Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’d be willing to accept ‘free speech’ advocates the right to say abusive, hurtful, or racist things to me without fear of imprisonment, just as long as I can punch them in the face for doing so, with the same level of protection.

See? Then everyone’s happy!
What a utterly stupid statement.
 
They're in the right for removing the ability to encrypt our data? No, they are not. It's also massively hypocritical that a company that talks to much about privacy and "no, we won't help you break into the phone" removes encryption and doesn't stand firm on what they claim is a principle.

If it was really a principle, they would've said "no, or we'll leave."

Do you understand my complaint now or do you just disagree with it?
The other option was put in a back door which would not be an option. Leaving isn't going to happen.
 
Not buying this argument. You do not sacrifice the privacy of all to try to catch a few bad actors. Freedom has costs and there will be a few casualties along the way.
May I suggest you tell that to the families of the victims who perished in the London bombings and the Manchester bombings and the thousands upon thousands of children who were sexually abused by certain groups of gangs, all of whom were able to stay hidden from the police and security services because they communicated with one another using encrypted devices. Somehow I do not think your speal about Freedom and privacy would go down well.

As for sacrificing privacy, yes you do if it saves innocent lives. People who put their privacy rights as paramount to that of a person's life are people I chose to ignore.
 
Apple did the right thing given the clowns’ demands.

I am embarrassed by and ashamed of my government.
 
The best move Apple could have made given the situation

As an FYI, this will not affect:

iMessage encryption
iCloud Keychain
FaceTime
Health data

These will remain end-to-end encrypted.
Other services like iCloud Backup and Photos will not be end-to-end encrypted without ADP.

However, watch out for iMessages backed up to iCloud, because those will then be unencrypted in the iCloud backup

Also a BBC article for more

That’s not entirely true. Message storage is only e2e without ADP if iCloud backup is also turned off. This is because a key to the message storage is included in the backup.

iMessage is e2e in transit always.

On modern versions of macOS, you simply can’t power on your computer, launch a text editor or eBook reader, and write or read, without a log of your activity being transmitted and stored.

That’s not really accurate. This only happens once per app ever, and if there is no network connection it doesn’t happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fred Zed
What Brexit? We haven’t had it yet. We do have over 6000 laws and regulations the British government copy and pasted from the EU statutory books into the UK statutory books, promising to change them, eventually.
This is a law we brought in ourselves. Wouldn’t have been able to do it if we were still in the EU due to data protection laws
 
May I suggest you tell that to the families of the victims who perished in the London bombings and the Manchester bombings and the thousands upon thousands of children who were sexually abused by certain groups of gangs, all of whom were able to stay hidden from the police and security services because they communicated with one another using encrypted devices. Somehow I do not think your speal about Freedom and privacy would go down well.
None of that had anything to do with privacy.

The Manchester Arena bomber looked shifty but the security refused to engage for fear of being branded a racist.

Likewise, the authorities turned a blind eye to the Rotherham grooming gang scandal that victimized mostly white children by Pakistani men for the same reason.
 
I am not happy with this news. I was hoping government back down and leave Apple end to end encryption alone. I have to watch what happens next.
 
I am devastated with this news and upset at how bonkers the world has become in such a short time. I want to know how to disable and what services to disable once my ADP is forcibly stopped. Not that I have anything to hide. But I do want to protect my privacy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay-Jacob
When I shag the missus I lock the front door. Don’t you?
Your analogy isn't quite right. Many people make some noise when they shag and neighbours are often aware of what's going on. That's a better analogy - you're suggesting you lock the door to stop people coming into the room. The government agents will not be paying you a visit to see what you're up to.
 
Also why I know what will happen if the any other Gov with any leverage over Apple makes any type of similar request

Gov says: "Jump"
Tim will say: "How high?"
Well, because Apple is a business and they want to keep doing business in those countries. Whether it’s the USA, England or China these governments have ultimate power. A government can “legally” kill you so it’s not like you can tell them no.

People criticized Apple when they turned off AirDrop at the request of the Chinese government but what other choice did they have? Stop selling and making products there? What happens if the USA tells them something are they going to stop selling and making products in the USA? Eventually, your customer base will get so small that you’ll go out of business.

I think Apple tries really hard but with some things you have to learn to fight another day. To be fair it’s not really Apple‘a place to fight government regulation. It should be Apple‘s customers who make their voice known.
 
Well, I live in the UK and what he's saying is nonsense. There is FAR MORE free speech than we are seeing in the USA right now, ...
Oh really?

Please point to where anybody in the U.S. was arrested, much less imprisoned, for mean tweets.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

Where in your opinion does have free speech? Even in the USA there are many, many exceptions that get you arrested for saying.
Here, according to Grok, are the exceptions in the U.S.:
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but this right is not absolute. Legal limits exist to balance individual expression with public safety, order, and other rights. Here are the key limits on free speech:

1. Incitement to Imminent Violence or Lawless Action
  • Standard: Speech that directly encourages illegal activity and is likely to produce it imminently is unprotected.
  • Legal Test: Established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech must:
    • Intend to incite illegal acts.
    • Be likely to incite such acts.
    • Be directed at inciting imminent lawless action.
  • Example: Yelling "Burn that building down now!" to a crowd with torches, if it leads to arson, isn’t protected. General advocacy of illegal ideas (e.g., "Violence is justified someday") typically is.
2. True Threats
  • Definition: Statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious intent to harm or kill an individual or group, whether acted upon or not.
  • Legal Basis: Virginia v. Black (2003) upheld that true threats aren’t protected, even if symbolic (e.g., cross burning with intent to intimidate).
  • Example: Saying "I’m going to shoot you tomorrow" can be prosecuted, regardless of follow-through, if it’s deemed a credible threat.
3. Obscenity
  • Standard: Material that appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value is unprotected.
  • Legal Test: The Miller v. California (1973) test:
    • Average person, applying community standards, finds it prurient.
    • It depicts explicitly defined sexual conduct offensively.
    • It lacks redeeming value.
  • Example: Hardcore pornography without artistic merit can be banned, but courts often protect ambiguous cases (e.g., art films).
4. Child Pornography
  • Exception: Speech involving the production, distribution, or possession of materials depicting minors in sexual acts is categorically unprotected.
  • Legal Basis: New York v. Ferber (1982) established this due to harm to children, even without an obscenity requirement.
  • Example: Virtual or real depictions of child sexual abuse are illegal.
5. Fighting Words
  • Definition: Face-to-face insults likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
  • Legal Basis: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) ruled these aren’t protected, though the scope has narrowed over time.
  • Example: Calling someone a slur to their face in a heated confrontation might lose protection, but courts rarely apply this today unless violence is imminent.
6. Defamation (Libel and Slander)
  • Limits: False statements of fact that harm someone’s reputation can be restricted.
  • Standards:
    • Public Figures: Must prove "actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth) per New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
    • Private Individuals: Only need to show negligence in most states.
  • Example: Writing "John stole $1 million" without evidence can lead to a lawsuit if false and damaging.
7. Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct
  • Rule: Speech facilitating illegal acts (e.g., fraud, perjury, blackmail) isn’t protected.
  • Example: Soliciting bribes or lying under oath falls outside First Amendment safeguards.
8. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
  • Scope: The government can regulate when, where, and how speech occurs, not its content, if restrictions are:
    • Content-neutral.
    • Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest (e.g., public safety).
    • Leave open alternative channels for communication.
  • Example: Requiring a permit for a loud protest near a hospital is okay, but banning all protests isn’t.
9. Government as Employer or Educator
  • Limits: Public employees and students have reduced speech rights in certain contexts.
    • Employees: Speech disrupting workplace efficiency can be restricted (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968).
    • Students: Schools can limit speech that substantially disrupts education (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969) or involves vulgarity (Bethel v. Fraser, 1986).
  • Example: A teacher can’t disrupt class with political rants; students can’t wear offensive slogans without consequence.
10. Commercial Speech
  • Protection: Advertising gets less protection than political or artistic speech.
  • Limits: Can be regulated if misleading, promoting illegal activity, or if the restriction directly advances a substantial government interest (Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission, 1980).
  • Example: False claims about a product’s benefits can be banned.
Broader Context:
  • Private Entities: The First Amendment applies to government action, not private companies. Platforms like X or employers can legally restrict speech within their rights.
  • Evolving Standards: Courts continually refine these limits, often expanding protections (e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 1989, protected flag burning as symbolic speech).
These exceptions reflect a balance between free expression and societal needs like safety, order, and individual rights, shaped by decades of Supreme Court rulings. Speech enjoys broad protection, but crossing into these categories can trigger legal consequences.

As for sacrificing privacy, yes you do if it saves innocent lives. People who put their privacy rights as paramount to that of a person's life are people I chose to ignore.
Ignore me, then, for I subscribe to the belief that...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and will lose both." — Ben Franklin, November 11, 1755
 
To confirm, the affected services are still end to end encrypted (so a general hack is still very doubtful), although with it off upon request from uk government agencies Apple will be able to hand over encryption keys to decrypt anyone in the uks data, including iCloud backups, photos and iCloud Drive data? Or have I misunderstood?

Thanks.
 
Nope. You can choose to assault them if you wish, if you cannot control yourself, but you should still face legal consequences.
So you think it’s ok to say and promote harmful hate speech towards another person, and face no consequences, despite the fact that doing so could cause that person harm? Suicide, for example?
 
New users can’t switch it on from 3pm today and existing users will be required to switch it off in the near future to comply with the UK government’s requirements. Apple hasn’t said when this will be for existing users, just that they can’t disable this remotely as it’s an on device setting. I’ve no idea what would happen if you didn’t switch it off though.

Apple can easily switch off ADP setting for select users, if they are minded to do so, via an iOS update.
 
Your analogy isn't quite right. Many people make some noise when they shag and neighbours are often aware of what's going on. That's a better analogy - you're suggesting you lock the door to stop people coming into the room. The government agents will not be paying you a visit to see what you're up to.

It seems that the people who do not value privacy or fight against it are the ones who deep down they don’t exist, kinda there’s no self/soul to protect or care for. In a nutshell there’s nothing to hide because, literally, there’s nothing, zero.
 
No, because one is saying bad words and the other is physically hurting someone. If what you’re saying is offensive to me and I’m allowed to physically injure you and what I’m saying is it offensive to you so you’re allowed to physically injure me then you just legalized violence. People will end up killing each other because they disagree with things. That’s definitely not a good scenario.
People end up killing each other when hate speech is used by politicians to divide and conquer. People kill themselves as a result of hurtful speech when so called ‘free speech’ advocates taunt them online.
 
So you think it’s ok to say and promote harmful hate speech towards another person, and face no consequences, despite the fact that doing so could cause that person harm? Suicide, for example?
What constitutes "hate speech?" The moment you start letting The Party decide what's "wrongthink" you are opening yourselves up to tyranny.

No consequences? You just said that you would punch them in the face. That's a consequence. But it's one you should also be held accountable for.
 
Not far behind is the Ununited States of Trump . The King of Executive Orders surely has one in draft mode now.
He won't need it. Five Eyes will give him all he wants without him having to get his tiny hands dirty.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.