5 ms·

This can set a dangerous precedent. Now why wouldn’t any country demand the same, basically eliminating Advanced Data Protection everywhere, making user data ea

by piyuv 2y ago

This can set a dangerous precedent. Now why wouldn’t any country demand the same, basically eliminating Advanced Data Protection everywhere, making user data easily accessible to Apple (and therefore governments)?

JKCalhoun 2y ago
Wait, are you saying the U.S. might demand the same? In the current political environment?
- piyuv 2y ago
  UK is much smaller than US and they didn’t even fight this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ziddoap 2y ago
The choice was either eliminate it now (globally, via introduction of a backdoor) or eliminate it in the UK (but keep it globally). So, perhaps this is a bit of a dangerous precedent, but it was the least-bad option.
- piyuv 2y ago
  When UK demanded a backdoor to e2ee in iMessage, Apple told them they’d rather get out of UK. Why not do the same here? You’re posing a false dichotomy.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    What would that change, effectively, other than have Apple lose money? The UK would still lose ADP (and then also just Apple products in general). A precedent would still be set. Your posing a strictly worse third option. Sure, it's an option, I guess. Apple could also just close down globally, as a fourth option. Or sell off to Google as a fifth. But I was trying to present the least-bad option (turn off ADP), rather than an exhaustive list.
    - elfbargpt 2y ago
      I totally get your point, but calling the UK's bluff could work. Are they really willing to ban Apple products in the UK? Maybe, maybe not
      - maeil 2y ago
        Depends on if the US emperor and his cronies have the UK's backs on this issue. If they don't, calling the bluff would work, there's zero chance the UK gov would ban Apple products without US approval. The backlash among the public would be far worse than the TikTok ban. Imagine all companies using Macs. The order of power here is US > Apple > UK.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    > Apple told them they’d rather get out of UK To my knowledge, Apple has always said that their response would be to withdraw affected services rather than break encryption. > Apple has said planned changes to British surveillance laws could affect iPhone users’ privacy by forcing it to withdraw security features, which could ultimately lead to the closure of services such as FaceTime and iMessage in the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-surveillance-law-changes-could-force-apple-to-withdraw-security-features https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-survei...
    - piyuv 2y ago
      True! Thanks for the correction. IMO they could’ve categorized the whole iCloud service as “affected” and disable all of it.
      - GeekyBear 2y ago
        My guess is that the order they received would have only effected encrypted device backups, at least so far. Users in the UK do still have the option to perform an encrypted backup to their local PC or Mac.
- philsnow 2y ago
  That’s a false dichotomy. Another choice, however unpalatable to all parties, would have been for Apple to stop doing business in the UK.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    See my other reply. They could also sell the entire business to Google. Why bother with listing options even worse for everyone involved?
    - v3xro 2y ago
      I mean they could have tried not complying, and fighting a lawsuit at the ECHR (right of every person to a private life). Takes money and time but more attractive than the other options.
      - ziddoap 2y ago
        It's less attractive, riskier, and more costly of a decision for Apple. Apple is a corporation, not an altruist. This play by Apple applies pressure to the UK government indirectly via its citizens, for free, rather than taking the risk and expenses of a lawsuit.
  - netdevphoenix 2y ago
    Why do pro-privacy tech folks on here act like Apple is some charity? Apple is a business. It won't fight a citizen's fight on your behalf. It is on citizens to use their democratic power to ensure their representatives act as the voting base wants. Apple's goal is to make money. The government is a representation of your will.
    - hu3 2y ago
      > Why do pro-privacy tech folks on here act like Apple is some charity... Because Apple marketing keeps relentlessly bashing their customers skull that privacy is their advantage?
    - 2y ago
llm_nerd 2y ago
It isn't really a precedent. Companies, even high-rolling American tech companies, have to abide by the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in. I guess there is a question of whether this is a legal demand that they truly had to follow, or just a request, and whether they could fight it in court, but Apple seems to be hoping to adjudicate it in the court of public opinion (apparently the initial backdoor request was secret and it got leaked).
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  > abide by the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in. In this case, the UK is seeking to use local law to change what is allowable on an international basis. That's a bit different than a nation controlling the law on their own soil.
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    That was Apple's interpretation : That to comply with what the UK requested they would have to have the same thing everywhere. But of course that is nonsense, and Apple could theoretically have a nation-specific backdoor (e.g. for accounts in a given country a separate sequestered decryption key is created and kept in escrow for court order). I mean, Apple "complied" by disabling ADP just in the UK. They undermined their own "worldwide" claim, as ADP still works everywhere else, and the UK has no access.
    - GeekyBear 2y ago
      > of course that is nonsense Organizations like the EFF do not agree. > most concerning, the U.K. is apparently seeking a backdoor into users’ data regardless of where they are or what citizenship they have. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/uks-demands-apple-break-encryption-emergency-us-all https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/uks-demands-apple-brea...
      - llm_nerd 2y ago
        So Apple is non-compliant, given that all they did is disable ADP in the UK. Right?
bananapub 2y ago
what do you mean? other countries have demanded the same, e.g. China.
- juanpicardo 2y ago
  China only requires it for their citizens. The UK asked access to any person's data in the world.

by piyuv 2y ago

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Wait, are you saying the U.S. might demand the same? In the current political environment?

piyuv 2y ago
UK is much smaller than US and they didn’t even fight this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ziddoap 2y ago

The choice was either eliminate it now (globally, via introduction of a backdoor) or eliminate it in the UK (but keep it globally). So, perhaps this is a bit of a dangerous precedent, but it was the least-bad option.

piyuv 2y ago
When UK demanded a backdoor to e2ee in iMessage, Apple told them they’d rather get out of UK. Why not do the same here? You’re posing a false dichotomy.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  What would that change, effectively, other than have Apple lose money? The UK would still lose ADP (and then also just Apple products in general). A precedent would still be set. Your posing a strictly worse third option. Sure, it's an option, I guess. Apple could also just close down globally, as a fourth option. Or sell off to Google as a fifth. But I was trying to present the least-bad option (turn off ADP), rather than an exhaustive list.
  - elfbargpt 2y ago
    I totally get your point, but calling the UK's bluff could work. Are they really willing to ban Apple products in the UK? Maybe, maybe not
    - maeil 2y ago
      Depends on if the US emperor and his cronies have the UK's backs on this issue. If they don't, calling the bluff would work, there's zero chance the UK gov would ban Apple products without US approval. The backlash among the public would be far worse than the TikTok ban. Imagine all companies using Macs. The order of power here is US > Apple > UK.
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  > Apple told them they’d rather get out of UK To my knowledge, Apple has always said that their response would be to withdraw affected services rather than break encryption. > Apple has said planned changes to British surveillance laws could affect iPhone users’ privacy by forcing it to withdraw security features, which could ultimately lead to the closure of services such as FaceTime and iMessage in the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-surveillance-law-changes-could-force-apple-to-withdraw-security-features https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-survei...
  - piyuv 2y ago
    True! Thanks for the correction. IMO they could’ve categorized the whole iCloud service as “affected” and disable all of it.
    - GeekyBear 2y ago
      My guess is that the order they received would have only effected encrypted device backups, at least so far. Users in the UK do still have the option to perform an encrypted backup to their local PC or Mac.
philsnow 2y ago
That’s a false dichotomy. Another choice, however unpalatable to all parties, would have been for Apple to stop doing business in the UK.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  See my other reply. They could also sell the entire business to Google. Why bother with listing options even worse for everyone involved?
  - v3xro 2y ago
    I mean they could have tried not complying, and fighting a lawsuit at the ECHR (right of every person to a private life). Takes money and time but more attractive than the other options.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      It's less attractive, riskier, and more costly of a decision for Apple. Apple is a corporation, not an altruist. This play by Apple applies pressure to the UK government indirectly via its citizens, for free, rather than taking the risk and expenses of a lawsuit.
- netdevphoenix 2y ago
  Why do pro-privacy tech folks on here act like Apple is some charity? Apple is a business. It won't fight a citizen's fight on your behalf. It is on citizens to use their democratic power to ensure their representatives act as the voting base wants. Apple's goal is to make money. The government is a representation of your will.
  - hu3 2y ago
    > Why do pro-privacy tech folks on here act like Apple is some charity... Because Apple marketing keeps relentlessly bashing their customers skull that privacy is their advantage?
  - 2y ago

llm_nerd 2y ago

It isn't really a precedent. Companies, even high-rolling American tech companies, have to abide by the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in. I guess there is a question of whether this is a legal demand that they truly had to follow, or just a request, and whether they could fight it in court, but Apple seems to be hoping to adjudicate it in the court of public opinion (apparently the initial backdoor request was secret and it got leaked).

GeekyBear 2y ago
> abide by the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in. In this case, the UK is seeking to use local law to change what is allowable on an international basis. That's a bit different than a nation controlling the law on their own soil.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  That was Apple's interpretation : That to comply with what the UK requested they would have to have the same thing everywhere. But of course that is nonsense, and Apple could theoretically have a nation-specific backdoor (e.g. for accounts in a given country a separate sequestered decryption key is created and kept in escrow for court order). I mean, Apple "complied" by disabling ADP just in the UK. They undermined their own "worldwide" claim, as ADP still works everywhere else, and the UK has no access.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    > of course that is nonsense Organizations like the EFF do not agree. > most concerning, the U.K. is apparently seeking a backdoor into users’ data regardless of where they are or what citizenship they have. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/uks-demands-apple-break-encryption-emergency-us-all https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/uks-demands-apple-brea...
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      So Apple is non-compliant, given that all they did is disable ADP in the UK. Right?

bananapub 2y ago

what do you mean? other countries have demanded the same, e.g. China.

juanpicardo 2y ago
China only requires it for their citizens. The UK asked access to any person's data in the world.