I saw it called “end to end encrypted icloud backup” in the news. I guess it is that, in that it is encrypted at rest on apple’s servers, then between those servers and the end-user’s device. But that is a bit different to what signal does. Signal doesn’t store anything at rest on any servers they own as far as the experts I rely on for information on this (and who signal allow to audit them) say.
It seems to be the case that as long as apple offer any products at all to the UK market, the UK government have the right to ask, in secret, for apple to provide encryption backdoors into their products for all of apple’s customers whatever the nationality. It seems likely that the UK will share this information with five eyes countries’, allowing those countries to circumvent their own legal processes.
It isn’t clear if that has happened or is going to happen but it seems likely that they will, if they can get away with it without it becoming public knowledge. Which has pissed off, for instance, US information security professionals who like iphones whose data now can’t be considered secure.
It might be the case that apple has had to withdraw this particular product from the UK for public relations purposes because somebody whitleblew. But as long as apple wants to sell products in the UK it seems the snoopers charter allows the snoopers to request backdoor access to their products globally.
The Chinese have done the same. People here call them totalitarian for doing so.
I would probably argue that China is a little different to the UK, given that China is a one-party state.
Yeah maybe the UK government shouldn’t be able to spy on Apple messages sent anywhere in the world. But maybe UK agencies like GCHQ should be able to get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK, with a court warrant, like how law enforcement has been able to bug the phones of criminals with a court warrant.
I dunno. Maybe I should educate myself more on encryption and how it all works.
Couple of things: I am sure that the likes of GCHQ get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK without any court orders right now. This cartoon sums up the limits to encryption’s effectiveness in this sort of context: https://xkcd.com/538/
And it has been red Tory v. blue Tory, one party, since 1994. I assume you disagree on this my second point - I am always happy to agree to disagree.
Regarding encryption, surveillance, and snooper’s intrusion: I was brought up being told the stasi were the bad guys. The stasi would blush at the surveillance foreign corporations and the British government now engage in as a matter of course: it is beyond their wildest dreams.
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists (on every side). The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was).
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was)
Before I go any further I will say that this is my last post on this subject.
I’m not aware of the UK government using torture to crush dissent.
This is a so-called straw man argument, I never said the UK government used torture to crush dissent. If you expect me to go to the trouble of a response, frankly, do better.
The social contract is not “I give up the freedom to murder without legal consequence in order to not be murdered” in a civilised society. Is in 1025 or 2025? (This is a rhetorical question.)
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
We do not particularly disagree. Except that due to information security being an interest of mine, I know that it isn’t technically possible to weaken encryption for one without weakening encryption for everybody.
Being something like a specialist interest of mine, I also know that weakening encryption is one part of the creation of a total-surveillance state that is taking place - much like the explicit oligarchy we see forming now in the US has taken decades to build. This environment is certainly one in which fascism will thrive - something I don’t want to see, seeing as how I still remember people talking about the second world war and all that.
I also know that this snooping capability will be placed in the hands of future, and some current, political and business leaders who don’t have the interests of the public at large at heart, and who even might actually might be prepared to murder people: the US is now aligned with a Russia that has committed war crimes in Ukraine. If I mention Gaza and war crimes there is some (presumably small) chance I might be arrested under the Communications Act 2003, which defines illegal communication as ‘using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’.
Here is a letter written by experts regarding removing end to end encryption:
Take note of the 2003 communications act. Here are a few articles from a very quick search that explicitly show the kind of society that is being built, brick by brick:
I saw it called “end to end encrypted icloud backup” in the news. I guess it is that, in that it is encrypted at rest on apple’s servers, then between those servers and the end-user’s device. But that is a bit different to what signal does. Signal doesn’t store anything at rest on any servers they own as far as the experts I rely on for information on this (and who signal allow to audit them) say.
It seems to be the case that as long as apple offer any products at all to the UK market, the UK government have the right to ask, in secret, for apple to provide encryption backdoors into their products for all of apple’s customers whatever the nationality. It seems likely that the UK will share this information with five eyes countries’, allowing those countries to circumvent their own legal processes.
It isn’t clear if that has happened or is going to happen but it seems likely that they will, if they can get away with it without it becoming public knowledge. Which has pissed off, for instance, US information security professionals who like iphones whose data now can’t be considered secure.
It might be the case that apple has had to withdraw this particular product from the UK for public relations purposes because somebody whitleblew. But as long as apple wants to sell products in the UK it seems the snoopers charter allows the snoopers to request backdoor access to their products globally.
The Chinese have done the same. People here call them totalitarian for doing so.
I would probably argue that China is a little different to the UK, given that China is a one-party state.
Yeah maybe the UK government shouldn’t be able to spy on Apple messages sent anywhere in the world. But maybe UK agencies like GCHQ should be able to get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK, with a court warrant, like how law enforcement has been able to bug the phones of criminals with a court warrant.
I dunno. Maybe I should educate myself more on encryption and how it all works.
Couple of things: I am sure that the likes of GCHQ get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK without any court orders right now. This cartoon sums up the limits to encryption’s effectiveness in this sort of context: https://xkcd.com/538/ And it has been red Tory v. blue Tory, one party, since 1994. I assume you disagree on this my second point - I am always happy to agree to disagree.
Regarding encryption, surveillance, and snooper’s intrusion: I was brought up being told the stasi were the bad guys. The stasi would blush at the surveillance foreign corporations and the British government now engage in as a matter of course: it is beyond their wildest dreams.
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists (on every side). The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was).
My understanding is that the Stasi were very repressive - “using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent”. I’m not aware of the UK government using torture to crush dissent.
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
There’s a quote by Benjamin Franklin which apparently is: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. I always thought that quote was a bit weird though, because humans do give up some form of liberty in return for safety. E.g. we give up the freedom to murder other people without legal consequences, because in return we get some safety: protection from being murdered by others.
Before I go any further I will say that this is my last post on this subject.
This is a so-called straw man argument, I never said the UK government used torture to crush dissent. If you expect me to go to the trouble of a response, frankly, do better.
The social contract is not “I give up the freedom to murder without legal consequence in order to not be murdered” in a civilised society. Is in 1025 or 2025? (This is a rhetorical question.)
We do not particularly disagree. Except that due to information security being an interest of mine, I know that it isn’t technically possible to weaken encryption for one without weakening encryption for everybody.
Being something like a specialist interest of mine, I also know that weakening encryption is one part of the creation of a total-surveillance state that is taking place - much like the explicit oligarchy we see forming now in the US has taken decades to build. This environment is certainly one in which fascism will thrive - something I don’t want to see, seeing as how I still remember people talking about the second world war and all that.
I also know that this snooping capability will be placed in the hands of future, and some current, political and business leaders who don’t have the interests of the public at large at heart, and who even might actually might be prepared to murder people: the US is now aligned with a Russia that has committed war crimes in Ukraine. If I mention Gaza and war crimes there is some (presumably small) chance I might be arrested under the Communications Act 2003, which defines illegal communication as ‘using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’.
Here is a letter written by experts regarding removing end to end encryption:
https://haddadi.github.io/UKOSBOpenletter.pdf
Take note of the 2003 communications act. Here are a few articles from a very quick search that explicitly show the kind of society that is being built, brick by brick:
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/press-releases/big-brother-watch-condemns-uks-first-use-of-city-wide-facial-recognition-in-cardiff/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-facial-recognition.html
https://www.verdict.co.uk/most-surveilled-city/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68274090
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-leads-the-world-in-cracking-down-on-climate-activism-study-finds
As I said, I am done with this thread now. Thanks