UK Government Issues New Order to Access iCloud User Data

[NotApplicable]

Sadly it’s squarely on apple to counter the apathy if the British public by refusing this and ceasing to sell devices and services if required. Interrupting people’s access to the Apple ecosystem is the only thing that may get then off their bums to do something.

If Apple gives in to this that’s oribabky the end of my timenwjth iphone and iPad. There are alternate solutions that don’t comply with this overreach.

They talk big about not compromising on security but immediately caved last time. Step up or shut up would be my message to Apple. For the uk government , well I’ll probably be banned if I type that message here.

How did they immediately cave last time? They refused to add a backdoor and instead removed the features altogether for UK users, making a public spectacle of the reduced privacy and security afforded to them by their government.

 

[darkpaw]

They have been a surveillance state since before the London bombing. I remember going on a school trip to London in 2005 and I was " amazed" by the amount of CCTV literally everywhere

So? I've lived in London for decades. I was evacuated from the Underground when the 7/7 bombings happened. Yes, there is CCTV all over the place, but do you think the authorities are sitting there viewing it and waiting for someone to drop some litter so they can send the police round to give us an on-the-spot fine? No.

They use the CCTV footage when a crime has been committed (for example to track a suspect's movements), or to provide real-time security and prevent a crime at an event (such as the state visit of a fat, demented, cankles-ridden buffoon).

London buses have multiple cameras on them, for the protection of the driver and passengers. Would you rather we get rid of them so we can't figure out who attacked a woman on the top deck, and can't find out where they ran off to? Cameras like that, and the footage from them, is used after the fact to help in solving crimes, not to actively surveil us.

In my decades of living in the UK, I have never been actively surveilled or tracked because I'm not a criminal.

 

[contacos]

So? I've lived in London for decades. I was evacuated from the Underground when the 7/7 bombings happened. Yes, there is CCTV all over the place, but do you think the authorities are sitting there viewing it and waiting for someone to drop some litter so they can send the police round to give us an on-the-spot fine? No.

They use the CCTV footage when a crime has been committed (for example to track a suspect's movements), or to provide real-time security and prevent a crime at an event (such as the state visit of a fat, demented, cankles-ridden buffoon).

London buses have multiple cameras on them, for the protection of the driver and passengers. Would you rather we get rid of them so we can't figure out who attacked a woman on the top deck, and can't find out where they ran off to? Cameras like that, and the footage from them, is used after the fact to help in solving crimes, not to actively surveil us.

In my decades of living in the UK, I have never been actively surveilled or tracked because I'm not a criminal.

I am just saying I was impressed that there were already so many cameras in the YEAR 2005. It's not as impressive now as most cities do it but back than it was like DAMN

 

[I7guy]

That's never gonna happen on Apple's Watch...
Way too much money to be made selling cloud storage to the UK users.
UK iCloud data will simply become accessible to the UK government.

That doesn’t track at all. This will be derailed because Apple wants to profit from iCloud storage?

I will remind you that unless you've enabled "advanced data protection" your current iCloud data is accessible by Apple. They have the decryption key to your account.

Sure it’s the way it is.

 

[darkpaw]

I am just saying I was impressed that there were already so many cameras in the YEAR 2005. It's not as impressive now as most cities do it but back than it was like DAMN

But we're not a "surveillance state". The cameras aren't there to surveil us.

We have cameras in my office, but there is no one sitting there watching them. They merely record people entering and leaving the office's main entrance. If there's an issue, the footage is there to review.

The UK is not a surveillance state.

And to whoever it was above who claimed the UK is a satanic state... JFC. Some people need to chill.

 

[contacos]

But we're not a "surveillance state". The cameras aren't there to surveil us.

We have cameras in my office, but there is no one sitting there watching them. They merely record people entering and leaving the office's main entrance. If there's an issue, the footage is there to review.

The UK is not a surveillance state.

And to whoever it was above who claimed the UK is a satanic state... JFC. Some people need to chill.

Not YET. This law would make it one.

 

[Fatboy71]

The UK is fast becoming a fascist dictatorship with that c*** Starmer, what with this and the Digital ID, in the guise that it's to stop illegal immigration/illegal workers. If that's the case then why should people who have lived in the UK all their lives need one. It's all about surveillance and controlling people and nothing else.

 

[bydandie]

The UK is fast becoming a fascist dictatorship with that c*** Starmer, what with this and the Digital ID, in the guise that it's to stop illegal immigration/illegal workers. If that's the case then why should people who have lived in the UK all their lives need one. It's all about surveillance and controlling people and nothing else.

The last government required anyone who wished to vote to have photo ID. If you remove the population that have digital ID to vote, then how many adults are left in the UK to force a digital ID on?

 

[bydandie]

My view on this is Apple needs to fight and fight hard, and make sure that they use their significant marketing team to show how they are standing up for the privacy of the UK citizen. The last lot would've done exactly the same in terms of asking for the backdoors, as it's the security services and law enforcement asking for this via the Home Office.

The hundred million pound question is if Apple are the only one being forced to do this, how many of the other Cloud providers have already capitulated? You can guarantee that Google have, as have Amazon - DWP and HMRC (since the last government) have the powers to go into all your spending history as well.

 

[MilaM]

Adding NAS support would explode their support costs and QA burden to serve maybe 0.1% of users who are tech-savvy enough to actually configure it properly. From a business perspective, it's simply not worth the engineering resources and support headaches.

So first you say it's not about the money. Then you conclude it's not worth it "from a business perspective"? Which one is it?

If we can't get a fully polished local backup experience from Apple, maybe they could create some useful basic APIs for third party developers to create paid products on top. There are plenty of solid companies that make a living providing backup solutions for macOS. I bet some of them would be interested in creating solutions for iOS.

 

[Seoras]

This is the country that allowed Jimmy Saville to do exactly what they claim they need this to prevent - child sexual abuse.
Saville was protected and allowed free rein while he lived. Why? Who else was in his circle?

They tell you it's for your own protection but you still get nonces and terrorist attacks after giving up your privacy.

This is the paranoia of the powerful.

 

[dumastudetto]

They say only targeting UK users, but UK users may have plenty of data about people in the US such as shared documents, notes, messages etc.

 

[jimbobb24]

The penalising people for social media posts is for incitement, not just saying things. Lucy Connoly the far right's idol told people to burn down hotels with people inside. That's not sharing an oppinion, that's a crime whether in a pub, or on social media.

The Home office can do one with this invasion of privacy and overreach.

Obviously that example is actionable. Seen lots of other examples where incitement was defined basically as stuff other people dont like.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Doing this is no different that demanding to install and access cameras on people's homes to make sure they are not doing anything bad.

 

[JamesMay82]

They Caught the grooming gangs red handed and they still didn't prosecute so why do they do need this access!

I really want the advance data protection back on.. its unfair we are missing out on a basic right of privacy..