But is that backup encrypted? If it's not, all they need is <whatever piece of paper a british security official needs, if any> to access your data.
This is about having access to backups that are theoretically encrypted with a key Apple doesn't have?
> We're talking about the largest back door I've ever heard of.
Doesn't the US have access to all the data of non US citizens whose data is stored in the US without any oversight?
Er, no...? I'm not sure where you get that idea. Access requires a warrant, and companies are not compelled to build systems which enable them to decrypt all data covered by the warrant.
See, for example, the Las Vegas shooter case, where Apple refused to create an iOS build that would bypass iCloud security.
> See, for example, the Las Vegas shooter case
I am not in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the US. So as far as i know all the data about me that is stored in the US is easily accessible without a warrant unless it's encrypted with a key that's not available with the storage.
> companies are not compelled to build systems which enable them to decrypt all data covered by the warrant
Again, not what I was talking about.
I'm merely pointing out that your data is not necessarily encrypted, and that the "rest of the world" was already unprotected vs at least one state. The UK joining in would just add another.
> Google Maps is changing the way it handles your location data. Instead of backing up your data to the cloud, Google will soon store it locally on your device.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet...
You can't be forced to hand over data on your servers that you don't have access to, warrant or no.
The UK wants to make this workaround illegal on an international basis.
But you can be forced to record and store that data even if you don't want to.
Compare Apple Maps and Google Maps.
Google initially hoovered up all your location data and kept it forever. They learned from Waze that one use case for location data was keeping your map data updated.
Apple figured out how to accomplish the goal of keeping map data updated without storing private user data that could be subject to a subpoena.
> “We specifically don’t collect data, even from point A to point B,” notes Cue. “We collect data — when we do it — in an anonymous fashion, in subsections of the whole, so we couldn’t even say that there is a person that went from point A to point B.
The segments that he is referring to are sliced out of any given person’s navigation session. Neither the beginning or the end of any trip is ever transmitted to Apple. Rotating identifiers, not personal information, are assigned to any data sent to Apple... Apple is working very hard here to not know anything about its users.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-f...
One more reason to prefer offline maps for those who value privacy.
Apple and Google are based in the US so are bound by the CLOUD Act to provide any and all data they have, no matter where in the world it is being collected or stored.
Google had "created a system where they don't have access to your data on their servers" a couple of years BEFORE Apple. Android 10 introduced it in 2019.
See the story linked above.
They didn't announce that they could no longer access user location data on their servers to respond to geofence warrants until the last quarter of 2024.
Apple does its best not to collect personal data in the first place.
No, law enforcement needs a warrant to legally access any data. This is why Prism was illegal, and why companies like Google are pushing back against overly broad geofence search warrants.
The Dutch cracked and wiretapped it. It has been held not to be intercept evidence per RIPA so capable of being used in evidence.
Most went guilty because they caught red-handed in the most egregious criminality you've seen.
Encro was designed to enable and protect criminal communications. It had no redeeming public value.
Encrochat was illegal in at least 3 ways to UK and European law. The intercept evidence per RIPA was the lie. The data was not at rest. The British Police and courts are criminals and liars.
Yet it still existed, and was used for surveillance by 3 letter agencies. Why do you think this is any different?
Totally agree. Having this discussion so US centred just makes us miss the forest for the trees. Apart from data owned by US citizens, my impression is that data stored in the US is fair game for three letter agencies, and I really doubt most companies would spend more than five minutes agreeing with law enforcement if asked for full access to their database on non-US nationals.
Also, remember that WhatsApp is the go-to app for communication in most of the world outside the US. And although it's end-to-end encrypted, it's always nudging you to back up your data to Google or Apple storage. I can't think of a better target for US intelligence to get a glimpse of conversations about their targets in real time, without needing to hack each individual phone. If WhatsApp were a Chinese app, this conversation about E2E and backup restrictions would have happened a long time ago. It's the same on how TikTok algorithm suddenly had a strong influence on steering public opinion and instead of fixing the game we banned the player.
Realistically we are talking about FISA here, so in theory if the FBI gets a FISA court order to gather "All of the Apple account data" for a non-us person, Apple would either hand over the encrypted data OR just omit that....
Based on the stance Apple is taking here, its reasonable to assume they would do the same in the US (disable the feature if USG asked for a backdoor or attempted to compel them to decrypt)
I think it's more likely that Apple would challenge it in US courts and prevail. Certainly a legal battle worth waging, unlike in the UK.
Eventually the US government withdrew their demand.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption...
It's good that Apple refused them, but I wouldn't count that as evidence that the data is secure from the US government.
Apple's legal argument that the government's demand that they insert a backdoor into iOS was tantamount to compelled speech (in violation of the first amendment) was going over a little too well in court.
The Feds will often find an excuse to drop cases that would set a precedent they want to avoid.
I don't think messages should ever leave the device, if you want to migrate to a different device this could be covered by that user flow directly. Maybe you want to sync media like photos or videos shared on a group chat and I'm fine with that compromise but I see more risks than benefits on backing up messages on the cloud, no matter if it's encrypted or not.
Know your threat model and what actions your trying to defend against.
Typical humans need trusted vendors that put in actual effort to make themselves blind to your personal data.
If the US is willing to build an entire data center in Outback Australia to allow warrantless access to US citizen data, why wouldn’t they be forcing WhatsApp backups to be unlockable?
Here a country that has no ties with most of apple's customers is just butting in and claiming access to all of them.
So what's next. Are we also giving access to everyone's data to Russia? Iran?
Based on them mentioning the difficulty of opting out, I presume OOP does not use Google's cloud backup.
So not hugely secure for most people if they use 4-6 decimal digits, but possible to make secure if you set a longer passphrase.
I don't know what Google's going to do about this UK business.
edit: Ah it looks like they have a Titan HSM involved as well. Have to take Google's word for it, but an HSM would let you do rate limits and lockouts. If that's in place, it seems all right to me.
It's not just Google saying it. Google Cloud encryption is independently verified
They don't even care where it's stored...
See: CLOUD Act [1]
This got me thinking about MGS2 again and rewatching the colonel's dialogue at the end of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA
> Your persona, experiences, triumphs, and defeats are nothing but byproducts. The real objective was ensuring that we could generate and manipulate them.
It's really brilliant to use a video game to deliver the message of the effectiveness of propaganda. 'Game design' as a concept is just about manipulation and hijacking dopamine responses. I don't think another medium can as effectively demonstrate how systems can manipulate people's behavior.
So the difference between Apple generating the key on device and storing it in the SE and the user generating it and storing it in the SE is that the user can use a known-secure key generation algo. If Apple generates the key you can't be sure it's cryptographically secure and doesn't have a backdoor.
At this point, the people who claim they can’t trust Apple’s key generation should also distrust Intel or AMD or any other vendor’s key generation as well. Might as well generate keys by hand.
So you can eg. keep a backup on your own (secure) infrastructure. Transfer them when switching devices or even mirror on two different ones*. Extract your own secret enclave contents. Improve confidence they were generated securely. And depending on implementation, perhaps reduce the ease with which Apple might "accidentally" vacuum the keys up as a result of an update / order.
*Not sure how much these two make sense in the iOS ecosystem. I know on the Android side I'd absolutely love to maintain a "hot standby" phone that is an exact duplicate of my daily driver, so if I drop it in the ocean I can be up and running again in a heartbeat with zero friction (without need to restore backups, reliance on nerfed backup API's outside the ones Google uses, having to re-setup 2FA, etc. and without ever touching Google's creepy-feeling cloud).
If your phone company asked you to give them the key to your house, in perpetuity, how would you feel about that? (Particularly if they insisted you sign a 15 page Terms of Use first that disclaims all their liability if anything goes missing).
If the backdoor is some other method of getting your key off the device then all bets are off.
The UK has made it clear that Counter Terrorism legislation has no limits in UK law even if that means compromising all systems and leaving them vulnerable to state actor attacks.
MPs will continue to use encrypted messaging systems that disappear messages during any inquiries of course.
What are they going to say? That they won't release you until you magically unerase the phone? There's nothing to wait for.
Stop spreading incorrect FUD
Meta also said they would make a stand if a similar request comes for WhatsApp. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
WA is end-to-end encrypted.
a) that would involve changing the code base b) more privacy minded users would just delete the messages or not update.
Think about it for a second: you can re-establish your WA account on a new device using only the SIM card from your old device. SIM cards don't have a storage area for random applications' encryption keys, and even if they did, a SIM card cannot count as "end-to-end" anymore. Same goes for whatever mobile cloud platform those backups might be stored on. And you'd hope Apple or Google aren't happily sending off your cloud decryption keys to any app that wants them. Though maybe they are?
In any case, as soon as you start using WhatsApp on a new device, users in the chats you participate in will receive a message informing them that your encryption keys have changed.
A lot is posted about LEO's lying in the US, this seems worse.
1) tech monopoly strong enough to stand up to G7 nation state demands
2) tech monopoly strong enough to remove itself from G7 nation state jurisdiction?
edit: s/monopoly/empire, apologies
Tech giants typically devolve local operations to small companies to avoid liability - think petroleum suppliers not owning gas stations (because those typically end up as superfund sites). Not sure if this analogy this works for Google Android and all the manufacturers that deploy it for their smartphones too.
So corporations have been doing this forever, trying to find legal loopholes where they can have their cake and eat it too.
On the authoritarianism: these laws are always worded in such a way that they can be applied or targeted vaguely, basically to work around other legislation. They will stop thinking of the children as soon as the law is put into play, and it's hardly likely that pedo rings or rape gangs will be top of the list of priorities.
On the technical literacy: the government has the mistaken belief that their back door will know the difference between the good guys (presumably them) and the bad guys, and the bad guys will be locked out. However, the only real protection is security by obscurity: it's illegal to reveal that this backdoor exists or was even requested. Any bad guy can make a reasonable assumption that a multinational tech company offering cloud services has been compromised, so this just paints another target on their backs.
I've said it before, but I guarantee that the monkey's paw has been infinitely curling with this, and it's a dream come true for any black or grey hat hacker who wants to try and compromise the government through a backdoor like this.
Computer literacy 101: to err is human, to really foul up requires a computer.
They don't understand that by requiring the capability for going after domestic criminals, they've given a huge gift to their international adversaries' intelligence agencies. (And given this is about a computer vulnerability, "international adversaries" includes terrorists, and possibly disgruntled teenagers, not just governments).
https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/21/meredith-whittaker-reaffir...
If politicians don't understand after such campaigning, it's a choice in willful ignorance, not bad computer literacy.
If I'd known about the idea of "inferential gap" at the time, my own effort might not have been completely ignored… though probably still wouldn't have changed the end result as I still don't know how to show lawmakers that their model of how computers and software functions has led to a law that exposed them, personally, to hostile actors.
How even do you explain to people with zero computer lessons that adding a new access mechanism increases the attack surface and makes hacking easier?
The politicians seem to see computers as magic boxes, presumably in much the same way and for much the same reason that I see Westminster debates and PMQs as 650 people who never grew out of tipsy university debating society life.
(And regardless of if it is fair for me to see them that way, that makes it hard to find the right combination of words to change their minds).
You literally tell them that. That's it. As prominent tech leaders have been doing. They either choose to believe experts, or disbelieve them. Or they could get a CS major. They chose option #2. They ostensibly disbelieve experts because what they're hearing does not mesh with what they want.
But let's be honest with ourselves; it's not that they disbelieve them, or don't understand. It's that they don't care. You are giving these people way too much of a benefit of the doubt. They have the tools at their disposal to remove any ignorance.
As it's not working, QED not "that's it".
> You are giving these people way too much of a benefit of the doubt.
They're hurting their own interests in the process. If they were just hurting my interests, I'd agree with you. But this stuff increases the risk to themselves, directly. I may have even told them about https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-0204 given the timing.
Neither is underestimating your enemy or making excuses for their behavior.
Indeed. I do neither, which is why I left the UK.
It would be underestimating them indeed to have remained there — I foresaw, even then, that a story equivalent to this very headline would eventually emerge.
And it would also be over-estimating myself to think that I could change them after the Act when I could not change them before the Bill.
I oppose that because end to end encryption is still possible by anyone with something to hide, it is trivial to implement. I think governments should just take the L in the interest of freedom.
Traditional warrants couldn't retroactively capture historical realtime communications because that stuff wasn't traditionally recorded to begin with.
> It isn’t necessarily about mass surveillance and the implementation could prevent mass surveillance but allow warrants.
The implementation that allows this is the one where executing a warrant has a high inherent cost, e.g. because they have to physically plant a bug on the device. If you can tap any device from the server then you can tap every device from the server (and so can anyone who can compromise the server).
Which is why the clients have to be doing the encryption themselves in a documented way that establishes the server can't be doing that.
governments should just take the L in the interest of freedom
> they'll need control later on when they start doing seriously tyrannical things.
You mean like when they start jailing people for social media posts? Or when they are going to ban kitchen knives? Or when they're going to hide a massive gang rape scandal because it makes them look bad? Or when they would convict 900+ people on false charges of fraud because they couldn't admit their computer system was broken? Come on, we all know this is not possible.
Many politicians are individuals without any talent who desire power and control, politics is the only avenue open to people like that.
I used to think it was illiteracy, but when you hear politicians talk about this you realise more often than not they're not completely naive and can speak to the concerns people have, but fundamentally their calculation here is that privacy doesn't really matter that much and when your argument for not breaking encryption based around the right to privacy you're not going to convince them to care.
You see a similar thing in the UK (and Europe generally) with freedom of speech. Politicians here understand why freedom of speech is important and why people some oppose blasphemy laws, but that doesn't mean you can just burn a bible in the UK without being arrested for a hate crime because fundamentally our politicians (and most people in the UK) believe freedom from offence is more important than freedom of speech.
When values are misaligned (safety > privacy) you can't win arguments by simply appealing to the importance of privacy or freedom of speech. UK values are very authoritarian these days.
This doesn’t justify his position (it’s stupid) but he doesn’t speak for the current government.
Head of state in the UK is a bit weird compared to countries that abolished or never had a monarchy.
Anyway, back on topic: this is a ridiculous law that is forcing services to erode their security while smart criminals can just use some nice free open-source software somewhere else for E2E communication. And a lot of this is definitely down to lawmakers not understanding technology.
And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state after J6. While the monarch has limited power, booting out a PM that can’t command the confidence of Parliament is one of them. The question of whether Johnson would accept being dethroned a la Trump was always silly given his consent was never needed.
I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.
One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is the head of state did not campaign for the position.
It wraps ultimate power up in a contradiction, you have it but you can’t use it. Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act.
Another important aspect, the for and against is currently split between parties, so there’s somewhat of unification factor between parties on that divide as well.
It gets a lot of hate, because it is imperfect, but I don’t think it gets its fair shake. My views more of, if it ain’t broke is it really worth the risk changing it.
It was used in Australia in the 1970s
Obviously pedos on the interwebs are bad, but hey as long as it's just anime they're whacking off to I don't care too much. But the real abuse, that's done by - especially in the UK - rich and famous people like Jimmy Savile. And you're not gonna catch these pedos with banning encryption, that's a fucking smokescreen if I ever saw one, you're gonna catch them with police legwork and by actually teaching young children about their bodies!
Jimmy Savile was a vile predator. He was protected by the inane customs of the British ruling class.
He was not alone among the toffs of England.
But do not be mistaken. It is not just the rich and powerful where you find sexual predators. They exist at all levels of society, all genders, most ages (I will except infants and the aged infirm....)
Jimmy Savile was a symptom of something much darker, much worse and widespread.
In the UK if you're raped by someone famous you'd be an utter idiot to say anything unless you're loaded or have a massive amount of hard evidence. You couldn't have a me to movement in the UK because everyone who came forward would be sued into bankruptcy. This is why so many people knew about Savile but no one said anything.
It is the victim on trial, many times.
What on earth are you talking about?
Charles III is head of state, and before that, Liz II. The monarch absolutely does not get involved in politics.
The monarch picks the Prime Minister, no? That seems pretty involved.
They have a ceremonial role in confirming them. Like they do with every law that Parliament creates. If they ever actually practically exercised this theoretical power it would be the end of the monarchy.
The Members of Parliament choose the Prime Minister. The role of the monarch in confining them is purely ceremonial.
That's an awfully generous assessment on your part. Kindly explain just what "technical literacy" has to do with the formulation you note. From here it reads like you are misdirecting and clouding the -intent- by the powerful here.
Also does ERIC SCHMIDT an accomplished geek (who is an official member of MIC since (during?) his departure from Sun Microsystems) suffers from "technical literacy" issues:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717
Thank you in advance for clarifying your thought process here. Tech illiteracy -> what you got to hide there buddy?
Is this clear?
>> Thank you in advance for clarifying your thought process here.
> The comment's clarity was not questioned.
My password manager vault isn't exactly something to hide in the political sense, but it's definitely something I would fear is exposed to heightened risk of compromise if there were a backdoor, even one for government surveillance purposes. And it's a reasonable concern that I think a lot of people aren't taking seriously enough due, in part, to a lack of technical literacy. Both in terms of not realizing how it materially impacts everyday people regardless of whether they're up to no good, and in terms of not realizing just how juicy a target this would be for agents up to and including state-level adversaries.
As for Eric Schmidt, he's something of a peculiar case. I don't doubt his technical literacy, but the dude is still the head of one of the world's largest surveillance capitalist enterprises, and, as the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
I have a feeling the politicians already know partial cybersecurity isn't an option, and don't care. Certainly, the intelligence community advising them absolutely does know. We don't even have to be conspiratorial about it: their jobs are easier in the world where secrets are illegal than in the world where hackers actually get stopped.
Not with physical security either, I'm afraid.
In the world of cryptography it's... a bit harder to do something similar. In the best case they can come up with a key escrow system that doesn't suck too much, force you to use it, and hopefully they don't ever get the master keys hacked and stolen or leaked. But they're not asking for key escrow. They're asking for providers to be the escrow agents or whatever worse thing they come up with.
This isn't accurate though, and leads us down the path of trying to prevent these bad laws from a technical perspective when we should be fighting the principle of the bad law not just decrying it for being "unworkable".
It is possible to construct encryption schemes with a "backdoor key" while still being provably secure against anyone else.
This creates precisely the "partial security" you describe: Criminals can't crack the encryption, but the government can use their backdoor-key.
But like those who argue online age-consent schemes can't work, it doesn't help to argue against the technical aspects of such bad laws. The law, particularly UK law, doesn't care for what's technically possible. The bad laws can sit on the books regardless of the technical feasibility of enforcement. Eventually technology can catch up, or the law can simply be applied on a best endeavours / selective enforcement approach.
No, it doesn't. Now criminals just have to get the key. These schemes have been tried many times. They've been discovered by actors that shouldn't have access to them.
Please don't go around advising government leaders and organizations. This is exactly the problem solving capabilities of governmental leaders that security experts are decrying here in this thread.
I honestly though get you're comment was going to go along the lines of perfect physical security can only be perfectly secure from everyone, including the people it shouldn't be. We constantly see the hacking oh physical locations. The big things keeping some orgs from being attacked: redundancy, observability, and ENCRYPTION WITHOUT BACKDOORS!
However, nothing prevents keys from being stolen by someone else. In a normal cryptosystem the security of the key is entirely up to you; but in a "law enforcement accessible" system now you have to worry about the feds getting hacked, too. And since the feds will have backdoor keys for many, many users; there is much more interest in stealing those keys.
Physical security has a different set of tradeoffs. Notably, you have to actually be physically present to manipulate and defeat a physical lock, which is what I was alluding to. Even then, it provides an example of how easily a backdoor can be compromised. The Travel Sentry system exists to allow TSA employees to unlock and inspect luggage. There are seven master keys in total; copies of which are spread around thousands of airports with tens to hundreds of TSA employees each. Suffice it to say, the master keys leaked decades ago and you can buy them off Amazon for a few bucks. Any such backdoor key will need similar levels of access to government employees and will likely leak for the same reasons as the TSA keys. Except that the consequence of an encryption backdoor key leaking will be much higher than someone being able to open luggage locks.
Politically, there is also an argument that we should be able to keep secrets from the state. Certainly, there is a reason why we have a 4th Amendment, and it is not because searches and seizures just so happen to be inconvenient.
As for age-of-consent checking, the problem is that existing age verification services would be able to track everyone who accesses an age-verified site. Which, given today's legal climate basically demanding age verification for everything[0], would give the verifier access to your whole browsing history.
Physical age verification is relatively privacy-preserving: I present my ID and that's that. The government that issued that ID does not learn where I presented it, because it's an offline credential. The people I'm doing business with do learn my identity, and they could sell that information, but that's something they didn't need an ID to do (so we should pass a law to prohibit that).
[0] There is also a political argument that the 1st Amendment precludes age verification on social media - aka "don't censor kids"
First, pedos know everybody hates them, so they take measures normal people wouldn't in order to avoid detection, and then backdooring the tech used by everybody else doesn't work against them because they'll use something else. But it does impair the security of normal people.
Second, there aren't actually that many pedos and the easy to catch ones get caught regardless and the hard to catch ones get away with it regardless, which leaves the intersection of "easy enough to catch but wouldn't have been caught without this" as a set plausibly containing zero suspects. Not that they won't use it against the ones who would have been caught anyway and then declare victory, but it's the sort of thing that's pretty useless against the ones it's claimed to exist in order to catch, and therefore not something it can be used effectively in order to do.
Whereas industrial espionage or LOVEINT or draining grandma's retirement account or manipulating ordinary people who don't realize they should be taking countermeasures -- the abuses of the system -- those are the things it's effective at bringing about, because ordinary people don't expect themselves to be targets.
Hmm? Hell has depths. Your yard might be a little too short to measure them? In that case, just think about this: rape is probably most common in prisons, where you will send innocents the moment this dragnet thing glitches.
hopefully the US turning from leader of the free world to Russia's tool will give them the kick they need to realise that just because you trust the government now doesn't mean you trust the next government or the one after it.
However, Google did only start moving to protect location data from subpoenas after people started to worry that location data could be used as a legal weapon against women who went to an abortion clinic, so your larger point stands.
This is exactly like saying that President Trump has nothing to do with the actions of the executive branch agencies today.
when a clown moves into a palace, the clown doesn't become the king - the palace becomes a circus.
President Obama sold himself as a Constitutional scholar who would set right the civil liberties overreach of his predecessor.
You aren't going to convince sane people that his executive branch agencies sought to gut the fourth amendment without his being aware of it, despite months of extensive press coverage.
The demand for encryption just exploded, in a legal gray area (city, state, and federal laws seem to be in conflict here) it's just a question of whether the government allows the supply to follow.
So much humour in one short phrase.
Do you really believe your propaganda or is it just absentmindedly parroting pro permanent war talking points?
It's truly repulsive how imperialistic warmongerers like you pretend you're "the good guys".
This seemed strange to point out. It’s not really any more or less “paternalistic” than most western nations including the US.
> The crimes would be just as criminal had they been done in person at a local bar (or any other physical location).
I agree. Where the US differs is that because of the US's 1st amendment it's _not_ a crime to say those things even in a bar.
Anyway, all of that to say that americans are arrested for posting things on the internet, despite what people claim.
Meanwhile their country has slid into fascism. Sad and tragic.
What is a "paternalistic state". I studied Latin so obviously I understand pater == father but what is a father-like state?
What on earth is: "authoritarian support across all parties".
The UK has one Parliament, four Executives (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) and a Monarch (he's actually quite a few Monarchs).
Anyway, I do agree with you that destroying routine encryption is a bloody daft idea. It's a bit sad that Apple sold it as an extra add on. It does not cost much to run openssl - its proper open source.
I suppose a paternalistic state functions to satisfy the needs of the people, and to define those needs. The people get what the state says is best for them.
All our main political parties have an authoritarian slant so these policies have rarely received long-lasting opposition. Literally every government in office for the past 30-odd years has presented legislation like this.
By the way, there is no 'England' executive; it's the government of the United Kingdom, which handles all matters not devolved, in England and the rest of the UK.
This is a very good point, and in the recent months we have been witnessing that people in government, or aiming to become the government, are definitely not the good guys. So, even if what they are asking would be limited to just governments (which it wouldn't), they can't claim they are the good guys anymore.
I mean seriously. Apple making a stand? What stand? They are ripping security out of their customers hands. Customers which are already dependent on the company's decision in their locked in environment.
There is absolutely nothing good about it, and you dragging Android into it and making it look like it's even worse is suspicious. You can have full control over your Android device. Something impossible on an Apple phone. You can make your Android device safer than your iPhone.
Doesn't make that one good, though.
This is almost as bad as building a backdoor. This is leaving your customer in the rain.
Fortunately for Apple, most of them won't even know or realize it.
vs. taking their phone away??? Idk if you're trolling or what but I would be incredibly pissed at Apple if they deprecated my phone over something like this.
But instead. They run away.
Selling this as "making a stand" is ridiculous. Nothing more.
Dropping the feature that the UK was targeting allows their customers to use all the other ways that Apple does things. Leaving the UK altogether is the nuclear option denying their customers of everything. “Apple should just leave the UK/China” never takes into consideration the millions of customers that bought or might want to buy in the future. Nobody would better off if Apple withdraws from a country.
Yes, it would have been the nuclear option, but this is Apple. Probably most of the most influential people in the UK have an Apple phone. Just saying that you leave would cause an avalanche of influence targeted at this law. Maybe other companies would have joined them.
This, this is just cover dance and I wish they'd pay for this, but they won't and they know it. People locked into the Apple bubble only change if it REALLY hurts. This doesn't hurt the average Apple user, and those who really care moved onto a system they can control themselves.
They are not making a stand. They roll over without a peep. And this is concerning users' privacy which they say is the core of the company.
Compare it to fighting every government tooth and nail over every single little thing concerning the "we don't know if it's profitable and we don't keep meeting records" AppStore
What are you talking about? This is literally them doing the opposite, and there are multiple other public instances of them making a stand, not to mention in the design of their systems.
Truly curious how you see this that way.
Removing encryption for everyone is literally doing the opposite of making a stand
It's not as much "making a stand" as telling a major government that you have substantial seizable assets under their jurisdiction who is a major market you want to be in, that you're not going to do the thing that their laws say you are required to do, but it's hardly simple compliance either, instead of doing what the government wants them to do, they are making sure there is blowback.
Whether to try to fight it in court likely depends on details of case law and the wording of the laws they'd be contesting, I imagine much of the delay in their response to the demand was asking their lawyers how well they think they would fare in court.
This doesn't affect only people in the UK. It allows access to all Apple users' data globally:
> No Heathrow connection necessary. “The law has extraterritorial powers, meaning UK law enforcement would have been able to access the encrypted iCloud data of Apple customers anywhere in the world, including in the US” [1].
> https://www.ft.com/content/bc20274f-f352-457c-8f86-32c6d4df8...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43132160
So they can spy on you regardless of where you live even in violation of your own country's privacy laws.
They didn't say anything loudly, or said it was illegal in the UK.
All they had was a single comment to a single (or perhaps a handful at most) comment to a media outlet that they disabled it.
They didn't even bother with a press release, or notify their users.
It's not even half a stand. It's a rollover
For example if I encrypt a file locally, a zip file containing images, am I not permitted to upload that zip file to a cloud service in the UK?
Even if the UK's demands were "access to encrypted cloud services", does that also mean encrypted files within encrypted storage? It all seems so messy. Anyone who really wants to hide their files, can do so regardless of demands for backdoors.
The question isn't about "anyone who wants". It's about "anyone, regardless of their technical skill"
Apples stand is false, they take with one hand and give with the other. There have been many times that Apple have been caught giving user data to governments at their request, lied about it, then later on admitted it once it had leaked from another source.
This whole 'we will never make a backdoor' is a complete whitewash marketing stunt, why do they need to make a backdoor when they are providing any and all metadata to any government on request.
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve...
In other words, Apple complies with legal government orders, as they are required to. The government can compel them with a warrant to hand over data that they have, and can prohibit them from talking about it. That's the whole reason for the push towards end-to-end encryption and for not collecting any data Apple doesn't need to operate the products. This also ties into things like photo landmark identification, where Apple designed it such that they don't get any information about the requests and so they don't have any information that they could be compelled to hand to the government.
But still Apple operates in China and Google does not. This is weird to me. Google left China when the government wanted all keys to the citizens data. Apple is making a stand when it's visible and does not threaten their business too much.
Apple is not really in the business of protecting your data, they are just good at marketing and keeping their image.
AFAIK before UK only region with ADP was China.
Perhaps china has greater leverage over apple in this case...
China had been an important area of growth for many companies during the 2010s. Apple bent over backwards to cater to that market. It was discussed in every financial release, and they obviously made tons of concessions for iCloud.
The UK just comparatively isn't that much revenue, and not worth the fallout.
and it is the same with european car companies (like volkswagon). Look at where they are now.
I don't believe for a second, that china will not oust apple the moment there's a good reason to.
Apples revenue from china has been super dependent on new iPhone looking different, and has been steadily declining or flat for years, except for a few quarters when Huawei was sanctioned.
Chinese money was absolutely the forbidden temptress that continues to screw businesses. Luxury goods, cars, electronics, etc were all banking on china’s economic rise to grow their revenue, and post covid recovery saw all that money stay domestic.
China won’t oust Apple because twisting Tim Cook’s arm is way more useful. Same with Tesla and any other company that makes a big bet there. But they absolutely won’t be giving American companies an equal chance at success.
Apple pulling ADP from UK users is similar - the UK has passed an ill-considered law that Apple doesn't think it can win a court case over, so they're complying in a way that minimally effects the security of people outside the UK. If, as someone outside the UK, I travel to the UK with ADP turned on, my understanding is it won't disable itself.
Would you have been more satisfied if Apple just pulled out of the UK entirely? Bricked every iPhone ever purchased there? Google doesn't seem to have made any stand for security ever - them pulling out of China feels more to do with it meaning they wouldn't have had access to Chinese users' data, which is what they really want.
The request/law would be rolled back in minutes in that case. They wouldn't dare though. (wouldn't even have to be bricking - just disable services like icloud)
I cannot see Apple completely shutting down in the UK, firing thousands of staff, selling off any property, and cancelling leases, just for a week long bargaining chip.
They adapt to the local rules of each region, much like they’re doing here in the UK.
It's not operated by an Apple subsidiary. It's operated by a government owned company. I'm not aware of any local laws that require this particular arrangement.
Apple is deeply embedded in China (manufacturing) and benefits from a decent (but shrinking) userbase in the country. China isn't asking for the keys to all iphone user data, just data stored in China.
Google left China after China started hacking into Google's servers.
> In January, Google said it would no longer cooperate with government censors after hackers based in China stole some of the company’s source code and even broke into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights advocates.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html
They were working to reenter the China market on China's terms many years later, when Google employees leaked the effort to the press. Google eventually backed down.
With Google, their services are way broader. Operating a hunk of their search business with a third party Chinese firm just isn’t viable for their services, which are way more complex.
I want to backup my data with a managed service.
I do NOT want these to be the same company.
The government, with anti trust laws, could easily force this issue. On the other hand, they really love how few places they have to go with FISA warrants to just take anyones data. This is the long tail of the American security state. So it's really ironic that China takes most of the blame.
No Heathrow connection necessary. “The law has extraterritorial powers, meaning UK law enforcement would have been able to access the encrypted iCloud data of Apple customers anywhere in the world, including in the US” [1].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/bc20274f-f352-457c-8f86-32c6d4df8...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act
Lots of Americans in this thread seem to be talking down to other countries laws while being completely unaware of their own
> Let that sink in for a moment. We're talking about the largest back door I've ever heard of.
Codename 'Krasnov' is the largest backdoor I have ever heard of. And, we only need to look at his behavior.
These E2EE from USA can be tainted in so many ways, and FAMAG sits on so much data, that codename 'Krasnov' can abuse such to target whoever he wants in West. Because everyone you know is or has been in ecosystem of Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
Whataboutism! Fair. From my PoV, as European, the UK government is (still) one of the good guys who will protect Europe from adversaries such as those who pwn codename 'Krasnov'. Such protection may come with a huge price.
Meh, I don't know. I can still decide to not go the UK and be fine. I think the CLOUD Act is much worse because it's independent from where I am.
And yes, it's still pwnable this way, and happens regularly.
Everything in the cloud is not yours anymore, and you should always treat it like that.
My understanding is that Android's Google Drive backup has had an E2E encryption option for many years (they blogged about it at https://security.googleblog.com/2018/10/google-and-android-h...), and that the key is only stored locally in the Titan Security Module.
If they are complying with the IPA, wouldn't that mean that they must build a mechanism into Android to exfiltrate the key? And wouldn't this breach be discoverable by security research, which tends to be much simpler on Android than it is on iOS?
[1] https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
If that were true, then their claims to support E2E encrypted backups are simply false, and they would have been subject to warrants to unlock backups, just like Apple had been until they implemented their "Advanced Data Protection" in 2022.
Wouldn't there have been be some evidence of that in the past 7 years, either through security research, or through convictions that hinged on information that was gotten from a supposedly E2E-protected backup?
1. encrypt data with special key 2. encrypt special key with users key, and 3. encrypt special key with government key
Anyone with the special key can read the data.the user key or the government key can be used to get special key.
This two step process can be done for good or bad purposes. A user can have their key on their device, and a second backup key could be in a usb stick locked in a safe, so if you loose your phone you can get your data back using the second key.
Systems that incorporate a method to allow unlocking using multiple keys don't usually advertise the fact that this is happening. People may even be legally obligated to not tell you.
E2E encryption is not vulnerable to MITM. E2E encryption is vulnerable only to how many keys there are and who has access to them.
What if google told you they also have a key? Does that change the above answer to the question?
Or, as us lowly laypeople call it, lying.
“End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a method of implementing a secure communication system where only communicating users can participate. No one else, including the system provider, telecom providers, Internet providers or malicious actors, can access the cryptographic keys needed to read or send messages.”
So if you send another set of keys to someone else, it’s obviously not E2E.
This is not enforceable and promises that are not enforceable are usually seen by BigCos of today as optional. My 2c.
> It is possible to set up end to end encryption where two different keys unlock your data. Your key, and a government key. I assume google does this.
Which by definition is wrong (unless the government is a party in the communication you want to E2E-Encrypt).
For example, asking for 10 gallons of soda at a restaurant advertising unlimited refills will not fly, even though virtually everyone will agree on the definition of the term "unlimited". My 2c.
Since you are sending the data to google, isn't google an intended recipient? Google has to comply with a variety of laws, and it is likely that they are doing the best they can under the legal constraints. The law just doesn't allow systems like this.
You're discussing encryption in transit vs encryption at rest in this thread.
they also employ things like exempt cases. for example, Whatsapp advertise E2E... but connect for the first time with a business account to see all the caveats that in plain text just means "meta will sign your messages from this point on with a dozen keys"
The claim is that Google has implemented a security weakness and lied about it in claims to customers and investors.
Show me another company that did this, was exposed, and was not sued.
They have lawyers aplenty, governments would file amicus briefs "explaining" E2EE and so on. Worse case they'll settle for a pittance.
It isnt if the government have asked them to lie.
I guess for consumer use all that stuff is hidden in the T&C legalese which is unreadable for normal people. I know the EU was trying to enforce that there must be a TL;DR in normal language but I haven't seen much effect of that yet.
No, it does not. It means that only endpoints - not intermediaries - handle plaintext. It says nothing about who those endpoints are or who the software is working for.
Key escrow and E2EE are fully compatible.
Unless you’re fine with the escrow agent and anybody they’re willing to share the keys with being a member of your group chat, in which case my original point still stands.
https://engineering.fb.com/2021/09/10/security/whatsapp-e2ee...
The biggest problem remaining to me is that you don't chat alone. You're always chatting with one or more people. Right now there's no way of knowing how they handle their backups and thus the complete history of your chats with them.
It's the same thing as trying to avoid big tech reading your emails by setting up your own mailserver. Technically you can do it but in practice it's pointless because 95% of your emails go to users of Microsoft or Google anyway these days.
> is indistinguishable
Technically correct (with respect to the escrow agent specifically) but rather misleading. With E2EE intermediary nodes serving or routing a request do not have access to it. This protects you against compromise of those systems. That's the point of E2EE - only authorized endpoints have access.
The entire point of key escrow is that the escrow agent is authorized. So, yes, the escrow agent has access to your stuff. That doesn't somehow make it "not E2EE". The point of E2EE is that you don't have to trust the infra. You do of course have to trust anyone who has the keys, which includes any escrow agents.
If we used the definition "only your intended recipients can access the plaintext" ... well let's be clear here, an escrow agent is very much an "intended recipient", so there's no issue.
But lets extrapolate that definition. That would make E2EE a property of the session rather than the implementation. For example if my device is compromised and my (E2EE) chat history leaks suddenly that history would no longer be considered E2EE ... even though the software and protocol haven't changed. It's utterly nonsensical.
So what would be the name for a mechanism where escrow is deliberately not a part of the design and nobody aside from the sender and recipient can access the plaintext data, no 3rd parties whatsoever, as long as those two participants aren’t compromised.
I’m not disagreeing with you but I’ve heard people talk about E2EE while actually thinking it’s more like the above. There is probably a term for truly private communication but I’m sleepy and it eludes me.
However I don't think that's so much a technical mechanism as it is a statement of preference or understanding about who you intend to have access to something.
To that end, you'll need to define "intended recipient" pretty carefully. After all, your intended recipient could take a screenshot and share it. Or there could be someone in a group chat who isn't participating and you forgot was there. Etc.
> There is probably a term for truly private communication
I'd argue that E2EE is "truly private" between the intended recipients, and that understanding who exactly those are is entirely the responsibility of the user.
Of course I recognize that we're talking past each other at that point. Your concern seems to be users not realizing an escrow agent is present. To the extent they might have been deceived about the implementation I'd point out that "snuck in an escrow agent" is just the tip of the security iceberg. They could also have been deceived about the implementation itself. And even if they weren't deceived initially, a binary or web app could be intentionally updated with a malicious version. Does it count as "truly private" if you didn't compile it yourself?
All of these are good points, thanks for taking the time to respond! I think that to a certain degree this means that, for the average layperson and someone with more skills and knowledge, there are still a bunch of challenges and attack vectors to contend with.
It probably involves more of something in the category of OpenPGP (or just Signal, I guess) where you yourselves are in control of the keys, and less of counting on various web apps to do right by the users. That said, E2EE with escrow is still helpful against certain risks and is a net positive, even if I've seen a lot of that misunderstanding about what it actually does.
Anything that you can either audit or compile yourself is generally a good bet. You might add Matrix, XMPP with OMEMO, Briar, and Cwtch to your list.
Proprietary stuff isn't an entirely bad deal though. If you assume they aren't blatantly fraudulent then presumably your data is better protected than it would have been without even an attempt at E2EE.
Same for key escrow schemes. Even if the agent was literally the NSA you'd still most likely be better off than the much more vulnerable alternative. The fewer entities with access and the more deliberate that access is the better.
Wild to see someone on HN even entertain this idea.
Presumably there are a finite number of escrow agents who are known to you. Worrying that they will pass your messages along to others is the same as worrying that the people you're chatting with do the same. It's always on you to assess the trustworthiness of the other parties; key escrow is no exception to that.
To be clear I'm not a fan of large scale key escrow schemes and am not going to willingly use one outside of a corporate setting. But lets have accurate use of terminology while discussing these things.
Surely a company with auditing requirements running their own key escrow would still be considered E2EE? If not E2EE then what would you suppose to call that and where would you draw the line?
This makes absolutely _no sense_. If I do not trust my end user to not propagate the message I send them, then I will not send them that message. There is no need for a third party here to make that mistake. It _is_ that black and white. Adding another end user is compromising your promise on the secure communication you established. There is no workaround to that.
I can imagine a likely objection. "But I'm forced to use this particular agent by [ tech company | employer | government ]!" I don't see how that's any different from needing to communicate with a particular person. If I need to communicate with someone and I don't trust them not to share things then I will (must!) compose my correspondence accordingly.
If the government is forcing this on you, well, what is the alternative? Is point to point encryption somehow better in that scenario? Either way they're getting copies of everything you write assuming that the service you're using abides by the law. With key escrow that snooping is more explicit and there are fewer unknowns for the end user.
The point is that the dictionary definition of E2EE really doesn't matter. Being pedantic about it doesn't help. The only thing that matters is that the vendor describes what they call E2EE.
"a special key" afaik is where instead of using 2 large primes for a public key, it uses 1 large prime and the other is a factor of 2 biggish primes, where 1 of the biggish is known, knowing one of the factors lets you factor any public key with a not insignificant but still more compute than most people have access to.
UK has also invested in some serious compute that would appear dedicated to exactly this task.
basically if you dont have full control over the key generation mechansim and enc/dec mechansim it is relatively trivial for states to backdoor anything they want.
With the present state of politics—lack of both government and corporate ethics, deception, availability of much fake news, etc.—there's no guarantee that you could be certain of the accuracy of any information about this no matter what its source or apparent authenticity.
I'd thus suggest it'd be foolhardy to assume that total privacy is assured on any of these services.
BTW, I don't have need of these E2E services and don't use them, nor would I ever use them intentionally to send encrypted information. That said, occasionally, I'll send a PDF or such to say a relative containing some personal info and to minimize it being skimmed off by all-and-sundry—data brokers, etc. I'll encrypt it, but I always do so on the assumption that government can read it (that's if it's bothered to do so).
Only fools ought to think otherwise. Clearly, those in the know who actually require unbreakable encryption use other systems that are able to be better audited. If I were ever in their position, then I'd still be suspicious and only out of sheer necessity/desperation would I send an absolute minimum of information.
Given the carefully crafted way companies describe their encryption services, it seems more likely than not they have master keys of some sort.
In any case like this, the only thing you could truly trust would be the source code and even then you’d have to be on the lookout for backdoors, which would definitely be beyond my own capability to spot.
In other words, the best bet is to probably only use open source solutions that have been audited and have a good track record, wherever available. Not that there are that many options when it comes to mobile OSes, although at least there are some for file storage and encryption.
We have seen this many times throughout history, where people like academics, researchers, teachers, people of particular faith, etc are targeted and each of them has some sort of “evidence” produced as to some sort of crime they have committed either in the present or past to justify their arrest.
The group who needs it today may be small, but having it on and secure by default for all is a far better protection than any justification that the current need is small.
> encrypts a pdf sent to tech illiterate family members
Not only have you misquoted me, but also you've attempted to distort what I actually said by changing its inference.
> or through convictions
If they wanted to use this evidence for a normal criminal case, they would just do parallel construction.
There are no practical end-user protections against this vector.
PS: I strongly suspect that at least a few public package distribution services are run by security agencies to enable this kind of attack. They can distribute clean packages 99.999% of the time, except for a handful of targeted servers in countries being spied upon. A good example is Chocolatey, which popped up out of nowhere, had no visible source of funding, no mention of their ownership structure anywhere, and was incorporated along with hundreds of other companies in a small building in the middle of nowhere. It just screams of being a CIA front, but obviously that's hard to prove.
Chocolatey assuredly did not "pop up out of nowhere" - it was a labour of love from Rob Reynolds to make Windows even barely usable. It likely existed for years before you ever heard of it.
> had no visible source of funding
Rob was employed by Puppet Labs to develop it until he started the commercial entity which now backs it.
> a small building in the middle of nowhere.
As I recall, Rob lives in Topeka, Kansas. It follows that his business would be incorporated there, no?
Sure, now, they have staff photos and the actual names of people on their about page, but just a few years ago it was almost completely devoid of information: https://web.archive.org/web/20190906125729/https://chocolate...
Look at it from the perspective of a paranoid sysadmin half way around the world raising a quizzical eyebrow when random Reddit posts mention how convenient it is, but it's distributing binaries to servers with absolutely no obvious links back to any organisations, people, or even a legitimate looking business building.
Even if you somehow manage to ensure 100% consistency with other users for updates you manually “pull” from the vendor, the vendor could simply have your device automatically reach out and update itself with a stealth update.
Or everyone can get the same exact binary, but it has a hash code check on it that activates the evil bits only on your device.
Etc…
> They were curious to learn which open source libraries are integrated to the Telegram app. You know, on the client side," Durov said. "And they were trying to persuade him to use certain open source tools that he would then integrate into the Telegram code
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/telegram-tucker-carlson-government-...
I wouldn't count on it. The main way we'd know about it would be a whistleblower at Google, and whistleblowers are extremely rare. Evidence and court records that might expose a secret backdoor or that the government was getting data from Google that was supposed to be private could easily be kept hidden from the public by sealing it all away for "national security reasons" or by obscuring it though parallel construction.
Which explains why there’s all these security levels above “Top Secret,” which is really just a baseline.
It'd be a huge mistake to look at the instances where somebody did come forward and spill a secret and assume that it means secrets aren't possible to keep or that there are no secrets being kept right now. It's may not be easy to keep a secret, but governments and corporations are extremely well practiced and have many documented successes.
Anyway, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of whistleblowers in the past and the examples you picked I think are representative of the upper bound, rather than the lower bound of the secret keeping capacity of organizations.
It's possible to decrypt this network traffic and see if the key is sent. It may be obfuscated though.
How much good does an encrypted device backup do when harvesting user data and storing it on your servers (to make ad sales more profitable) is your entire business model?
But it's not clear that funding for early research into data warehousing (back when a terabyte was a lot of data) has anything to do with whether or not Google uses end-to-end encryption? Lots of research got funded through the Department of Defense.
Without having relevant evidence, this is just "let's assume X is true, therefore X is true."
I don't think the e2e icloud backup is problematic under existing legislation / before the TCN. While you can't disclose the key because it lives in the secure enclave, you can disclose the information that is requested because you can log into your apple account and retrieve it. IANAL, but I believe this to be sufficient (and refusing would mean jail).
The Investigatory Powers Act allows for technical capability notices, and the TCN in this case says (as far as we know) "allow us a method to be able to get the contents of any iCloud backup that is protected by E2EE for any user worldwide". This means that there is no need to ask the target to disclose information and if implemented as asked, also means that any user worldwide could be a target of the order, even if they'd never been to the UK.
Relevant info:
- https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...
For the latter, there are a lot of cases where jail isn't much a threat (e.g. the person is dead or not in the country).
The jail time for failure to comply with key disclosure is 2 years unless it is national security, then it is 5. But if you're organised crime and facing who knows what for being a snitch it might be better simply to do the time.
I can see why they want it. I just don't understand why the person I'm replying to said the feature (I think) was problematic. Not really a criticism, I'm just struggling to identify the tone and why 'too right' and 'more problematic than they let on'.
Sounds a lot like the godawful "assistance and access" laws that were rushed through in Australia a couple of years ago, right down to the name of the secret instrument sent to the entity who gets forced into to building the intercept capability.
Now that Apple has caved once, I expect to see other providers strongarmed in the same way, as well as the same move tried in other countries.
https://politicalpulse.net/uk-polls/keir-starmer-approval-ra...
Hypothetically, if Apple just provide a back door to the data they have on US Senators for instance, then providing that information may be considered treason by the US.
That's a totally made up example, and I have no idea, but it seems like it's possibly an issue.
Which is all about the issues around data sovereignty I suppose!
Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution, and it is quite a high bar.
Well, it's defined, or bounded above, in the constitution. It's not exactly a high bar:
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
So, if you happened to know Nicolas Maduro, thought he was looking stressed, and bought him some food, that would qualify as treason. There's no requirement that you act against the interests of the United States. The constitution will stop you from being prosecuted for treason for sleeping with Melania Trump. It won't stop you from being prosecuted for treason for completely spurious reasons.
[0] https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation24.html
But I'm sure local laws conflict heavily between countries yes. I'm often wondering how multinationals manage to navigate this maze. This is why we have such a big legal department I guess :) And the company I work for is a pretty honest one, I've never seen any skullduggery going on with eg privacy or media manipulation. In fact employees are urged to report such things and I have to do a course on responsible behaviour yearly. Probably a result of being purely B2B. But anyway I digress, just wanted to say that getting away with stuff does not seem to be the reason for us having a big legal dept.
But just look at the laws of e.g. the EU and Iran. Pretty diametrically opposed on many topics. There's no way to satisfy them both.
I think what helps to make this happen is that most countries don't try to push their laws outside of their jurisdiction. Which the UK is trying to do here.
Do you know of the clipper chip? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
From what I recall, we were only spared from it by someone hacking it before it was deployed.
'Back in the day' it was the "Right" that wanted have total access/total control over everything. So people turned a bit "left". Now the "Left" government is seeking totalitarian-style control ('because paedophiles/drugs/etc.).
As a reminder, both Right and Left extremes went from 'liberal/conservatives' to "we don't need elections ever again - trust me!".
I saw this happening in the US, in Saudi (e.g. Blackberry 'keys'). Now I see it in the UK. So I interpret this in two ways: 1) The "Left is the new Right" (or "Right is the new Left") 2) Left and Right are irrelevant terms when it comes down to "we need to exert control over people/knowledge/data/information/etc. And the 'guise' of Left/Right is just on the fiscal policies. So UK has been playing around with 'snooper charter' but at 'that' time Apple's encryption was not on the table.
Apple (I don't blame them - very much - just a little) does what a company does. Makes money. And they prefer to sell-out the data of their clients and keep their money, than lose that money.
So... yeah.. if your data is in someone else's server, that happens.
It was the Clinton administration that pushed for the Clipper chip.
Are you talking about a 'day' before that time?
Apple today appear to be on the 'correct side of history', but even then you need to be swing consumer.
No, it's much broader than that. The UK is asking for a backdoor to your data and backups in the cloud, not on your device. Why bother with searching physical devices when they can just issue a secret subpoena to any account they want?
It's actually pretty amazing that Apple made ADP possible for the general public. This is the culmination of a major breakthrough in privacy architecture about ten years ago.
Traditionally you had to make a choice between end-to-end encryption and data recoverability. If you went with E2EE, it's only useful if you use a strong password, but if you forget it then Apple can't help you recover your account (no password reset possible). So that was totally unsuitable for precious memories like photos for the average user.
Apple's first attempt to make this feasible was a recovery key that you print out and stuff in a drawer somewhere. But you might lose this. The trusted contact feature is also not totally reliable either, because chances are it's your spouse and they might also lose their device at that same time as you (for example in a house fire).
So while recovery keys and trusted contacts help, the solution that really made the breakthrough for ADP was iCloud Keychain Backup. This thing is low-key so cool and kind of rips up the previous assumptions about E2EE.
iCloud Keychain Backup makes it possible to recover your data with a simple, weak 6 digit passcode that you are virtually guaranteed never to forget, yet you are also protected from brute force attacks on the server. It is specifically designed to work on "adversarial clouds" that are being actively attacked. This is... sort of not supposed to be possible in the traditional thinking. But they added something called hardware security modules to limit the number of guesses an attacker can make before it wipes your key.
And crucially it ensures you don't forget this passcode because it's your device passcode which the OS keeps in sync with the backup key. This is part of the reason your iPhone asks you to enter your passcode now and then even though your biometrics work just fine.
It is a true secret that only you know and can keep in your brain even when your house burns down and nobody (hopefully) can derive from something they can research about you. This didn't really exist for the general populace until smartphones came along. And that ultimately was the breakthrough that allowed for changing the conventional wisdom on E2EE.
iCloud Keychain Backup came out about a decade ago and it has taken this long to gradually test the feasibility of going 100% E2EE without significantly risking customer data loss. The UK is kind of panicking but when people see how well ADP protects their most personal data from breaches, I think they will demand it. It just wasn't practical before.
My point was that there was already a clear chain in place that would give them access to the data of foreign nationals. It's not just a "UK problem", but actually the ramifications are further reaching.
Another thing to consider is that these cookie alerts on sites were for EU countries only, but ended up everywhere. If Apple were to comply, this cloud backdoor could end up in other countries too, with the keys sitting there ready for collection.
To make things more complex still, they would need to support dual/multi nationality. It probably ends up looking like a dual key E2E system where there is a unique key for the end-user and then a third party. Key revocation would likely be difficult, so it would likely be the cloud provided decrypting and re-encrypting the files per request, throwing E2E out the window entirely.
Dropping the functionality for a particular market hardly equals to making a stand. Sure they haven't added a backdoor that would give all user's data access to UK icloud user's data so in the end UK residents didn't win anything.
And who knows if they simply have an agreement with US gov to have a backdoor only available to them and not the other govs.
I think the biggest concern is that many of the important apps are anti-emulation, for example banking apps and authentication apps.
> The UK government's demand came through a "technical capability notice" under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), requiring Apple to create a backdoor that would allow British security officials to access encrypted user data globally. The order would have compromised Apple's Advanced Data Protection feature, which provides end-to-end encryption for iCloud data including Photos, Notes, Messages backups, and device backups.
One scenario would be somebody in an airport and security officials are searching your device under the Counter Terrorism Act (where you don't even have the right to legal advice, or the right to remain silent). You maybe a British person, but you could also be a foreign person moving through the airport. There's no time limit on when you may be searched, so all people who ever travelled through British territory could be searched by officials.
Let that sink in for a moment. We're talking about the largest back door I've ever heard of.
What concerns me more is that Apple is the only company audibly making a stand. I have an Android device beside me that regularly asks me to back my device up to the cloud (and make it difficult to opt out), you think Google didn't already sign up to this? You think Microsoft didn't?
Then think for a moment that most 2FA directly goes via a large tech company or to your mobile. We're just outright handing over the keys to all of our accounts. Your accounts have never been less protected. The battle is being lost for privacy and security.