Not normally a fan of Meta, but happy to cheer them on here.
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.
WhatsApp Backs Apple in Legal Fight Against UK Encryption Demands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know. Ask Stalin, Pot Pot, Putin and other wonderful politicians we've had throughout history.
Even they are correct once in a blue moon….
Our governments in the UK, historically, have always favoured surveillance as a means to "safety". Of course, it never delivers. There is a reason that "1984" was written by an Englishman.
a) We are worked up because the definition of "crime" changes, and especially in the UK, judges have far reaching powers to make almost any behaviour a crime (including chatting about maybe considering blocking a motorway).
b) Yes, we are so paranoid, because, see a).
c) taking a video of a private individual without them knowing is illegal in normal countries, and should be here. See a) and see right to privacy. Just because someone is walking in a public space should not mean they lose their right to privacy.
d) starting a video of a private person online without their consent is illegal in normal countries, and should be here. At least there are some safeguards even in the UK.
UK is already way down the surveillance state path, any opposition can only be applauded.
It is fine because the privacy of EVERYONE is more important than supporting the single case.
Interesting comments. It's insightful to see there are still people out there ready to happily sell out your privacy rights to authoritarianism.
Find another way to get info from the terrorist? How do you know the info is on the terrorist phone?
And encryption can’t tell the difference between privacy matters and criminal matters.
Encryption is either on or off, there’s no midleground.
This is the UK we're talking about. In the future, who's to say what naughty words our government adds to its definition of a crime.
Let’s put Government surveillance to one side for a moment, and the notion “I’ve got nothing to hide” (everyone has something hidden that can be exploited even if they’re not aware of it.
When (not if) criminal organisations / state sponsored hacking groups gain access to any backdoor created it’ll create a greater vulnerability that will outweigh any benefit perceived by the UK government, once the doors open it’ll lead to:
Not to mention it also creates the exact opposite effect from the intended purpose:
When (not if) criminal organisations / state sponsored hacking groups gain access to any backdoor created it’ll create a greater vulnerability that will outweigh any benefit perceived by the UK government, once the doors open it’ll lead to:
- Blackmail
- Coercion
- Industrial/State espionage
Not to mention it also creates the exact opposite effect from the intended purpose:
- Terrorist groups could plan attacks based on a person of interests calendar/messages
- Child grooming groups could exploit this to target children
Your whole “Straw Man” argument is unsustainable and a weak excuse for your stand. IF you’re going to argue for your point, YOU need a better and more sustainable reason for revoking your rights to privacy!
Blanket surveillance without due cause or a warrant is a milestone on the road to authoritarianism. The fact we have passed other milestones makes this worse. There have been cases of abuse of intercepted communications both in the US and UK. The obvious solution is that a judge issues a search warrant after a fair hearing and that warrant is served on the iPhone owner after the phone has been confiscated. Otherwise, people will simply encrypt a message before inputting it into the iPhone. If I use 'Zqarsits' in a message because I use don't trust communication apps, nobody will know whether I am referring to nuclear land torpedoes or foolish authoritarian politicians.
And lest we forget how the modern era of Apple started:
EDIT:
Agree with most of your points except (c). There is no expectation of privacy in a public space so photographers should be able to take pictures of people in public as long as they are not breaking other laws (e.g., laws against upskirting, which is rightfully illegal in the UK).
Last edited:
No you have that completely wrong. Lets fix it.
"you would say that's fine because privacy to the world population is more important than supporting the case"
In addition, there are other ways to catch and prosecute criminals besides intruding on the privacy of law abiding citizens.
Governments are almost completely and 100% corrupt, so this privacy violation would be used to silence dissidents, attack political rivals, enhance hate groups, etc. Imagine the KKK (many of which were in the government) having access to every conversion in the south US in the early 1900s. If you are a Biden fan, imaging Trump having access to all of your communications. If you are a Trump fan, imagine Biden having access to all of your communications.
Privacy is very important in a free society.
If you truly want freedom, it’s not up to the citizen to prove innocence, it’s up to the government to prove guilt.
It’s not just privacy, but our whole planet. Someone with access to the back door could be blackmailed, kidnapped, or worse. Or they might sell the back door to the highest bidder. Or once the UK gets it, other governments demand it, and there goes security: we can no longer trust encryption, so e-commerce ends all over the world.
I’m so sick of having this debate, as all arguments for back doors are specious. There is no meaningful argument for back doors to encryption.
Alternatively, let's say you're someone using a period tracking app, and happen to be in some place like Alabama when you have a miscarriage. Then the local sheriff arrests you for having an abortion and subpoenas your data.
I thought this had gone very quiet - nothing in the press here in the UK about it - but I guessed it would still be rumbling on. Glad to see Apple is still pushing back hard against this and it seems gathering some allies too.
Edit: typo
Edit: typo
The view that as soon as someone in a public space s/he loses its privacy rights is not shared in other countries, e.g. Germany. Yes, it can be taken too far (pic of a crowded football stadium must be legal), but recording a specific person, lingering on a person; in general if the inclusion of the person is other than incidental; it may well not be legal without the person's consent. It's definitely not legal to then post the pic or vid, and even less legal to do so with identification.Blanket surveillance without due cause or a warrant is a milestone on the road to authoritarianism. The fact we have passed other milestones makes this worse. There have been cases of abuse of intercepted communications both in the US and UK. The obvious solution is that a judge issues a search warrant after a fair hearing and that warrant is served on the iPhone owner after the phone has been confiscated. Otherwise, people will simply encrypt a message before inputting it into the iPhone. If I use 'Zqarsits' in a message because I use don't trust communication apps, nobody will know whether I am referring to nuclear land torpedoes or foolish authoritarian politicians.
And lest we forget how the modern era of Apple started:
(link)
EDIT:
Agree with most of your points except (c). There is no expectation of privacy in a public space so photographers should be able to take pictures of people in public as long as they are not breaking other laws (e.g., laws against upskirting, which is rightfully illegal in the UK).
A public space must remain safe, that includes safety to ones privacy. Same reason you cannot be searched, just because you may be in a public space. Again, UK is way too lenient here, and they are because the government wants to have access to as much video/photo footage as possible.
As a rule of thumb: laws in the UK are there to allow the government / state to have rights over the citizens, seldomly to protect the citizens from the government. That is also why German politicians often speak about prosecuting people "as required by the law", while UK politicians generally speak about prosecuting people " to the fullest extent allowed by law".
Last edited:
Enjoy being refused entry due lacking your social credit score.
The removal of privacy from an entire population can be an extremely powerful method of social, political, and psychological control. Here’s how and why:
1. Self-Censorship Through Fear of Surveillance
When people know they are always being watched—whether online, in public spaces, or even in private—they begin to limit their own behaviors, words, and thoughts. This is called self-censorship.
- Citizens avoid criticizing the government.
- People refrain from discussing “dangerous” ideas even in private.
- Artists, journalists, and activists hold back on bold expressions.
2. Pre-emptive Repression
If the state sees everything (calls, texts, purchases, movements), it can:
- Detect dissenters early.
- Pre-emptively arrest or “re-educate” potential opponents.
- Discourage group organizing or protest before they even start.
3. Manufacturing Trust and Fear
When privacy is gone:
- The state can create paranoia—no one knows who is informing on whom.
- Friends, coworkers, even family members could be forced or incentivized to report each other.
- This breaks social trust, making collective action nearly impossible.
4. Behavioral Manipulation via Data
With total surveillance, the state:
- Learns what motivates, scares, or excites each individual.
- Can send targeted propaganda or disinformation.
- Can customize punishments or rewards to nudge behavior.
5. Control of Identity and Reputation
When your data (search history, biometrics, finances) is no longer private:
- The government controls your social and legal identity.
- It can blacklist, “de-person,” or shame you in public rankings (like China’s Social Credit System).
- It can fabricate or manipulate your history to destroy credibility or loyalty.
6. Destruction of Dissent Movements
Without privacy:
- Underground movements cannot hide.
- Leaders, plans, funding sources—all are exposed.
- Coordination becomes impossible when surveillance thwarts every secret effort.
In Summary: Why is this Effective?
- Power requires control of information.
- Privacy gives people mental, political, and social space to resist, question, or organize.
- Remove privacy, and you remove the possibility of resistance before it ever forms.
Last edited:
I understand laws vary by country. However, I am sure there are laws about photography, say, in North Korea, that we would not want to copy. People don't own the photons reflecting off them. At any rate I got tired of self-righteous people erroneously arguing that that one cannot take their picture in public in the UK that I just photograph landscapes and nature now.