Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pulls Encrypted iCloud Security Feature in UK Amid Government Backdoor Demands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is, they will limit functionality for you (e.g. stop iCloud data from syncing) and nag you to turn it off 24/7.
What a bait post. Apple has been bending over tenfold, ever bothered looking at how Apple services / devices work in China and what they implemented over the years to appease various governments around the world?
They‘re in this to make money, not uphold your privacy. They don‘t care about your privacy (stuff like bogging cross-platform messaging for over a decade for the ecosystem lock-in effect), it‘s just their most successful marketing campaign yet.
You aren‘t the product but you buy their products. Can‘t buy their products when they get sanctioned or banned.
Saying Apple is privacy is outing yourself as gullible. They‘d sell your grandmother for more market share / revenue, if they could label it "in the spirit of privacy". Buy your grandma an iPhone btw.
ADP had automatically been switched off for me (in the UK) and unable to reactivate.
Not cool it’s been switched off without my knowledge.
But fill your boots if you want to see my man boobs in a bra 😬😂
Not cool it’s been switched off without my knowledge.
But fill your boots if you want to see my man boobs in a bra 😬😂
Last edited:
I have the message in Settings about ADP being not available and I don’t live in the U.K. But I used to and my iCloud account is still U.K. based. Frustratingly I have never been able to migrate it to my new home country because I have purchased thousands of films and Apple doesn’t allow you to transfer them (Amazon does). I don’t want the massive inconvenience of having to repeatedly log into and out of multiple accounts having to redownload apps every time.
Yes, it seems strange. Apparently it would not have been enough for Apple to say to the UK gov, "Here you go then, encrypted data that no-one, not even we can decrypt."
The IPA must have been requiring (by criminal law) that Apple invent a new implementation of their software technology to alter their existing iCloud encryption (i.e., the "back door").
Just incredible.
You're right, the UK market is too big. I guess I'll have to retract my strongly worded letter to Tim Cook demanding they withdraw. Their 'pull-out game' is non-existent when billions are at stake. Lol
Not the country. The current gov leaders. But hey, at least they're not in bed with Putin.
Here we go again .... but the children, we must save the children. What a red herring. Millions will disagree with your views on why we should sacrifice our freedoms and privacy. And they will choose to ignore you.
There is no restriction on what you can say in the UK, unless it’s deemed hurtful or offensive towards others.
So if you wish to say something nasty to a disabled person, or make a racist statement without accountability, the person you are bullying should be able to respond without consequences too.
Words can kill. Words can start wars. Words can cause people more sensitive than you to self-harm, or worse. So I can’t see why a physical reaction in response should be out of bounds.
Of course I’m totally against people punching other people in the face. Just as I’m against so-called ‘free speech’ advocates using words to cause harm - mental AND physical - to others.
Yes, people do kill each other, but that doesn’t mean we need to make violence legal or put people in prison for unauthorized speech.
The problem is who determines what is hurtful or offensive? This is very subjective and it depends on who is being offended or hurt. I can tell you if I am making this decision you’re not going to be allowed to say much of anything. Your political views will offend me and hurt my feelings.
However, I don’t want to prevent you from speaking because I feel you should be allowed as a free citizen to express your opinion, regardless of if it hurts my feelings.
If you think putting laws into effect that allow the current government to restrict speech is a good idea because the speech they are currently restricting is speech you don’t like then you don’t understand how things can change. Government’s change so right now the speech they may be restricting his speech you don’t like but in six months or a year, they might be telling you you’re not allowed to say what you think. Never give the government that power because once they have it, they will use it and never give it up. Don’t assume it’s going to be used against people you don’t like.
If I caused injury to myself because you said something I felt was hurtful then clearly I needed mental help and that’s a very important topic that needs to be addressed. The answer isn’t blocking you from saying stuff, but rather getting me the help I need to deal with my feelings.
I think no one should be charged with a crime for speaking. I’ve heard some disgusting speech, but I’ve never thought that person should go to jail or be physically harmed.
If you support governments being able to do whatever they need such as block Apple encryption so they can crush your opposition then you are way too trusting of governments. I don’t live in the UK thank God but if I did, I wouldn’t be happy. I don’t even have encryption enabled on my iCloud, but I don’t want my government telling me I’m not allowed to do it.
It's ok. Once Trump hits the UK with tariffs, Apple and Tesla will be hit with 50%. All the "it's too expensive, I'm not buying the latest model" crowd may actually hit the stage where they don't buy one
That’s pretty scary. The first paragraph is funny because you said there’s no restriction unless it’s offensive then it’s restricted. Anything could be offensive. If you mentioned on social media that Jesus isn’t the real God that would be extremely offensive to me! In that example, you should not be allowed to say that.
How would you feel if you were arrested for making a post online saying God wasn’t real even if you believed that was true?
I’m just trying to show you how something you might think is OK could be extremely offensive to another person. I don’t know if you do or don’t believe in whatever God.
I most assuredly do.
The problem here, since you appear unable or unwilling to recognize it, is who defines "harmful" and "hateful", which are not objective, but subjective?
E.g.: Do an image search of the current Governor of the U.S. state of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker. There have been reams of mean posts on X about his weight. Just recently, in response to an article noting him "entering the national stage" somebody commented "I hope the national stage is sturdily built."
Same thing happened, in the past, with New Jersey Governor (at the time) Chris Christie.
And rapper Dank Demoss, who's filing a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against Lyft, alleging a driver refused her a ride due to her size (she weighs approximately 489 lbs or 222 kg), citing his car’s small size and tire capacity.
And, in fact, there've been similar jabs at Trump from those not enamored of him.
One could argue that kind of thing is both hurtful and hateful. Others will view it as a humorous take on somebody's clearly obvious weight problem.
Who decides? And who decides, should it be deemed hateful, harmful, or both, just what should be the penalty?
And what happens, once the thought police have managed to stamp out that kind of hateful, harmful speech, they go looking for new candidates of "hateful" or "harmful" speech, and it just happens to be speech you find to be neither?
Because, while right now the thought police are going after those with whom you disagree, I can guarantee they will eventually come for you—because this is what control freaks do, whether they be the neighborhood Karen or some faceless government bureaucracy.
P.S.: This just popped-up in my X feed:
Last edited:
How do you know it already hasn’t ? I’m sure Google and Meta already have everything wide open when the Feds request it. Don’t ever hear noise about Gov requesting data from these two corps.
Your first sentence is an oxymoron.
And again, you're missing my point entirely. Who is the arbiter of what constitutes "hurtful" or "offensive"? Technically, anything anyone ever says could upset someone's feelings. Does that mean that person should be denied the right to voice their opinion?
The consequence of living in a free society is that yes, sometimes people are going to be offended. But guess what? That person also has the right to voice their opinion without fear of censorship from those who want to stifle free thought and free expression.
That's why we have a government. To decide where the moral line should be rather than have a free for all.
I think my understanding is that although the items you listed above end to end encrypted the keys are accessible to Apple thus via a court order can access data. With ADP it couldn’t since the keys were not on Apples side.
To be unmistakably clear: I asked whether the government criminalizing companies for mentioning their own demands bothers you, and your response was about how you like to think of the Internet. If you don't want to be considered to have dodged the question I asked, please have another go.
Oh?
Could be -- I'm not 100% sure
I'd just pulled that from a security researcher I saw discussing it
Please do share anything you find
Wow .... the government should decide the moral line? Some of us used to think that was the way, but those times have long passed.
That’s what I tried to point out. Something that might offend me might not bother someone else. Then you’re depending on who is in the power at that moment to decide what’s offensive. That’s never a good thing because it might be someone you agree with but it might be someone you absolutely don’t. It likely will change back-and-forth so one moment you’re being arrested for offensive speech and then the next moment you’re being released from jail and your neighbor is being arrested.