iOS 26 Allows Cellular Calls and SMS/RCS in Third-Party Apps in EU

[vantelimus]

no different then what your or my carrier can do with all of the data that they are collecting

there's also nothing stopping anyone currently from doing whatever they want with the calls and messages they exchange with you

If I had your number I could call you from my iPhone right now and record the call

Except, of course, there are legal penalties if you do so. You could face prison time for recording the call without my permission. That’s true in many EU countries also, including Germany and France. However, I’m not worried about you in particular. I’m worried more about opening up holes the design of the iPhone which allow corporations and bad actors to surreptitiously and systematically violate the privacy of all users. There’s no reason to enable that capability when you already have all the lack of privacy and security you could every hope for with Android.

 

[vantelimus]

That is to bring jobs back to the US and to prevent Apple from engaging in legal corporate tax evasion by outsourcing overseas. The US isn’t forcing Apple to build their own products a certain way so that Apple’s competitors can benefit from state-sponsored interference in a free market.

“Those jobs aren’t coming back.” — Steve Jobs to Barack Obama in 2011

I don’t think this thread is open to political arguments, so I will just leave it there.

 

[nathansz]

You could face prison time for recording the call without my permission.

Yeah ok sure

I’m worried more about opening up holes the design of the iPhone which allow corporations and bad actors to surreptitiously and systematically violate the privacy of all users.

You don't think the telecoms are already doing that?

 

[surferfb]

You don't think the telecoms are already doing that?

Even if that’s true, why would we want to let even more people do so?

Unless I’m missing something, “well, some people are already doing something bad, so let’s make it easier for other people to do it too!” isn’t exactly a winning argument.

 

[nathansz]

Even if that’s true, why would we want to let even more people do so?

Unless I’m missing something, “well, some people are already doing something bad, so let’s make it easier for other people to do it too!” isn’t exactly a winning argument.

you don't have to use any 3rd party calling apps if you don't want to

also, what's the security difference between cellular calling and wifi calling? (genuine question, I really don't know)

a lot of people seem to have no problem making all of there calls and texts through meta

 

[L.U.C.A]

It’s a big fat nothing burger to those that don’t want it. Just don’t install it. 😂 lots of tears and teeth gnashing over ‘taking away my freedom by offering choice’ - in itself the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. If you want to be locked in you can remain locked in. No idea why some are getting all Stockholm syndrome about it.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Yes, it was possible. But carriers in each country were able to charge roaming fees until 2017 (with a transition period before) for both calls and SMS. And cross-border calls and SMS also incurred a surcharge.

What's App provided a free alternative because it allowed use of data instead of carrier networks for any cross-border activity.

Well, that entirely depended on what kind of mobile phone contract you have. And naturally, the mobile data wasn't free either if your data didn't support SMS. So then you'd have to find free/open wifi hotspots. WhatsApp did not solve that, it made it worse, but granted people do think it solved it. We now have a situation where there is a US Tech own centralised app making people think it is better. It a pure marketing genius con.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Except, of course, there are legal penalties if you do so. You could face prison time for recording the call without my permission. That’s true in many EU countries also, including Germany and France. However, I’m not worried about you in particular. I’m worried more about opening up holes the design of the iPhone which allow corporations and bad actors to surreptitiously and systematically violate the privacy of all users. There’s no reason to enable that capability when you already have all the lack of privacy and security you could every hope for with Android.

There is no way I would face prison time if I was recording your call without your permission, no way at all. Good luck with that.

 

[vantelimus]

There is no way I would face prison time if I was recording your call without your permission, no way at all. Good luck with that.

So, your argument is: It is illegal and unethical — but since I’ve got such a good chance of getting away with it, Apple should be mandated by law to make it almost effortless for criminal organizations to do it on a mass scale.

 

[L.U.C.A]

So, your argument is: It is illegal and unethical — but since I’ve got such a good chance of getting away with it, Apple should be mandated by law to make it almost effortless for criminal organizations to do it on a mass scale.

How you have got to that statement discussing this thread, I just have no idea. Pretzels.

 

[nathansz]

So, your argument is: It is illegal and unethical — but since I’ve got such a good chance of getting away with it, Apple should be mandated by law to make it almost effortless for criminal organizations to do it on a mass scale.

I didn’t see anyone make that argument

 

[cyb3rdud3]

So, your argument is: It is illegal and unethical — but since I’ve got such a good chance of getting away with it, Apple should be mandated by law to make it almost effortless for criminal organizations to do it on a mass scale.

Nope not at all as it isn't illegal, nor unethical. I live in an EU country, am legally trained, and the law is quite clear - one is to expect that this may happen. And that is from individual to individual. A business has certain rules to follow which could include announcing it prior to the call for external callers, or where it is internal there is likely an information security policy, or acceptable use policy, or company rule book, whatever name they attach to it where it is explained that calls may be recorded, emails may be read, spaces may be recorded, access records are maintained.

Yes I am aware what France and Germany have in their laws (and there are differences between them, Germany is way more strict than what France has done) but if I called you from say the Netherlands I can record our phone conversation and if it was a private call I wouldn't have to announce it. It is not a criminal offence, I won't go to prison, it is not an ethical nor moral issue either.

 

[Nozuka]

Like that’s literally stopped anyone. And even if they proudly proclaim it, then my data is being used against my permission when my friend downloads the app.

EU absolutely doesn’t understand what it’s doing. Learned absolutely nothing from Crowdstrike

The EU had nothing to do with Crowdstrike failing to do proper testing before releasing it to every system at the same time.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So, your argument is: It is illegal and unethical — but since I’ve got such a good chance of getting away with it, Apple should be mandated by law to make it almost effortless for criminal organizations to do it on a mass scale.

Most places it’s legal. So get fo your high horse trying to meddle in other people’s legal rights.

 

[surferfb]

The EU had nothing to do with Crowdstrike failing to do proper testing before releasing it to every system at the same time.

Crowdstrike only had kernel access because the EU made Microsoft give it to third parties. Literally wouldn’t have happened if the EU hadn’t gotten involved.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Crowdstrike only had kernel access because the EU made Microsoft give it to third parties. Literally wouldn’t have happened if the EU hadn’t gotten involved.

Sure, and that is a good thing. The inability of Microsoft to protect its use, and the lack of good practices of crowdstrike, weren’t dictated by the EU. They have a responsibility themselves to do this safely. And because companies like them can’t seem to handle that responsibility there is now a stick to make them. Shame it was necessary, one remains to be surprised by big US tech not taking security and privacy seriously.

 

[surferfb]

Sure, and that is a good thing. The inability of Microsoft to protect its use, and the lack of good practices of crowdstrike, weren’t dictated by the EU. They have a responsibility themselves to do this safely. And because companies like them can’t seem to handle that responsibility there is now a stick to make them. Shame it was necessary, one remains to be surprised by big US tech not taking security and privacy seriously.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly. In my opinion it’s a perfect example of government overreach and getting involved where they shouldn’t that led to massive issues.

The EU doesn’t know better than the experts and has shown a complete inability to think through the second order effects of their regulations time and time again. They would be wise to remember that, but when all they have is hammer, of course they just see a bunch of nails.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I couldn’t disagree more strongly. In my opinion it’s a perfect example of government overreach and getting involved where they shouldn’t that led to massive issues.

The EU doesn’t know better than the experts and has shown a complete inability to think through the second order effects of their regulations time and time again. They would be wise to remember that, but when all they have is hammer, of course they just see a bunch of nails.

There is absolutely nothing in the directives on how they have to implement it, that is entirely Microsofts choice. Likewise, there is nothing in the directive that indicates Crowdstrike isn't allowed to test. That is entirely on them. The directive is to stimulate fair market competition, if the players can't do that without compromising their products, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the market. It is a lame excuse in my opinion.

There is no overreach at all.

Similarly, with the NIS2 directive that is live now that puts the responsibility and accountability for cyber threats with those organisations. They have to take it seriously, they have to take responsibility as they are accountable.

 

[bzgnyc2]

I trust my friends/family with information I send them. That’s not at all the same as an App collecting information I send my friends/family without their knowledge.

Nice try with the pathetic analogy, though. 🙄

I think you missed -- if you don't use a 3rd party dialer than you're fine. Your argument was that by someone else having the option to use a 3rd party dialer you are somehow less safe. Apple letting people choose does no harm to you.