this from LineageOS, so I am enduring the major inconvenience myself, but I do not expect the average person to do so.
- talldayo 2y agoThe average person has made a lot of mistakes concerning their identity and privacy. Their habits will have to fundamentally change if they want to avoid dragnet surveillance. I frankly don't expect the average Apple user to abandon their ecosystem, sunken costs and all that. But I do expect them to reconsider their unconditional support for a company that fights for the right to surveil them. LineageOS is hard to use, but as someone that already got most my apps off F-Droid it's honestly a cinch.
- alt227 2y agoIt baffles me how you seem to think intelligence agencies have some sort of morals or sense of duty to their citizens. These organisations are set up with the sole purpose of spying on all people. They have done it for decades and have done it in some fantasticly dispicable ways. So no, asking a corporation for data on their customers is probably is probably a relatively weak action for them to pull on the grand scheme of things.
- hatwd 2y agoI totally get the spy agencies' "moral flexibility" requirements, as I've heard it put. From what I understand, the spy agencies have ways of obtaining your private information that don't necessarily involve blanket requirements to access all users' data (e.g. creative ways of injecting malware into specific people's devices). But those approaches don't scale, of course. And they shouldn't need to.
- freedomben 2y agoSure, but something like this isn't limited to just the spy agencies. They don't have the authority to do something like this on their own. Therefore there must be some buy-in from people outside the intelligence communities such as MPs, members of Congress (in US), etc. Those are the groups I think GP's comment deserves an answer to.
- Retr0id 2y agoIntelligence agencies may have their own definitions of morality, but they do not exist outside of the law, which is supposed to be the output of a democratic process.
- smashah 2y agoThis problem starts when people in power are addicted to power and are accountable to foreign agents and not the population.
- freedomben 2y agoI very much agree. I think to many people the preference for safety/security over privacy is just very tilted toward the former. That especially becomes true once there is some incident that triggers people's amygdalas, like a terrorist attack or even petty crime. Nothing makes "privacy" seem stupid like getting assaulted or otherwise victimized. Although I'm heavily skewed toward the "privacy" end of the spectrum, I do understand people's need and desire for safety above privacy/freedom. I wish they would recognize when they're decision-making is being driven by emotion rather than logic, but alas we can't change humanity.
- blindriver 2y ago“It’s for the children!”
- KurSix 2y agoPrivacy should absolutely be treated as a fundamental right, not a luxury that can be revoked when convenient
- yibg 2y ago> For instance, in the meetings in which these ideas are proposed, why are they not considered a serious, fireable offence, like bringing up racist or sexist comments? Hate to tell ya, those aren't fireable offenses at the highest offices anymore either.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]