Changes to iCloud Put Apple on Collision Course With Governments Seeking Access to Encrypted Messages

[LordVic]

Funny, your entire post read like American culture.
And the NSA didn't accidentally leak anything, stop changing facts, tools were physically stolen, that's not 'accidentally leaking'.
In fact your entire post is waffle, and I'm the only one with common sense, you also obviously refuse to discuss the Internet and it's darker side which leads into iMessage security, hence your very flippant dismay of my question. Perhaps you can't comprehend the question?

actually, your posts to me reads more of "american culture" of dealing with absolutes. Nothing in this life is absolute, especially regarding these sorts of things. the fact you are dealing with absolutes like you are, means we're not going to have a reasonable conversation. You believe it's your way or everyone else is a pedo. it's your way or everyone is american. it's your way or we're defending ISIS.

sorry. that's bogus. Doesn't fly. Guess our conversation is over.

 

[Plutonius]

Imagine this goes to court and some judge who is not too keen on the idiots in power fines Apple $1,000 a month.

It would not be a fine. Instead it would most likely be an injunction on Apple sales in Australia.

It is a binary solution. Either sales are stopped (Apple voluntarily stops sales or Australia stop sales) or Apple puts in a back door.

Given those two choices, what should Apple do ?

 

[apolloa]

actually, your posts to me reads more of "american culture" of dealing with absolutes. Nothing in this life is absolute, especially regarding these sorts of things. the fact you are dealing with absolutes like you are, means we're not going to have a reasonable conversation. You believe it's your way or everyone else is a pedo. it's your way or everyone is american. it's your way or we're defending ISIS.

sorry. that's bogus. Doesn't fly. Guess our conversation is over.

I was dealing with facts, not 'what if's' like you are. Want to stop, fine.

 

[Jsameds]

Perhaps they will switch to encrypted smoke signals.

And when you think about it smoke signals are basically binary in nature :mindblown:

 

[vvswarup]

You do know Apple has to and has given messages from its systems to security services already right? So your the one being fooled.

In fact the only fools on here are those that hate the idea of systems to stop terrorists and criminals and pedophiles in this world, because someone somewhere may read their text messages! Oh the horror.....

And they can keep the keys at Apple, and it would be one dumb company if it leaked them itself!

And if terrorists created their own system, erm, ISPs and providers could easily block it then.
[doublepost=1500572952][/doublepost]

I'm sorry but I refuse to support more secure systems for criminals to use...

[doublepost=1500573508][/doublepost]

FACTUAL NEWS ACTUALLY:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...nergy-companies-election-day-gchq-claims/amp/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....s-suspect-russian-were-behind-the-attack/amp/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.da...ed-hackers-infiltrate-UK-s-energy-sector.html

And many other reports, none of them about the accusations being denied and none about America.

I don't dispute the fact that Apple as given information to the government. I'm going to restrict my post to US law because that's what I'm familiar with.

If Apple receives a lawful court order to hand over information as part of an investigation, Apple has to hand it over. To have the capability and refuse to hand it over would be contempt of court at the very least and could make Apple an accessory to the crime. Even in the San Bernardino case, Apple didn't refuse to hand over the shooter's iPhone. Apple appealed a court order that said Apple had to render assistance beyond what it had already done.

Neither Apple nor any other tech company can hand over something they don't have. With E2E encryption, Apple doesn't have a key so it cannot hand over any information no matter who asks for it. What government's like Australia's are saying in response is that Apple needs to keep the keys so that it is capable of complying with government requests for information.

Encryption has far greater purposes than protecting our civil liberties, which by the way is an important goal. Throughout history, governments have used the threat of foreign attack/invasion/takeover to justify power grabs and populaces have only been too willing to oblige. I digress, though.

Electronic communication has become a greater part of our lives. More and more activities are carried out electronically. Protecting the kinds of information transmitted electronically only becomes that much more important because the consequences of such information being compromised become more severe. Best practices for protecting sensitive information must be adopted and E2E encryption is in line with these best practices.

 

[DoctorTech]

So from your experience, what do you think a good solution to remove paid lobbying from influencing government decisions? Especially those that negatively impact the society as whole?

Great question. There are two basic types of lobbyists. One is the "internal" or "amateur" lobbyist for lack of a better term. I never had a problem with them whether I agreed with them or not. The "internal" lobbyist is a member of an organization (union, professional association, etc.) who truly believes in their issues and they speak for their organization. Sometimes, if the organization is large enough, they may be paid to spend a considerable amount of their time speaking on behalf of the group. However, most of the internal lobbyists are unpaid. Most are not very polished in their presentations but that doesn't matter, they speak from conviction and whether I agreed with them or not, I respected them and their organizations for participating in the legislative process.

The other type of lobbyist is the "hired gun". Often they come from law firms and they are always polished because they have big money backing them. A few of them had true convictions about the issues they were advocating but most were chasing the money and would back whichever side of an issue that could afford their services. I did not have any respect for the ones that pimped themselves out to the highest bidder.

The difficulty in the legislative process is that NOBODY is an expert in all the things a legislator votes on. A school teacher or police officer who gets elected to a legislative office may have a great understanding of education issues or crime but that does not make them an expert on tax law, environmental regulations, confined feeding of livestock, election law, medicaid, social services, dry cleaning, funeral homes, transportation and 500 other topics that come before state legislatures every year. Depending upon what state you live in, there may be 2,000 bills filed in a given year and 400 of them may get a committee hearing. Of those, your state senator and representative may vote on 300 bills and possibly another 200 - 300 amendments to bills as they work their way through the legislative process. The legislative services agency will provide summaries of what a bill is expected to do (i.e. tighten controls on the use of some chemicals in manufacturing plants within the state) but the legislative services agency cannot predict the impact this bill will have on manufacturing plants (or people's health or the environment).

Lobbyists provide perspective for legislators. In the example cited above, a business lobbyist may provide estimates on job loss and tax revenue loss if a certain chemical is banned / restricted within the state (states are allowed to impose stricter regulations that the Federal EPA but states cannot loosen the EPA standards). The industry lobbyist may also talk about how there has never been a proven case of cancer being caused by (fill in the blank). At the same time, a lobbyist for an environmental group may provide information about how other countries have already banned certain chemicals and new research that suggests those chemicals could cause cancer. Ultimately it is up to each legislator to sort through differing perspectives, determine what to believe when conflicting arguments are made by different sides, and balance the potential pros and cons of each piece of legislation. There is no simple answer to your question.

In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to split up most legislation into smaller, easier to understand bills. The most frustrating thing in my experience was not the lobbyist themselves but the process. Some bills were called "Christmas Trees" and they were decorated with "something for everyone". The bill would contain a raise for grossly underpaid State Troopers along with a lot of necessary, non-controversial items that had broad bi-partisan support. Then the Speaker of the House or President Pro-Tem of the Senate would insert a couple of controversial items that would never pass on their own merits. The House and Senate then would have to vote all or nothing to pass the bill and send it to the Governor. I believe the quickest way to improve the process would be to work on banning "Christmas Tree" bills because that is how a lot of bad legislation gets passed.

 

[macs4nw]

.....Having all the access in the world is not going to make us any safer

Absolutely true. Those seeking to harm us will find other ways to communicate their evil intentions.

 

[2128506]

Exactly what does 'lobbying' government officials entail... not a joke here i'm really curious what they do?

It's an American euphemism for bribery.

 

[kiwipeso1]

Jesus..... GCHQ have stated Russian backed hackers accessed the UKs electricity utility companies, and people are crying about security services accessing their worthless messages..

Sorry, but I'm in full support of the government.

GCHQ lie all the time about the need for back-doors, sorry but your UK government still believes in "strong and stable leadership" and other nonsense.
[doublepost=1500712612][/doublepost]

"Here's this completely separate discussion that I'm going to use to support my argument in favour of the removal of encrypted messaging."
How do you survive making logical leaps like that?

Perhaps they are one of the "2 pound bloggers" getting a small fee for every mindless pro-government post ?
[doublepost=1500713165][/doublepost]

If governments want back doors into software (assuring weakened security) fine - but if my credit card number gets stolen or my identity gets stolen then said government can pay for any un-reimbursed credit card charges and can pay for any time i spend dealing with this stupidity.

It's more complicated than that. The main Aussie banks are also the main NZ banks, so it would mean that either kiwis would need to switch banks en masse, or put up with this stupid aussie rule as long as it takes the aussies to find a new PM.

 

[twinlight]

It would not be a fine. Instead it would most likely be an injunction on Apple sales in Australia.

It is a binary solution. Either sales are stopped (Apple voluntarily stops sales or Australia stop sales) or Apple puts in a back door.

Given those two choices, what should Apple do ?

They should stop selling their products voluntarily for a few months to see what happens. People wont get devices serviced, new devices cant be sent to the country, iOS updates postponed for that region. Lets see the ********* hit the politicians when people begin asking why their country is left out of security updates and app updates for their banking, payments and everything else.

 

[LordVic]

Great question. There are two basic types of lobbyists. One is the "internal" or "amateur" lobbyist for lack of a better term. I never had a problem with them whether I agreed with them or not. The "internal" lobbyist is a member of an organization (union, professional association, etc.) who truly believes in their issues and they speak for their organization. Sometimes, if the organization is large enough, they may be paid to spend a considerable amount of their time speaking on behalf of the group. However, most of the internal lobbyists are unpaid. Most are not very polished in their presentations but that doesn't matter, they speak from conviction and whether I agreed with them or not, I respected them and their organizations for participating in the legislative process.

The other type of lobbyist is the "hired gun". Often they come from law firms and they are always polished because they have big money backing them. A few of them had true convictions about the issues they were advocating but most were chasing the money and would back whichever side of an issue that could afford their services. I did not have any respect for the ones that pimped themselves out to the highest bidder.

The difficulty in the legislative process is that NOBODY is an expert in all the things a legislator votes on. A school teacher or police officer who gets elected to a legislative office may have a great understanding of education issues or crime but that does not make them an expert on tax law, environmental regulations, confined feeding of livestock, election law, medicaid, social services, dry cleaning, funeral homes, transportation and 500 other topics that come before state legislatures every year. Depending upon what state you live in, there may be 2,000 bills filed in a given year and 400 of them may get a committee hearing. Of those, your state senator and representative may vote on 300 bills and possibly another 200 - 300 amendments to bills as they work their way through the legislative process. The legislative services agency will provide summaries of what a bill is expected to do (i.e. tighten controls on the use of some chemicals in manufacturing plants within the state) but the legislative services agency cannot predict the impact this bill will have on manufacturing plants (or people's health or the environment).

Lobbyists provide perspective for legislators. In the example cited above, a business lobbyist may provide estimates on job loss and tax revenue loss if a certain chemical is banned / restricted within the state (states are allowed to impose stricter regulations that the Federal EPA but states cannot loosen the EPA standards). The industry lobbyist may also talk about how there has never been a proven case of cancer being caused by (fill in the blank). At the same time, a lobbyist for an environmental group may provide information about how other countries have already banned certain chemicals and new research that suggests those chemicals could cause cancer. Ultimately it is up to each legislator to sort through differing perspectives, determine what to believe when conflicting arguments are made by different sides, and balance the potential pros and cons of each piece of legislation. There is no simple answer to your question.

In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to split up most legislation into smaller, easier to understand bills. The most frustrating thing in my experience was not the lobbyist themselves but the process. Some bills were called "Christmas Trees" and they were decorated with "something for everyone". The bill would contain a raise for grossly underpaid State Troopers along with a lot of necessary, non-controversial items that had broad bi-partisan support. Then the Speaker of the House or President Pro-Tem of the Senate would insert a couple of controversial items that would never pass on their own merits. The House and Senate then would have to vote all or nothing to pass the bill and send it to the Governor. I believe the quickest way to improve the process would be to work on banning "Christmas Tree" bills because that is how a lot of bad legislation gets passed.

Thank you for this.

So really, the idea of lobbying itself isn't bad. you kind of need it to ensure that representatives can hear issues.

so The problem is, it's really currently about who can pay the most and grease the most palms. So those who have money, tend to have the loudest voices?

 

[DoctorTech]

Thank you for this.

So really, the idea of lobbying itself isn't bad. you kind of need it to ensure that representatives can hear issues.

so The problem is, it's really currently about who can pay the most and grease the most palms. So those who have money, tend to have the loudest voices?

That is mostly correct but the complete truth is a little more nuanced. A lot of people talk about "big business" who can afford to influence legislation by paying powerful lobbyists to pressure legislators to support or oppose certain bills. Nobody talks about the influence that can be exerted by other groups with a smaller budget by mobilizing "paid volunteers" to show up in a legislator's district to stir up support or opposition for a bill.

There is one relatively small environmentalist group I used to deal with (I don't even know how many states they operate in, chances are you have never heard of this one). Anyway, they used to send people through my district door to door asking people to sign petitions against certain bills and asking for donations to "fight the special interests" in the Statehouse. Just 2 problems... the "information" they were sharing with people to get them to sign the petition was factually wrong and 50% of the money collected was going straight into the pockets of the "volunteers" going door to door (one of these volunteers knocked on the door of a friend of mine who had a lengthy, friendly conversation with the person who admitted they were allowed to keep half of whatever money the collected). The person going door to door was unemployed and honestly believed what the group had told them about the bill although it was completely inaccurate. These type of organizations can wield tremendous power because they have the ability to stir up voters in a legislator's district even if they have to lie to do it. But they stay under the radar because they are fairly low budget and many people view them as "grassroots" organizations because they influence legislation door to door rather than by buying millions of dollars of advertising.

I will leave you with an analogy. If Harry Potter's magic wand were real, what would a person be willing to pay for it? Imagine having the power with a flick of your wrist to save your friends, destroy your enemies, and change the course of history - what would someone be willing to pay for that power? No, Harry Potter's wand is not real but the government is the next best thing. Legislation can bail out or subsidize a friend's business or regulate a competitor out of existence, or change the course of history. The problems in American government (and to a lesser degree state government) didn't start overnight. The problems have grown over time as government has grown more and more powerful. If you closely examine the 1800s, when there were vastly fewer laws and more decisions were made by local communities and states rather than the federal government, we didn't have nearly the problems we have today with big money, big business, big unions influencing legislation. However, as the federal government has accumulated power (often by abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution) and taken over control of issues once reserved to the States, it has morphed into Harry Potter's wand and most large organizations want to influence the hands that hold that wand.
[doublepost=1500730365][/doublepost]

I don't dispute the fact that Apple as given information to the government. I'm going to restrict my post to US law because that's what I'm familiar with.

If Apple receives a lawful court order to hand over information as part of an investigation, Apple has to hand it over. To have the capability and refuse to hand it over would be contempt of court at the very least and could make Apple an accessory to the crime. Even in the San Bernardino case, Apple didn't refuse to hand over the shooter's iPhone. Apple appealed a court order that said Apple had to render assistance beyond what it had already done.

Neither Apple nor any other tech company can hand over something they don't have. With E2E encryption, Apple doesn't have a key so it cannot hand over any information no matter who asks for it. What government's like Australia's are saying in response is that Apple needs to keep the keys so that it is capable of complying with government requests for information.

Encryption has far greater purposes than protecting our civil liberties, which by the way is an important goal. Throughout history, governments have used the threat of foreign attack/invasion/takeover to justify power grabs and populaces have only been too willing to oblige. I digress, though.

Electronic communication has become a greater part of our lives. More and more activities are carried out electronically. Protecting the kinds of information transmitted electronically only becomes that much more important because the consequences of such information being compromised become more severe. Best practices for protecting sensitive information must be adopted and E2E encryption is in line with these best practices.

Very well said.

30 years ago most people carried a wallet with a government issued drivers license, maybe a half dozen photos of their family and a couple of credit cards and that was it. Today most of us carry a small computer with thousands of photos, our calendars, our to do lists, our financial records, our medical records, a history of everyone we have communicated with for the past several years and a location by location history of everywhere we have physically gone for the past several years. In other words, we carry our lives in our pockets and there are numerous entities who would love to have access to that type of information.

Criminal hackers who want to steal money or our identities are a common threat to us all. However, depending upon your occupation you may also have business competitors who want to know what you are doing / who you are talking to and what you are talking about. Also, depending upon your occupation, you could have foreign intelligence agencies looking for compromising information to use as leverage to get a person to do something for them. In some cases, you could have corrupt law enforcement officials trying to access your data for personal or political reasons (known cases of this are rare but they have happened). The point is I want strong encryption for my computers and mobile devices. Any backdoor in the system weakens the entire system. If the NSA can't keep their cyber arsenal secure why should I think Apple or any other company could do better than the NSA to keep the "keys" secure? I applaud Apple's approach of saying we can't give you what we don't have.

I realize there are bad people out there that could hide criminal activity behind encryption just like they could hide criminal activity behind a closed door of their house. But I don't believe in banning door locks (or making every home owner give a spare house key to their local police department) so the police will have an easier time executing a no-knock search warrant.

 

[kiwipeso1]

They should stop selling their products voluntarily for a few months to see what happens. People wont get devices serviced, new devices cant be sent to the country, iOS updates postponed for that region. Lets see the ********* hit the politicians when people begin asking why their country is left out of security updates and app updates for their banking, payments and everything else.

I'd suggest only commentating when sober would be a better policy for aussie politicians.

 

[Roadstar]

I'll think how I want, it's a free world. And yes you are with the sex offenders and terrorists when you refuse access to messaging services by the Police.
You need to realise outside of America people think differently about these things like in Australia. Their are big cultural differences.

Oh please stop with the BS. Regardless of where you live, anyone who understands a single bit about how encryption works knows that once there's a backdoor for one party, it's there for everyone and it's only a matter of time before it's discovered or leaks. I'm all in for catching the bad guys, but breaking encryption for everyone is a totally wrong way to attempt it. As stated earlier in the thread, bad guys will just switch to custom solutions while leaving the rest of us vulnerable.

 

[kiwipeso1]

Oh please stop with the BS. Regardless of where you live, anyone who understands a single bit about how encryption works knows that once there's a backdoor for one party, it's there for everyone and it's only a matter of time before it's discovered or leaks. I'm all in for catching the bad guys, but breaking encryption for everyone is a totally wrong way to attempt it. As stated earlier in the thread, bad guys will just switch to custom solutions while leaving the rest of us vulnerable.

As cryptography is within the capability of most 13 year olds to understand, it is pointless trying to ban it, especially when there is thousands of years of research in this field of maths. It is so simple, even language students can do it.

 

[apolloa]

Oh please stop with the BS. Regardless of where you live, anyone who understands a single bit about how encryption works knows that once there's a backdoor for one party, it's there for everyone and it's only a matter of time before it's discovered or leaks. I'm all in for catching the bad guys, but breaking encryption for everyone is a totally wrong way to attempt it. As stated earlier in the thread, bad guys will just switch to custom solutions while leaving the rest of us vulnerable.

Apple has the keys though right? It already gives access to messages backed up in iCloud, how is it so bad for Apple to have the keys at their HQ on a computer off line used purely to access phones as request d by security forces? That way it is still secure and you can sleep at night knowing the only vulnerability to Apples messaging system will be Apple and we can continue to catch the criminals. Is that really so bad?

 

[DoctorTech]

Apple has the keys though right? It already gives access to messages backed up in iCloud, how is it so bad for Apple to have the keys at their HQ on a computer off line used purely to access phones as request d by security forces? That way it is still secure and you can sleep at night knowing the only vulnerability to Apples messaging system will be Apple and we can continue to catch the criminals. Is that really so bad?

Let me explain this as simply as possible. Imagine I build a whole neighborhood full of houses with no windows and each house has only a single door. Imagine also, the people who buy these houses from me put their own lock on their door and keep their keys with them 24/7. Those houses are as secure as they can possibly be.

Now imagine the same scenario but I, the builder, put a back door in everyone of those houses and I have a single key that will give me access into any of those houses. The mere existence of that 2nd door undermines the security of every one of those houses.

What if an employee of mine steals the key either because they want to go snooping through the homes, or they want to make money selling the key to a criminal or a criminal threatens / blackmails them into stealing the key? What if a criminal hires the best locksmiths he can find to create his own key to the backdoor? It wouldn't make sense to spend that much effort to make a single key to get into a single house but if he can make a key that fits the backdoor, he can get into any house in the neighborhood so the reward is much greater and he would be willing to put a lot more effort into doing it.

This is what I (and several other people on this forum and Apple themselves) want to avoid by not having the backdoor in the first place. If the NSA itself can't keep their "cyber arsenal" secure by the means you described above (i.e. stored in an offline computer) why should anyone believe that Apple could keep the key to the backdoor secure?

I am sure you have nothing to hide in your home. But just to set a good example for the rest of us, why don't you mail a spare key to your home to Officer Mohamed Noor at the Minneapolis, MN police department? That way you can "sleep at night" knowing the only vulnerability to your home is a law enforcement officer "and we can continue to catch the criminals". Just one piece of advice, if Officer Noor ever uses the key, don't make any sudden moves, he apparently startles easily.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-shooting-Fake-signs-posted-Minneapolis.html

 

[Weaselboy]

Moderator Note:

Several off topic comments discussing Apple's tax situation have been removed. If you would would like to discuss that topic, please start a new thread and keep this one on topic. Thank you

 

[apolloa]

Let me explain this as simply as possible. Imagine I build a whole neighborhood full of houses with no windows and each house has only a single door. Imagine also, the people who buy these houses from me put their own lock on their door and keep their keys with them 24/7. Those houses are as secure as they can possibly be.

Now imagine the same scenario but I, the builder, put a back door in everyone of those houses and I have a single key that will give me access into any of those houses. The mere existence of that 2nd door undermines the security of every one of those houses.

What if an employee of mine steals the key either because they want to go snooping through the homes, or they want to make money selling the key to a criminal or a criminal threatens / blackmails them into stealing the key? What if a criminal hires the best locksmiths he can find to create his own key to the backdoor? It wouldn't make sense to spend that much effort to make a single key to get into a single house but if he can make a key that fits the backdoor, he can get into any house in the neighborhood so the reward is much greater and he would be willing to put a lot more effort into doing it.

This is what I (and several other people on this forum and Apple themselves) want to avoid by not having the backdoor in the first place. If the NSA itself can't keep their "cyber arsenal" secure by the means you described above (i.e. stored in an offline computer) why should anyone believe that Apple could keep the key to the backdoor secure?

I am sure you have nothing to hide in your home. But just to set a good example for the rest of us, why don't you mail a spare key to your home to Officer Mohamed Noor at the Minneapolis, MN police department? That way you can "sleep at night" knowing the only vulnerability to your home is a law enforcement officer "and we can continue to catch the criminals". Just one piece of advice, if Officer Noor ever uses the key, don't make any sudden moves, he apparently startles easily.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-shooting-Fake-signs-posted-Minneapolis.html

I don't find the comment on an American Police officer needlessly shooting dead an unarmed innocent Australian rape victim amusing, don't really see the point it has to the topic? Poor taste.

And your post clearly shows a lack of understanding how the encryption works, considering Apple already has those encryption keys, back doors and is currently the builder you describe, so your entire post was wasted really, Apple is looking to have encryption where it does not have the keys, it's not there yet...

 

[DoctorTech]

I don't find the comment on an American Police officer needlessly shooting dead an unarmed innocent Australian rape victim amusing, don't really see the point it has to the topic? Poor taste.

And your post clearly shows a lack of understanding how the encryption works, considering Apple already has those encryption keys, back doors and is currently the builder you describe, so your entire post was wasted really, Apple is looking to have encryption where it does not have the keys, it's not there yet...

I agree 100% the SOMALI Police Officer (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/re...ota-shooting-celebrated-Somali-community.html) serving on the Minneapolis Police Department was completely out of line in killing an innocent, unarmed woman who had called 911. I want to see that officer put on trial for his actions.

The point and the relevance of that incident to this discussion is your blind trust in government and law enforcement. Would you want Officer Noor going through your phone or other property? Or do you assume people's character and honesty automatically increase as they ascend to higher ranks of government? The former U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, lied under oath to Congress (which would get most people put in prison for 10 years) when he was asked a very blunt question about how much spying was being conducted on Americans without a warrant. After being caught in his lie, he defended himself by claiming, and I quote, "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner...".

If Apple created a backdoor, how often do you think it would be used and who do you think will actually be the people to use it and on who will they use it on? Do you REALLY believe it will only be used to look through phones of actual criminals or will 99.9% of the phones searched belong to innocent people while law enforcement are searching for the 0.1% who are not innocent? Before you respond, take a moment to Google how often FISA courts reject requests for search warrants.

 

[kiwipeso1]

Apple has the keys though right? It already gives access to messages backed up in iCloud, how is it so bad for Apple to have the keys at their HQ on a computer off line used purely to access phones as request d by security forces? That way it is still secure and you can sleep at night knowing the only vulnerability to Apples messaging system will be Apple and we can continue to catch the criminals. Is that really so bad?

No. The thing is "end to end encryption" means sender and receiver have the keys. Not sender, cloud company & receiver have the keys.

Do us a favour, and stop being such a gullible authoritarian suck-up.
[doublepost=1501269518][/doublepost]

I don't find the comment on an American Police officer needlessly shooting dead an unarmed innocent Australian rape victim amusing, don't really see the point it has to the topic? Poor taste.

And your post clearly shows a lack of understanding how the encryption works, considering Apple already has those encryption keys, back doors and is currently the builder you describe, so your entire post was wasted really, Apple is looking to have encryption where it does not have the keys, it's not there yet...

It is exactly the right analogy. The law enforcement was completely dangerous to an innocent person.
Handing the keys to every iPhone, iPad and iPod touch is going to be dangerous to innocent people in backwards countries which kill dissidents or protestors, such as in the middle east, china, russia, etc.

Apple already has encryption that it doesn't have the keys for. It is a simple technique within the grasp of any secondary school maths student, or myself in primary school.
The maths is very basic algebra, and is pointless trying to ban after it was taught across the world for generations.

 

[vvswarup]

Apple has the keys though right? It already gives access to messages backed up in iCloud, how is it so bad for Apple to have the keys at their HQ on a computer off line used purely to access phones as request d by security forces? That way it is still secure and you can sleep at night knowing the only vulnerability to Apples messaging system will be Apple and we can continue to catch the criminals. Is that really so bad?

I'm not sure about the intricacies of encryption but I'm pretty sure that the reason Apple has a key to iCloud data is because that data is hosted by Apple. There's a reason certain data aren't stored on iCloud. Fingerprint data for Touch ID for example aren't stored on iCloud because if there were, Apple would have a key to that information, which means someone can steal that key.