Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
I don't know. Ask Stalin, Pot Pot, Putin and other wonderful politicians we've had throughout history.
 
If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
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.
 
So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
It is fine because the privacy of EVERYONE is more important than supporting the single case.
 
So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
Find another way to get info from the terrorist? How do you know the info is on the terrorist phone?
 
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:

  1. Blackmail
  2. Coercion
  3. Industrial/State espionage

Not to mention it also creates the exact opposite effect from the intended purpose:

  1. Terrorist groups could plan attacks based on a person of interests calendar/messages
  2. Child grooming groups could exploit this to target children
This is by far one of the more dangerous proposals I’ve heard of in recent years, not only does it totally infringe on an innocent persons right to privacy but what new measures will come next?
 
So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
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!
 
If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
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:

Ad_apple_1984_2.png
(link)

EDIT:

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.

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:
So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
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.
 
It is fine because the privacy of EVERYONE is more important than supporting the single case.

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.
 
Well say you're gay. Then they record all your conversations, because they can. Then they make being gay illegal. Then you're ****ed. That's why.
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
 
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:

Ad_apple_1984_2.png
(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).
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.
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:
If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
Enjoy being refused entry due lacking your social credit score.
 
So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
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.
This means the government doesn’t have to silence dissent directly; people do it to themselves.

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.
The power here is in prevention, not reaction.

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.
People stop cooperating in ways that could threaten authority.

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.
For example, a person deemed “disloyal” could face travel bans, blocked loans, or social shaming without ever knowing why.

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.
People comply not out of belief—but because their entire life can be redefined at any moment.

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.
Example: Dissent collapses before it can grow because “secret” meetings are never secret.



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.
This is why every authoritarian state, historically and currently, obsesses over surveillance—it is the quiet weapon that prevents rebellion without firing a shot.
 
Last edited:
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.
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".
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sflagel
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.