With no transparency or right of appeal? As for your 'case-by-case' basis, how do we know that a stack of papers doesn't arrive at the judge's desk and they just wave their hands? In the UK I once got an official letter threatening me with bailiffs coming and taking my possessions. Why? Because the local council accounting software had a rounding error and undercharged me by 2 pence on council tax. The stamp for the letter informing me about the bailiffs cost multiple times that amount. Yet a judge/magistrate signed the order anyway. You cannot assume judges working in public view are doing a good job, let alone those working without public scrutiny or accountability.
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
So where do you post these things? I say nothing privately I wouldn't say in public. What service do you use you now feel is compromised? I think this really is a non-story, just as ADP was a non-story in the first place.
If you are going to write to your MP then it is recommended that you should include your address to show you are a constituent. From personal experience they don’t care if they don’t know you are a constituent.
“I don't care about losing privacy because I have nothing to hide” is no different to saying
“I don't care about losing free speech because I have nothing to say”
My privacy has not been compromised. Not even a little. What do you guys put on iCloud? I hardly use it, preferring to set up my own services. Eggs in one basket and all that .
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I'd never trust one company for all my security. I have never been all-in on the Apple ecosystem.
Isn't the request for access to icloud data WORLDWIDE? My understanding is that by Apple just removing ADP from the UK, they are still not compliant. Reading the 2016 IPA it states that if the company operates in any uk market, then it is bound.
Simple removing ADP does not relieve Apple from this, they would need to entirely pull out of the UK market for every product. Unless of course they have struck some kind of deal with the UK govt.
Simple removing ADP does not relieve Apple from this, they would need to entirely pull out of the UK market for every product. Unless of course they have struck some kind of deal with the UK govt.
Disingenious argument.
Which is better?
1. Be upfront and say your data is not encrypted
2. Say it is encrypted and not say that it can be read on demand
I will be too, but every single time I have emailed my MPs over the years to express my disgust about these blatant violations of right to privacy, I receive the same canned response about it being to fight terrorism or stop nonces and I expect the exact same this time.
Yeah but the initial reporting was that the UK wanted that access for every user on the planet. So I don't see how pulling ADP from the UK would satisfy the government.
Then Apple will pull it self from the UK. They UK does not have the right to spy on any pother citizen but their own.
In case anyone is curious. Our resident punching bag Tim Sweeney thinks apple should have compiled with this order and is trashing apple for taking a stand.. I am sure Sweeney would have bashed apple had they complied instead...
(and yes, the good ol bots in the replies are praising Sweeney for calling out apple...
*Reposted with the updated tweet from tim
(and yes, the good ol bots in the replies are praising Sweeney for calling out apple...
*Reposted with the updated tweet from tim
THIS is what Fascism brings…. America is next and all thanks to Orange He Lur.
If you’re referring to the poorly worded and vague DMA, it’s BECAUSE it’s poorly worded and vague that Apple can adhere to the law without implementing a solution the way the government wanted them to. The government COULD have clearly defined the results they wanted in the law, even as far as defining that something like the CTF will be forbidden (they have a clause that specifically allows for the CTF), but they would never have gotten enough countries to sign onto a law written to that level of specificity.
The UK has made it very clear that they if Apple provides encryption services to their citizens, they should do so in a way that allows Apple to still provide them that data as requested. They’re demanding that Apple holds the keys. They’re very clear in what they want to happen and how they want it to happen, and Apple chose to hold the keys as the UK requires for their citizens. There’s little comparison between this and a law that defines a gatekeeper as “whatever we want it to be on a given day”.
Except what the UK has defined as “acceptable” under the law would NOT be that. Unlike the DMA, they’re very clear on this.
Careful, under the recently enacted anti protest laws just disagreeing with a government policy or law in writing may get you 5 to 10 in Belmarsh.
Good luck enforcing that. The UK no longer has an empire and can't dictate what other parts of the world do.