5 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoWhen 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 agoWhat 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 agoI 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 agoDepends 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 agoTrue! Thanks for the correction. IMO they could’ve categorized the whole iCloud service as “affected” and disable all of it.
- GeekyBear 2y agoMy 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 agoThat’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 agoSee my other reply. They could also sell the entire business to Google. Why bother with listing options even worse for everyone involved?
- v3xro 2y agoI 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 agoIt'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 agoWhy 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