In this instance, Apple decided to continue to not encrypt iCloud backups because, according to one source,
> […] the company did not want to risk being attacked by public officials for protecting criminals, sued for moving previously accessible data out of reach of government agencies or used as an excuse for new legislation against encryption. [0]
Apple's stance on privacy is more than mere marketing and more than a meme, but their legal team decided that encrypting formerly unencrypted backups, which had already been used as evidence in previous cases, is ill-advised.
Most people, including technically knowledgable users here on HN, were unaware iCloud backups have always been unencrypted. Many of us concerned about privacy have avoided iCloud backups because they are subject to subpoena.
I wish Apple would (have) offered encrypted iCloud backup as an option, and I understand why they chose not to. However, I disagree that their stance on privacy is mere marketing. Apple has a balance to strike between the issues of encryption, privacy, and law enforcement, and their products are not perfect for either users or law enforcement.
That doesn't mean Apple doesn't care about its users and their privacy.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
iCloud backups are definitely encrypted. They just aren't end-to-end encrypted.
That should have been plainly obvious to any technically knowledgeable user because you don't lose your data forever when you forget your Apple ID password. Or the fact that you can see your photos through a web browser on icloud.com
As you can see from this discussion, there are a lot of technically knowledgeable people who did not find this "plainly obvious". It's disingenuous to blame users for Apple's misleading marketing.
But when you send a backup, it's decrypted, sent to Apple, and then re-encrypted with a key that Apple controls, and has nothing to do with any of the "things I personally know"? IOW, I couldn't myself decrypt my Apple backup stored on their servers?
My phone, my data.
Back up my data to their computer, their control.
This is perfect plausible deniability for them.
"Hey, we gave them a secure device. But they chose to upload their data to us, and we made it clear how we handle it in our terms of service."
Which it is.
You could build a system where there's a key stored on each of your devices, and your password also acts like a key. In that case, you could
- Lose all your devices, but unlock with password
- Forget your password, but unlock with any device
- Lose one device, but unlock with your password or any other device
Of course, most people's passwords would probably be way to weak, no matter how much time Apple spends stretching it into a key, but for people who use a decent password this would be fairly secure.
No, they do not. If Apple wants a reputation for privacy and respecting its customers, then it has to put them first. Don't apologize for them making this user-hostile choice.
We could be merely a generation away from the hell hole that is social credit. We can't afford to keep ceding ground on privacy. We have to engender a sense of importance and urgency.
I'll be very mad at the rest of you lot that choose convenience over privacy, rights, and autonomy if 2030 sees our freedoms and liberties eroded further.
Our collective choices matter, and that's why I'm calling you out.
2. Apple at least put some effort into this matter because otherwise there would not be so much media attention to breaking into iPhones. To get data from android on the other hand seems to be no problem at all.
3. We are already in hell but we do not yet see the flames surrounding us.
4. If collective choice matters so much we are all doomed and you know it. Try telling the Joneses about encryption etc. - they will still use WhastApp, Facebook and the likes because it is so convenient over a way of burden and hard work to get there or even live without all these "magical devices and services".
We have to comply with court orders. That’s it.
The funny thing is that I just read a bit of the linked Wikipedia article to find this: Companies and organizations who no longer have warrant canaries
The following is a list of companies and organizations whose warrant canaries no longer appear in transparency reports:
* Apple
* Reddit
* Silent Circle
That is something very different from cooperating with a specific investigation.
Why did Apple not fight this in court?
Could Apple keep the backups outside the EU, like Microsoft did for email in the Dublin case?
But it is not about prohibiting encryption but the possibility and/or necessity that Apple has another key to decrypt your data with.
It does not matter where they keep the data as long as the companies headquarters are on US soil.
Google gives their customers the option for end-to-end encryption of uploaded data and I'm sure they have to play by the same rules as Apple.
Now this does not exactly help me feeling more comfortably about this issue.
> Our collective choices matter, and that's why I'm calling you out.
I'll be direct and say that your passion inspires me and your articulation of the issue is very close to my deep feelings about privacy, encryption, and law enforcement. Of course, human brains are complicated pieces of kit and the rational part of me tempers "my deep feelings" with the context I elaborated in the parent comment.
Still, I wanted to take the time to thank you for expressing this in precisely the way you did. Thank you.
I also want to take a moment to recommend an article by John Gruber (Daring Fireball), "Regarding Reuters’s Report That Apple Dropped Plan for Encrypting iCloud Backups" which critiques the basis of the Reuter's article. [0] (I'd have made it a post except for being a bit overactive this morning with submitting Daring Fireball-sourced links to HN.)
You might feel less disillusioned considering Gruber's points, many of which are excellent.
[0] https://daringfireball.net/2020/01/reuters_report_on_apple_d...
I fear we have one foot there already. If you are so inclined, you can dig up a lot of dox on most people, all freely given to social media, or via scrapers like Spokeo.
I guess it's all still optional, kinda. And there is no centralized clearinghouse. But it is scary.
"or used as an excuse for new legislation against encryption."
By not making iCloud backups end-to-end encrypted, they likely did exactly that.
Although I'd find it funny if by doing so they caused a backlash from governments with new laws that ruined encryption for everybody. It'd be dystopian but also funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Meanwhile, Apple says:
> Privacy is a fundamental human right. At Apple, it’s also one of our core values. Your devices are important to so many parts of your life. What you share from those experiences, and who you share it with, should be up to you. We design Apple products to protect your privacy and give you control over your information. It’s not always easy. But that’s the kind of innovation we believe in.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/
When Apple markets themselves this way, people expect their actions to be in line with their words. Making iCloud device backups vulnerable to law enforcement demands is not in line with Apple's privacy-oriented marketing, and suggests that Apple's vocal defense of encryption is just a public relations strategy.
I certainly wasn’t defending Apple in this case.
I believe Apple changed how operating system updates were installed after this point so that they did not have the capability to upgrade the phone's operating system without access to the device passcode.
>Starting in Android Pie, devices can take advantage of a new capability where backed-up application data can only be decrypted by a key that is randomly generated at the client. This decryption key is encrypted using the user's lockscreen PIN/pattern/passcode, which isn’t known by Google.
>By design, this means that no one (including Google) can access a user's backed-up application data without specifically knowing their passcode.
https://security.googleblog.com/2018/10/google-and-android-h...
This is cliche as can be, but the trade off is security for convenience.
Fact is, iOS is consumed largely by people who want convenience. They don’t want to lose all of their data if they forget their passwords.
But for those people who are ok with that type of unforgiving paradigm, then don’t use iCloud backups, and you’re all set.
I see this in the thread. What does that mean? Do they have to? Are they being forced? What is the balance between?
Why aren't iCloud backups e2e encrypted?
If Apple is privacy-oriented, they should've allowed this long time ago. Unlike iCloud backups, this is certainly not a legal issue, as the "local" backups stored on one's computer are already fully encrypted.
* My memory says I spent way too much on an iPhone. My ego says that can't be true, and in the end memory yields. -nietzsche
Beyond just the facts of not protecting data, there is also the deception. This is some really very, very, nasty stuff for Apple's brand and the reputation of every person who works at Apple. I don't know how to state it strongly enough.
Huge Apple fan until today... see my comment history... this is devastating for them amongst the sliver of their users who pay attention to this stuff. And they should realize that even though we may be just a sliver, we can lead other customers away from them if we want to.
I know I'm going to be called a fanboy or too generous to Apple, but given that the government has used every opportunity to call out Apple for not helping (when they have helped where they could) there is a line here that Apple is tip toeing around.
I also do not think this as bad as you are making it out to be. Apple has always been clear what is fully E2E encrypted and what is not. This article is about something Apple planned to do and decided against. The reasons are what's important and the article only speculates.
I am not sure Apple made the right move, but.. average person does not seem to care and/or understand the ikplications. Now.. Apple could make them care. They are big enough to make waves and I am not certain goverment could deal with bad PR come election time.
edit: corrected grammar
And it's not remote, and you must connect via USB-C, right?
The current status quo is good enough for the spooks. Zero regulation of data privacy allows third-party aggregators to do the desired collection activities without explicit government involvement. When they want something they know who to ask, warrant optional. Enacting laws that expose what the government is doing would risk a public backlash like the mass mobilization to deploy HTTPS.
- the universe
- human stupidity
- spooks' thirst for more data, backdoors, and monitoring ability
The first entry in the table is:
Backup Yes Yes
At a glance this looks, to me, as though iCloud backups are encrypted.
What am I missing?
>iCloud secures your information by encrypting it when it's in transit, storing it in iCloud in an encrypted format, and using secure tokens for authentication. For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption. This means that only you can access your information, and only on devices where you’re signed into iCloud. No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information.
The difference between E2E and 'yup we're encrypted!' isn't understood by laypeople. Let's not do ourselves or the average folks out there a disservice by letting Apple off the hook for bad communication and the intentional misleading of users.
Backup Encryption In Transit: Yes
Backup Encryption On Server: Yes
That's no different from me offering a remote backup service on a LUKS encrypted box, using sftp or whatever, and then making those claims.
That's a false dichotomy. I'd say both are true. Both are usually true.
Did we really think that Apple was just so incompetent they could run online file services for 20+ years and have almost a billion users, and not have encryption only because they hadn’t figured it out yet?
If you're willing to root your device, you can have the best of both the functionality and privacy worlds.
That only applies to motivated and reasonably tech savvy users of course, out of the box iOS is still the better privacy option.
I mean if they started tracking your behavour and location, and mining it to better sell ads, maybe that would.
You're confusing iOS with Android. On iOS, every time you get your location, that location is also sent to Apple, and there is no way to disable this. Android's collection of this data is gated by a checkbox that is shown to every user on device setup.
Citation needed.
> I am working with androids even before 1.0, but does this really matter?
It matters if I am claiming that there is no point at which GGP's statement was true, which I am. If I am not, GGP could say that the version of Android he used "last time [he] used Android" did not allow him to disable location collection and that it predates my experience with Android's location settings.
The best you can do if you're technically inclined is to use open source as much as possible (AOSP, postmarketOS, PureOS, etc.), minimize use of untrusted software and services (from all major corporations, no social media, no proprietary software in general), use network-level ad blockers, Tor if you think it helps, VPNs, encrypt everything, etc. And you'd still be tracked and profiled.
If you're not technically savvy, forget about it.
In either case if privacy is really a concern vote to elect politicians that are willing to enact laws that regulate the way companies can use personal data. Though considering both companies and governments benefit from the status quo, I don't foresee things improving in the near future, barring some kind of revolution where the majority wakes up, which is also unlikely. If the Snowden revelations didn't do it, I doubt anything will.
So much for fighting 1984, Apple.
I’m turning off iCloud backup — the only reason I have it on actually is to turn off the annoying backup nags. My photos are in iCloud, and so are my messages - I actually can’t think of anything valuable outside of those that I’d actually need iCloud backup for ...
It doesn’t seem worth the risk
This is false. You can back it up with Finder (since Catalina) or iTunes on Windows or previous macOS versions. You can even do wireless syncing over your local network.
All of the infrastructure that Apple built out before iCloud still exists. You can sync your photos with the Photos app locally. It’ll one-click import everything and you can have it automatically clear out storage on your phone after the import has completed as well. You can then back up your computer however you want - locally, encrypted with Time Machine is an easy option.
Just plug your phone, click "Backup up". You don't even have to open iTunes anymore, just open "Finder" window. Can't be easier than that.
Except plugging it into a PC or Mac with iTunes, toggle a checkbox and set a password. No, it's not effortless, but it's not bad and it's not difficult
I really want the iOS Time Capsule Option. Even if it is expensive.
THIS is why open source matters. The government can't control people when money isn't what motivates them.
I had somehow assumed that iCloud backups could not be accessed by Apple.
So that pretty much kills the meme for me.
of course, there is. You can easily back it up to your computer, and then transfer it to anywhere else.
I interpret this opinion as Black/White thinking or all-or-nothing thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)
Seafile is end-to-end encrypted and open core. They offer a managed hosting option, and you can also self-host.
https://github.com/haiwen/seafile
Nextcloud is working on end-to-end encryption, but the feature is not yet stable. It is fully open source.
Probably not. The keyboards on their laptops are barely functional but it doesn't stop people from saying how great they are.
This must be some definition of "barely functional" I'm unfamiliar with.
I've had a mid-2017 MBP since they were released. Yeah, I had to get the keyboard replaced when some keys failed after a year, but at least they did it for free. Actually, overall I prefer this keyboard to the 2013 I had previously. I think their failure rate is unacceptable, but they are certainly not "barely functional" by even the remotest interpretation of the phrase.
As a person who had to replace a microsoft ergonomic keyboard after 14 years and has never had to replace a laptop keyboard I would consider a laptop keyboard that was replaced after a year due to failed keys to qualify as 'barely functional.'
It's the 21st century. keyboards are a solved problem that should never fail. It's abject failure on the part of Apple for releasing a flagship laptop with such a comparatively shitty keyboard.
No keyboard should be failing at this point. Keyboards are a mature technology.
Does it fail more than the average keyboard? Yes. Am I pleased about its failure rate? Absolutely not. Would I rather have a different keyboard? Uhhh probably? I like the way the keys feel, such as the fact that they don't wobble in place like the previous generation, and I find that I do not type any slower or make more mistakes than I did previously. Probably this keyboard was designed for somebody who types like I do, and perhaps this is not the way most people type. (I say this because most people complain about the reduced travel, about the keys not registering presses all the time, and other issues.)
So my point is: the keyboard is bad as measured by multiple metrics, and Apple should feel bad about it, but there is no conceivable definition of "barely functional" that applies to this keyboard. Most of the time I have not had to worry about its failure rate because it does not affect me on a daily basis, even though I use it for typing everyday.
I wouldn't call it "barely functional" either since I can clearly still type on that keyboard, but the combination of mechanical failure rate and personal accuracy issues means that I buy the MBP despite the keyboard.
Personally, I find it to be an improvement over the previous generation in almost all respects except for, obviously, the failure rate. I hate that I am expecting the keyboard to fail again within a year or two, but perhaps I will be surprised and this particular one will last long enough that it won't be a problem for me.
Even crappy Acer laptops from the 2000s had longer lifespans.
>This must be some definition of "barely functional" I'm unfamiliar with.
I agree.
Keyboards aren't exactly cutting edge technology, they shouldn't be failing after a year.
I simply don't understand why people would blindly believe marketing material from a for-profit corporation. It's a device running closed source software. There is no way to prove this claim. If anything, Apple has been caught in the past sending very very personal sensitive information [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-con...
Is Apple perfect? No, of course not. Are there things I think they should do better? Yes. E2E encryption with user keys stored in Secure Enclave, etc, etc. However, for Joe Consumer, I think they make the most secure, easiest to use platform.
Surely their tax status is orthogonal to their trustability.
Under capitalism, encouraging repeat business from a customer is a successful long-term strategy, and maintaining customer satisfaction by not selling them food that will make them sick, cars that have faulty brakes, clothes that deteriorate in the rain, or so on is part of that. So if I purchase a product from a company that's been around for a while, I can have a reasonable expectation - a trust - that that product will be of some quality.
Indeed, that's why customer protection laws exist.
> So if I purchase a product from a company that's been around for a while, I can have a reasonable expectation - a trust - that that product will be of some quality.
That's pretty naive. Companies that used to produce quality products often switch to producing garbage once they have established a brand people trust.
For-profit companies kinda work when they are being watched and it's easy to judge the quality of their products – i.e. when you don't need to trust them.
Apple is specifically hard to reason about because some aspect of their value is based on their products being a status symbol, and some value is based on their functionality (this is true to a degree for most products, but is skewed quite high in the status symbol ratio for a tech product for Apple).
On the one hand, Apple has been fairly straightforward in their communication and not lied often, and also has a business model that has less conflicting interests when it comes to consumer privacy, but at the same time they could conceivably get away with more because of their position as a status symbol.
What this means for me is that I take Apple's claims about consumer protection fairly seriously in most cases, but for anything important I would not rely on them. They've banked a lot of good will, and at some point they might see it as worthwhile to make a withdrawal on it (if they hopefully haven't already), and I would rather not be in a poor position if/when that happens.
I am equally likely to believe or disbelieve marketing material from non-profits. Look at the malfeasance and lies from the Red Cross [1] -- or the sky-is-falling proclamations from the net neutrality crowd -- predictions of doom that never came to pass -- not to mention the lied-about motivations around net neutrality (the real motivation was about who pays for bandwidth.) [2]
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/red-cross-ceo-has-been-mi... [2]
By the way, People have come to hate Google all the way for some advertising and easily switch-able data collection. But one should at same time hesitate to vote to apple with their wallets, they are a monster company which patents rounded corners of phones and things like optional chaining in Swift. That just goes unnoticed in circles like HN. IMO apple has always been more evil than Google.
While iPhone itself is pretty secure as a device phone (and Apple makes sure to remind you about that in each ad, public speaking, attacks on competitors, etc), as an ecosystem it's not secure. And it's like that on purpose - there's no good and easy option to backup your phone other than iCloud.
You have to be a tech person to know how to keep an iPhone secure. Average Joe buys iPhone and pays for iCloud. They Apple first $1k to get (on top of other things) a secure device, and then they Apple monthly fee to give Apple all their data and make insecure. Pretty genius business strategy.