Activist Groups Challenge UK Demand for Apple Encryption Backdoor

[scgf]

Even Wikipedia says that your “Nothing to hide” attitude is a logical fallacy.

Nothing there negates my point of view. I absolutely, fundamentally, disagree with you. Neuroses are illogical in themselves. Tin-foil hats may help.

 

[scgf]

I'm sure most don't. I've been using it for several months now. It allows me to safely keep my mac documents folder on the cloud so I can have them handy on my phone. If the government has a backdoor then so does a hacker and you can no longer have any documents on the server. And having the backdoor doesn't even help the government get files from criminals since they will just move to something else that is fully encrypted

My Mac documents are stored in my own cloud and stored locally. I can use them on any device I choose. I will happily make them available to government agencies if they're interested . . .

 

[armhol]

I use iCloud but don't have ADP turned on. I tried but one of my computer was running an OS too old to be able to do that. You can be very sure that when the UK government back down, I'll activate it asap, as will may others no doubt. If and when the UK Gov loose this and back down, they will be in a worse position that before they tried! All this will have done is to advertise ADP and make more people use it!

 

[con2apple]

I am wondering how many of these people actually had ADP enabled in the first place? I don’t know anybody who had enabled it or even knew what it was. I suspect that’s the case for 99% of iOS or macOS users. It’s a lot of hot air IMO.

Don't try to justify the destruction of data security with your own ignorance and the ignorance of a thousand others.
My goodness, that there are still people who believe that servers are secure just because they are operated by a company.

Continental, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, the German parliament, Rheinmetall, Volkswagen... these are the names of hacked organizations that come to mind spontaneously from the last years. And there are hundreds more.

Fine, if you are one of those Apple believers who are convinced that Apple is even more secure than a weapons manufacturer or a parliamentary network, suit yourself.
But let the rest of us, who know that Apple is attacked daily, protect our files.

I don't wish it to anyone, but strangely enough, many users only learn to appreciate encryption when their data has been stolen and misused, even though they themselves have made no mistake.

 

[JohnC1959]

My Mac documents are stored in my own cloud and stored locally. I can use them on any device I choose. I will happily make them available to government agencies if they're interested . . .

yeah, I may do that too if Apple is compromised in the US. I don't mind if law enforcement have them with a warrant. It's the rogue hackers that leverage the backdoor I'm concerned about. iCloud is a bit more convenient and serves as an extra offsite backup but I have other options. It's like if the bank decided to add an easier way into their vault -- I have the option of moving my money elsewhere but it's a shame the bank would do that. Such changes add inconvenience but at least criminals and terrorists can still use end to end encryption regardless any such changes

 

[scgf]

Don't try to justify the destruction of data security with your own ignorance and the ignorance of a thousand others.
My goodness, that there are still people who believe that servers are secure just because they are operated by a company.

Continental, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, the German parliament, Rheinmetall, Volkswagen... these are the names of hacked organizations that come to mind spontaneously from the last years. And there are hundreds more.

Fine, if you are one of those Apple believers who are convinced that Apple is even more secure than a weapons manufacturer or a parliamentary network, suit yourself.
But let the rest of us, who know that Apple is attacked daily, protect our files.

I don't wish it to anyone, but strangely enough, many users only learn to appreciate encryption when their data has been stolen and misused, even though they themselves have made no mistake.

No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm assuming that anyone who has the skills and the need can access your data. Nothing online is secure. Even though tech-heads will argue that certain types of encryption is unbreakable, just assume someone can and will and you'll be a lot happier and won't suffer knee-jerk reactions when something like this happens.

 

[surferfb]

No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm assuming that anyone who has the skills and the need can access your data. Nothing online is secure. Even though tech-heads will argue that certain types of encryption is unbreakable, just assume someone can and will and you'll be a lot happier and won't suffer knee-jerk reactions when something like this happens.

"Let's give the government a key to your house and the combination to your safe because some burglars might break in anyway"

 

[darkpaw]

I would be happy for *anything* I say privately to be made public. I never post anonymously and stand by what I say.
...
It bothers me greatly as to what people are saying that they feel needs hiding from the security services. In a dictatorship the authorities would have access to your material anyway. Don’t mete out tired clichés about those of us who have nothing to hide as somehow anti-democratic. It doesn’t wash. It’s about responsibility and respect of others.

Do you have curtains or blinds on your windows?

There we go.

 

[Will Co]

I am wondering how many of these people actually had ADP enabled in the first place? I don’t know anybody who had enabled it or even knew what it was. I suspect that’s the case for 99% of iOS or macOS users. It’s a lot of hot air IMO.

You’re of course entitled to your opinion. I suspect there’s a lot more than 1% of iOS or MacOS users who would strongly disagree with you.

 

[Will Co]

I would be happy for *anything* I say privately to be made public. I never post anonymously and stand by what I say. A lot of the dissent comes from Americans who conflate being thoroughly nasty to others as ‘free speech’ and who have this strange adversarial relationship with their authorities. I can say what I like about the government, the King, whoever, without fear of retribution. It’s only when I cross the line and what I say can be construed as hate speech, or something worse there is a problem. It bothers me greatly as to what people are saying that they feel needs hiding from the security services. In a dictatorship the authorities would have access to your material anyway. Don’t mete out tired clichés about those of us who have nothing to hide as somehow anti-democratic. It doesn’t wash. It’s about responsibility and respect of others.

But that’s the whole point, isn’t it? You can indeed say what you like and think what you like. Take photos of what you like or message as you like. But if some authority can, for whatever reason they deem suitable, access what you said, thought, recorded, shared and deem it by their standards, not yours, to be problematic then you’re in trouble. What you think might and might not be hate speech, for example, could well differ from the authorities. If you enjoy privacy from them, then you indeed have nothing to fear. But if you don’t…

 

[Will Co]

They’re already driving cars around doing facial recognition in some areas

Really? Can you cite a source?

 

[Will Co]

I have used personal computers since they were invented. I have used the internet since it was a thing and I have always believed that what I do or say online is visible to someone somewhere. Nothing is truly private on a network. Just accept that and act accordingly rather than arguing about principles. Call it British pragmatism.

Encryption?

 

[Shirasaki]

Let's hope the apoplectic tech-heads spontaneously implode because only they and the criminals give a toss about the issue.

Criminals don’t care because they just move to another encryption method that’s more obscure. By then what access do governments want? Outlaw encryption? Does criminals even care since they break the law anyways? I don’t think criminals will care.

 

[hsotnicam8002]

I would be happy for *anything* I say privately to be made public. I never post anonymously and stand by what I say. A lot of the dissent comes from Americans who conflate being thoroughly nasty to others as ‘free speech’ and who have this strange adversarial relationship with their authorities. I can say what I like about the government, the King, whoever, without fear of retribution. It’s only when I cross the line and what I say can be construed as hate speech, or something worse there is a problem. It bothers me greatly as to what people are saying that they feel needs hiding from the security services. In a dictatorship the authorities would have access to your material anyway. Don’t mete out tired clichés about those of us who have nothing to hide as somehow anti-democratic. It doesn’t wash. It’s about responsibility and respect of others.

It quite naive to suggest that you can ‘say what I like about the government, the King, whoever, without fear of retribution’ in the UK, as what YOU think is acceptable can be very different to the opinion of OTHERS. So how do you feel about the UK’s ‘non-crime hate incidences’ and the ability of the authorities to record these on your ‘non-criminal’ record, possibly even without your knowledge or timely defence (until its effect is suffered at a crucial time, such as when applying for certain jobs, or contesting a case in court)? Reporting these has been shown to be open to abuse, such as when ‘accusers’ have made vexatious claims, potentially without recourse. It’s such travesties of democracy, often politically motivated, that have made secure communication systems more important than ever.

 

[avz]

"We told them you can't do this," Trump said. "We actually told [Starmer]... that's incredible. That's something, you know, that you hear about with China."

Actually it is the best kept secret that London plays against the US together with China.
The "British Empire" does not have to be on the British island and it will highly likely relocate to China in order to use its resources while maintaining full control by leveraging it against the AUKUS.

 

[scgf]

It quite naive to suggest that you can ‘say what I like about the government, the King, whoever, without fear of retribution’ in the UK, as what YOU think is acceptable can be very different to the opinion of OTHERS. So how do you feel about the UK’s ‘non-crime hate incidences’ and the ability of the authorities to record these on your ‘non-criminal’ record, possibly even without your knowledge or timely defence (until its effect is suffered at a crucial time, such as when applying for certain jobs, or contesting a case in court)? Reporting these has been shown to be open to abuse, such as when ‘accusers’ have made vexatious claims, potentially without recourse. It’s such travesties of democracy, often politically motivated, that have made secure communication systems more important than ever.

It's quite naive to think you should be able to say anything with impunity. The UK's so-called 'non-crime hate incidences' are largely media hype. Do you really think organisations like GCHQ haven't always been keeping records on certain individuals who might be a risk to public order? When a terrorist offence occurs people immediately start asking why the authorities knew nothing about the perpetrator. Where do they think that information should come from? How many attacks have been prevented by public surveillance? A great many I would suggest. Some 50 years ago I had a great interest in China and Eastern Europe and bought magazines and books from those countries. I was warned by people I knew to be careful as the authorities would be aware of my activities. It has always been like that and it is a travesty of democracy, and arrogant, to think you are above public scrutiny and should have a secure channel to post comments that are clearly unlawful.

 

[jimthing]

Let's hope they win so us UK people can have the privacy rights we are assumed to have under the law.

 

[scgf]

Encryption?

Note I said ‘believed’. Belief isn’t necessarily based on fact. If I were using the most effective and robust method of encryption ever, I would still assume, and work on the basis that, what I did online could be seen by someone. It seems to me to be the most pragmatic way forward.

 

[Will Co]

Note I said ‘believed’. Belief isn’t necessarily based on fact. If I were using the most effective and robust method of encryption ever, I would still assume, and work on the basis that, what I did online could be seen by someone. It seems to me to be the most pragmatic way forward.

I find it incredibly hard to accept that you truly believe all your online transactions are available to be viewed and still continue to maintain an online presence. If you really believe that and yet continue to use online banking or other functionality that uses your personally identifiable data then I’d say you were displaying madness rather than pragmatism.

 

[scgf]

I find it incredibly hard to accept that you truly believe all your online transactions are available to be viewed and still continue to maintain an online presence. If you really believe that and yet continue to use online banking or other functionality that uses your personally identifiable data then I’d say you were displaying madness rather than pragmatism.

I didn't say I believe all my transactions are publicly viewable by all and sundry - and I'm sorry if that's what you thought I meant. To qualify, I believe if GCHQ or some other national security agency wanted to investigate my online activities I believe they would be able to. As far as my banking is concerned I would expect some sort of legal warrant would be necessary. I do not expect to be exempt from scrutiny. If necessary the police can see records of your phone calls, your search history and which websites you've visited, your banking activity as well as your general online activity. You surely know that when a person is suspected of a crime and/or goes missing the police are able to see where they have used their debit/credit card. I use the internet with all that in mind. I think my pragmatism is very sensible, your need for absolute privacy from any agency is deluded and definitely not in the public interest.

 

[Will Co]

I didn't say I believe all my transactions are publicly viewable by all and sundry - and I'm sorry if that's what you thought I meant. To qualify, I believe if GCHQ or some other national security agency wanted to investigate my online activities I believe they would be able to. As far as my banking is concerned I would expect some sort of legal warrant would be necessary. I do not expect to be exempt from scrutiny. If necessary the police can see records of your phone calls, your search history and which websites you've visited, your banking activity as well as your general online activity. You surely know that when a person is suspected of a crime and/or goes missing the police are able to see where they have used their debit/credit card. I use the internet with all that in mind. I think my pragmatism is very sensible, your need for absolute privacy from any agency is deluded and definitely not in the public interest.

I’m well aware of the requirements of the IPA and which items of personal data are already available to the authorities on execution of a proper warrant. I’m not trying to hide from them. I simply cannot. That ship sailed a long time ago. What I and others like me object to is this recent attempt to gain wholesale access to a vast array of other data. Essentially anything protected by ADP. So, to name a few things: any iCloud document; any photo or video and its metadata, etc. In other words, pretty much most if not all of my data. You now seem to be saying, or claim to have always been saying, that you are OK with some of your data being accessible, essentially because it already is. So does that imply that there is some data you’re not OK with?

But the bigger picture is that this isn’t just about what the authorities can see. At some point in the future Apple will suffer a data breach, if they haven’t already. If that breach discloses only encrypted data for which only I have the keys then little harm is done. But if this law goes ahead, and that encryption has secondary keys then you and I are potentially screwed. It’s not so much the authorities I worry about. It’s the hackers.

 

[It’s always something]

It’s not so much the authorities I worry about. It’s the hackers.

This. Back doors for anyone are back doors for all. It’s the same as no security against anyone.