I’m in the UK and I honestly don’t think it would work, imo if Apple just gave me a way to do the iCloud stuff with my own NAS I’d be fine if they pull iCloud services
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.
Could Apple Pull iCloud Services From the UK Market?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want people and the government to be over companies. Companies are not citizens, and not people. They are in the lowest position on the totem pole.
In no situation should a for-profit entity have more rights than the governing body of a country.
Last edited:
Totally agreed, Apple should be forced to let us do our own syncing via a NAS and also backups.
Apple would lose more money exiting the UK market than just allowing us to sync our own data
While I agree that would be a good solution for Apple to implement (although disagree about forcing Apple to do so), it appears the U.K. could prevent them from offering that feature. From this BBC article, emphasis mine:
Why?
The government can enter your house if they have reasons to believe they can find evidence you commited a crime.
How is thid different?
They're either both fascism or both regular policing. Which then we may debate if it's good or not, the way we apply it.
Unless it’s not a true sense of e2ee, but a backdoor version of it with a master key held by nefarious entities.
Which makes government demand of blanket access of everyone’s data even more ridiculous, more so when the demand is about enforcing surveillance on citizens that they have zero jurisdiction over.
The government has all the tools and keys to do virtually whatever they want, but that seems to not be enough.
E2EE is good, but only good if implemented properly. And to make E2EE effective, there needs to be no exceptions, terrorism or not, otherwise we’d enter the world where buying a loaf of bread would need ID because of “choking hazard”.
Spying on citizens happens everywhere, dictatorship just does that to an absolute extreme. US government would never openly admit that they were spying on all US citizens regardless of where they were, without the Snowden leaks.
Because now the government can enter your house for bogus reasons, as simple as “we see your iCloud Photo Library and suspect you are connecting with criminal organisations” even though you never share said photo to anyone else and it has nothing to do with criminal activity.
In almost no situation should a private company be a proxy for government to aid in spying on its citizens en masse especially spying without a warrant or legal order. (Even though that has happened in the US; didn’t make it right)
How defined is "security mitigation" in that context.
If, say, Apple created an iCloud backup solution that would only communicate with a fileshare hosted on the same local subnet as the device being backed up, but did not themselves provide any encryption capabilities, that would simply just be a new backup feature, not a security mitigation. It would be up to the user to apply encryption to the NAS itself.
The problem with this idea, is that it really would only help those users who are already tech-savvy enough to be able to build a home NAS and properly secure the NAS and their network. The users Apple's secure backup is really designed to serve are those who aren't that tech savvy and need that done for them (in other words, the other 99.9% of the world's computer users).
Sadly, it seems common for numerous countries to use a product (Pegasus) from the USA's best friend Israel, to spy on whomever it wishes.
That I agree with, but I don't think that companies should not be told what to do. In this case, they should appeal/fight it, or leave.
Source from the "UK WANTS TO SPY ALL" claim is basically people at Apple.
The plausible version of this is that, since Apple won't help with single cases by hacking any account, they just demanded Apple a backdoor for the whole system. It was stated, in the original reports, that it was meant to provide access to data when necessary for investigation: 100% as it happens with a warrant.
Then, since this backdoor would have potentially universal access to user data (just like a warrant but easier to do in secrecy, and this is an issue but we already have it with less protected data storage) it was reported as if the UK gornenent would just want to spy on random people to find crimes. It may be the case but... It's not directly connected to this. Again, the could be doing that with less secure data and it would be bad anyway and having access to Apple data doesn't mean they will.
LOL. Fascism is a pretty simple word to understand. And yes, a government can be both. That is also a simple concept to understand.
Here’s a good analogy: if you have a safe in your home and the government gets a warrant, they can enter your home and open the safe. But you don’t have to give them the combination to the safe. Ever. This backdoor is like giving the gov’t the combination to the safe without a warrant and letting them have it in perpetuity, which means you have no security, and no privacy. Ever.
...unless you've been living (or entering) the United Kingdom and are (subject) to its Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act:
Man jailed over computer password refusal
A teenager is detained for 16 weeks after he refused to give police the password to his computer.
www.bbc.com
Talk about erosion of one’s rights. That’s the scary part, governments are turning into surveillance states,...unless you've been living (or entering) the United Kingdom and are (subject) to its Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act:
Man jailed over computer password refusal
A teenager is detained for 16 weeks after he refused to give police the password to his computer.
This government isn’t Fascist.
And no, a government can’t be both fascist and communist at the same time. Fascism is a right wing ideology, whereas communism is a left wing one. One is pro-capitalism, the other is anti-capitalism.
Please refrain from using words you don’t understand.
Aww, you’re adorable.
Fascism is typically right wing but there are instances where political movements or regimes combine elements from both sides of the spectrum, sometimes blurring ideological lines. For example, certain totalitarian regimes (like Stalin's Soviet Union or Maoist China) were left-wing in terms of their support for communism but used fascist-like tactics, such as repression, centralization of power, and violent suppression of opposition. In other words, centralized control.
Kind of like having a single backdoor pipe into a preeminent Cloud service, a means of surveillance that violates the privacy of millions upon millions of people.
Therefore: fascism.
Please refrain from using concepts and ideas you have only looked up in the dictionary once.
In the U.S., I believe they can hold you in contempt of court if you don’t as well. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the way it is....unless you've been living (or entering) the United Kingdom and are (subject) to its Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act:
Man jailed over computer password refusal
A teenager is detained for 16 weeks after he refused to give police the password to his computer.
Yeah, communism has never been implemented - it’s a stateless, class-less, money-less society. Neither has socialism, actually - just social democracy (in a lot of the world) has.
This government isn’t fascist. This is an authoritative policy, yes.
I don’t need a dictionary when I have an MA, thank you.
Yeah you’re wrong. You’re confusing “authoritarian” with “fascist.” The Soviet Union and Mao’s China were authoritarian, but weren’t fascist.
And before you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, I have a degree in political science and a degree in German, and spent considerable time studying fascism, including a course entirely on fascism, it’s tenants, common attributes of fascist countries, etc. Communism and fascism are diametrically opposed to each other, despite having common characteristics.