5 ms·

The US does not require Apple to make a backdoor to its encryption.

by graeme 2y ago

Workaccount2 2y ago
But it is greatly in the interest of US agencies to perpetuate conspiracies that they have access to all data, all the time, with no court needed.
nickslaughter02 2y ago
How do you know that? Similarly to the UK, USA has a process to force companies to add back doors. For all we know it might the USA wanting access and using its five eyes allies to get it done.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  Point to the law that requires them to do it and keep quiet about it. The US law. I'll wait.
  - varsketiz 2y ago
    There does not have to be a law for the US government to do something. Remember the NSA spying scandal?
  - fransje26 2y ago
    CALEA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
  - alt227 2y ago
    Heres an example of when Apple got caught giving the US government all users push notifications, and then quite openly said they had been bound by law to keep quiet about it. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surveil-push-notifications/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve... > "In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information,"
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      It wasn't the US government, and it wasn't all users.
- quesera 2y ago
  Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution. Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation. If there is more recent news or legislation, perhaps I'm not remembering it?
  - giobox 2y ago
    > Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution... Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation. I'm not sure this is how the San Bernardino case actually panned out: "Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying it had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone. On March 28, the government claimed that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request." The arguments were never actually tested in court, the whole thing was quietly put away once the FBI found another way to unlock the phone. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
    - quesera 2y ago
      Yes, in this case: successfully used this argument to delay until the FBI gave up. If it had gone to court, the argument was considered strong, but of course no one knows until a verdict is reached and appeals are exhausted.
      - giobox 2y ago
        This is a gross simplification of the many factors that lead to the FBI dropping the demand against Apple, in my opinion.
        quesera 2y ago
        But it is everything we know. The expectation was that FBI would lose in court. But that was not guaranteed, certainly. FBI had multiple reasons to abandon the effort, but one was that if legal precedent was established at that time, for that case, it would be harder to bypass in future cases.
croes 2y ago
But the US demands data from non US citizens stored in non-US countries aka CloudAct.
alt227 2y ago
Apple has a history of giving the US government whatever user data they want, lying about it, then when it leaks publicly they are able to say 'Well we couldnt tell you because it would have been breaking the law, sorry about that'. Have an example, of when it leaked that apple was secretly syphoning off all push notifications to the US government: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surveil-push-notifications/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve...
- graeme 2y ago
  Fundamentally not the same thing. Notifications aren't encrypted. Apple has made no claim that they're secret from the govt. Apple has very loudly and prominently and specifically stated that their encrypted is ecrypted and not even available to apple. They list which portions of icloud this applies to and not. Huge different between an omission and a large, positive lie.
  - alt227 2y ago
    They reason they have 'very loudly and prominently' proclaimed that they will never break encryption, is to make the general public believe their data is safe with Apple. Its purely a marketing stunt. The push message syphoning to governments is only one of many ways they willingly hand over data to governments on request.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

The US does not require Apple to make a backdoor to its encryption.

by graeme 2y ago

The US does not require Apple to make a backdoor to its encryption.

But it is greatly in the interest of US agencies to perpetuate conspiracies that they have access to all data, all the time, with no court needed.

nickslaughter02 2y ago

How do you know that? Similarly to the UK, USA has a process to force companies to add back doors. For all we know it might the USA wanting access and using its five eyes allies to get it done.

sieabahlpark 2y ago
Point to the law that requires them to do it and keep quiet about it. The US law. I'll wait.
- varsketiz 2y ago
  There does not have to be a law for the US government to do something. Remember the NSA spying scandal?
- fransje26 2y ago
  CALEA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
- alt227 2y ago
  Heres an example of when Apple got caught giving the US government all users push notifications, and then quite openly said they had been bound by law to keep quiet about it. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surveil-push-notifications/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve... > "In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information,"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    It wasn't the US government, and it wasn't all users.
quesera 2y ago
Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution. Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation. If there is more recent news or legislation, perhaps I'm not remembering it?
- giobox 2y ago
  > Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution... Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation. I'm not sure this is how the San Bernardino case actually panned out: "Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying it had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone. On March 28, the government claimed that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request." The arguments were never actually tested in court, the whole thing was quietly put away once the FBI found another way to unlock the phone. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
  - quesera 2y ago
    Yes, in this case: successfully used this argument to delay until the FBI gave up. If it had gone to court, the argument was considered strong, but of course no one knows until a verdict is reached and appeals are exhausted.
    - giobox 2y ago
      This is a gross simplification of the many factors that lead to the FBI dropping the demand against Apple, in my opinion.
      - quesera 2y ago
        But it is everything we know. The expectation was that FBI would lose in court. But that was not guaranteed, certainly. FBI had multiple reasons to abandon the effort, but one was that if legal precedent was established at that time, for that case, it would be harder to bypass in future cases.

croes 2y ago

But the US demands data from non US citizens stored in non-US countries aka CloudAct.

alt227 2y ago

Apple has a history of giving the US government whatever user data they want, lying about it, then when it leaks publicly they are able to say 'Well we couldnt tell you because it would have been breaking the law, sorry about that'. Have an example, of when it leaked that apple was secretly syphoning off all push notifications to the US government: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surveil-push-notifications/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve...

graeme 2y ago
Fundamentally not the same thing. Notifications aren't encrypted. Apple has made no claim that they're secret from the govt. Apple has very loudly and prominently and specifically stated that their encrypted is ecrypted and not even available to apple. They list which portions of icloud this applies to and not. Huge different between an omission and a large, positive lie.
- alt227 2y ago
  They reason they have 'very loudly and prominently' proclaimed that they will never break encryption, is to make the general public believe their data is safe with Apple. Its purely a marketing stunt. The push message syphoning to governments is only one of many ways they willingly hand over data to governments on request.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]