Apple Says UK Could 'Secretly Veto' Global Privacy Tools (bbc.co.uk) 90
AmiMoJo writes: Apple has attacked proposals for the UK government to pre-approve new security features introduced by tech firms. Under the proposed amendments to existing laws, if the UK Home Office declined an update, it then could not be released in any other country, and the public would not be informed. The government is seeking to update the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016. The Home Office said it supported privacy-focused tech but added that it also had to keep the country safe.
A government spokesperson said: "We have always been clear that we support technological innovation and private and secure communications technologies, including end-to-end encryption, but this cannot come at a cost to public safety." The proposed changes will be debated in the House of Lords tomorrow. Apple says it is an "unprecedented overreach" by the UK government. "We're deeply concerned the proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) now before Parliament place users' privacy and security at risk," said Apple in a statement. "It's an unprecedented overreach by the government and, if enacted, the UK could attempt to secretly veto new user protections globally preventing us from ever offering them to customers."
A government spokesperson said: "We have always been clear that we support technological innovation and private and secure communications technologies, including end-to-end encryption, but this cannot come at a cost to public safety." The proposed changes will be debated in the House of Lords tomorrow. Apple says it is an "unprecedented overreach" by the UK government. "We're deeply concerned the proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) now before Parliament place users' privacy and security at risk," said Apple in a statement. "It's an unprecedented overreach by the government and, if enacted, the UK could attempt to secretly veto new user protections globally preventing us from ever offering them to customers."
Small market. leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply leave. They will cave in.
Re:Small market. leave. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Small market. leave. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they can math and comparatively, they are a small market when it comes to dictating how things go for say ... larger markets like the 330 million in the U.S. and we're a smaller market than say India or China.
Let's call it relative comparison, one country vs.?
Re:Small market. leave. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently the Brits own about thirty million iPhones... out of one billion owned worldwide. So the real question is, is it financially worthwhile to accommodate them when they choose to do something onerous?
You might say "sure, that's 30 million sales they wouldn't otherwise make"... but could this sort of legislation lead to three percent of worldwide iPhone users deciding not to buy one, for instance?
Re: Small market. leave. (Score:2)
Nobody is going to not buy a new shiny shiny from Apple just because they enabled some more functionality.
Nobody is going to buy Apple's excuse that they did not include some software in their region because it was prohibited in another region. It still won't stop them from buying an iDevice either
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
while working at CERN, right?
Re: (Score:2)
CERN in Switzerland, on the crossing border with France. A truly international effort. Shame we didn't tout such things before committing brexicide.
Re: Small market. leave. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, about the size of the "1 Infinite Loop" coffee fund.
Apple runs all it's tax scams through the UK (Score:2)
Re:Apple runs all it's tax scams through the UK (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple runs its taxes through the Republic of Ireland, which isn’t and never has been a part of the UK. You seem to have confused it for Northern Ireland, which is a country that is part of the UK (but not Great Britain), but which is also located on the island named Ireland, right next to the Republic of Ireland.
Clear as mud? CGP Grey has a useful explainer video, the first half of which you’ll find relevant.
https://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10 [youtu.be]
Just keep in mind that Brexit has happened since then, so th
Re: (Score:2)
> Simply leave. They will cave in.
Seems a win on at least one side.
Not gonna happen though.
(the govenment is just spouting shit in order to try to be re-elected, which also aint gonna happen, stil la win either way I guess).
Re: (Score:2)
Simply leave. They will cave in.
But Brexit... everyone will bow to us and treat us with respect. /s
Translation from government-speak (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about a load of BS (Score:2)
"We have always been clear that we support technological innovation and private and secure communications technologies, including end-to-end encryption, but this cannot come at a cost to public safety."
You can't say X and not X in the same sentence, either you support free speech or you don't, it's a boolean, black and white, there is no grey. What they really mean is: "We support your right to free speech and expression, providing we approve it, audit it, and decide how to hold you accountable to it."
It doesn't matter what the subject is, grannies knitting club, or domestic terrorist plans by Neo-Nazi and Hamas, it all has to be treated the same, or, you can't make a claim you care about free speech
Re: Talk about a load of BS (Score:1)
Not sure if you keep up with current events, but this is what progressives call "progress". Safety first, safety at any cost. They stopped giving a shit about free speech a long time ago. Apple doesn't give a shit about it either. Apple won't even allow iderps to install telegram unless telegram agrees to forbid them from accessing any speech Apple considers dangerous, pornographic, etc. The only reason Apple gives a shit here is they know it will hurt their bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's the reason Telegram won't work on Apple. Signal is fully E2E encrypted, and it works fine on my iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Telegram works on ios, that's not the problem. And while telegram and signal are both E2EE, they aren't trying to do the same thing. Think of telegram being more akin to Discord with E2EE. Apple really doesn't like anything that behaves like social media unless it only has content that pleases Tim Cook.
https://reclaimthenet.org/appl... [reclaimthenet.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really calling the current UK government progressive?
Dumb attempt to make an excuse (Score:2)
Have you considered making 2 products? One for the rest of the world and one that complies with the UK Surely a multi billion dollar company can afford 2 SKU's!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dumb attempt to make an excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple obviously already figured this out in order to appease China's government. Apple just has to put on a good show like they're actually in support of global privacy when it's an English speaking country that wants to get its snoop on, because people in America might start to notice Apple's hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if your answer to whether a country should spy on your encrypted messages is "But China does it!"
"But China does it!" is the answer to how it can be done, not whether or not a creating surveillance state is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is concerned that this line means that Apple USA can be given an order to install spyware on American phones. You can tell this is the intent because when Apple voiced the concern, the UK didn't say "no, that's not what it means" they said "It is critical that decisions about lawful access, which protect the country from child sexual abu
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is concerned that this line means that Apple USA can be given an order to install spyware on American phones.
Why would Apple need to do that? The spyware would go on the UK phones, and Americans chatting with Britons over iMessage might* be provided with some indication that once their message becomes cleartext on the other side of the pond, it could be snooped upon.
The way Americans would end up with spyware built into iOS is if our regulators decide to follow the UK's lead and do the same thing. There's been plenty of the same sort of talk over here that encrypted communication is giving our law enforcement le
Barefaced lies (Score:4, Interesting)
"A government spokesperson said: "We have always been clear that we support technological innovation and private and secure communications technologies, including end-to-end encryption, but this cannot come at a cost to public safety.""
and he wasn't instantly struck dead by a bolt of lightning?
Because supporting end-to-end encryption is exactly the opposite of what they do. They have repeatedly tried to pass laws to force tech companies to backdoor their systems and let them snoop on what are supposedly end-to-end encrypted communications.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
well, what they say:
>we support end to end encryption
what they really mean:
>we support encryption, as long as we can access it.
they don't see the government having a master key (not that such a thing exists mind you) as a security hole (it absolutely would be). it's the oldest politician-thinking-about-technology thing in existence. all's fine and well as long as a backdoor exists for privacy violation at the behest of whatever government bullshit excuse they care to trot out.
Re:V for Vendetta never seemed so precient (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh, I guess that's why Freedom House rates all of those countries you mentioned as freer than the United States. Here is the source [freedomhouse.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The comment that /. (news and opinions for midwits, by midwits) was not ready for.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. Journalists. People whose entire livelihoods depend on freedom of expression and freedom of the press... what would such people know about freedom? :rolling-eye-emoji:
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say, all of your sources were amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First amendment in an nutshell: you can say things, and the gubbernment cant not make you say things.
Except for when those things are too loud (public disturbance)
Hurt peoples feelings ( Defamation )
Hurt people (misinformation)
and you can waive the right to say things with a simple mouse click on a EULA because contract law and corporations are more powerful than the 1st amendment. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Congress will make no law abridging speech, which leaves lots of others to make laws. But at least America doesn't have laws restricting speech and Americans can say whatever they want, even in their corporate filings, advertisements, pharmaceutical side effects lists, telling a foreigner military stuff, talk about assassinating the President and countless other forms of speech that would be illegal in most countries such a national secrets can't happen in America as the courts would strike it down.
We're t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, there's so many ways Americans speech is restricted I got carried away.
Re: (Score:2)
How many are silenced every year, including school children every year from guns.
Anarchy is not freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out the government was By the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE and the less than 1% who did not like it were upset because their free choices had consequences.
Therein lies the problem, too many people think that they have all the rights, but no obligations.
So you can keep you garbage american "freedom", because we are more free, we have free and fair elections (not the gerrymandered BS that passes in th
Re: (Score:2)
No it was a comment about "everyone saw the pure fascism of Jackboot Jacinda Ardern during the pandemic"
Which I will remind you, that we did actually see it in realtime so everyone knows how full of shit you are. Did you think all the news and video [youtube.com] footage [youtube.com] somehow disappeared like those protesters did [youtube.com] because you wished really hard and were a good boy? We saw ourselves and no amount of revisionism will change it. It won't change how New Zealand's refuseniks were locked up [theguardian.com] and some tried to escape [youtube.com].
Censorship is policy [wikipedia.org] in New Zealand and not just classification it's full on bans for books, the Internet, et
Re: (Score:2)
Locked up meant they stayed in 4+ star hotels at the tax payers expense as a quarantine measure when you entered the country Unlike the USA kids were not separated from their parents, put in cages. It was NOT prison.
If you got covid you were STILL PAID YOUR WAGE, your medical needs were FREE even if you were not a citizen.
"Remind me of the part where you successfully justified censorship?", so you are OK with Kid
Re: (Score:2)
dude. any country where you can be fined/jailed for saying something like
>trannies are just men mansplaining what it's like to be a woman
you do not have freedom of expression.
if you get jailed/fined/whatever for complaining that maybe, just maybe there's too many immigrants invading your previously safe and prosperous nation -- you do not have freedom of speech.
for all the faults of the US, we're still better off than most of the rest of the world. declaring anything that goes against the current orthod
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Keep telling yourself that. It helps you not notice the loss of your freedoms...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cautionary tales are great. But aside from absolutely cliché progressive midwittery, which "native american" tribe are you referring to specifically? because more than likely they "stole" land from someone else, who in turn "stole" land from whoever happened to be there prior (and who probably set out to settle new lands after their land was 'stolen')
That said, how much of a reduction in your quality of life are you willing to tolerate before you'd finally admit that maybe your nutty progressive
Re: (Score:2)
But no, what's more important is sticking it to the democrats, so they oppose it.
If anyone claims there is a problem and then opposes everything that may help that problems go away, they are just full of shit and are grandstanding, and their opinions are therefore worthless. As they saying goes "put up, or shut up"
Re: (Score:2)
So you didn't actually read the terms of said "cormpromise".
I mean when the proposed 'solution' is (and I'm being quite literal here):
>we'll shut down the border if average daily ILLEGAL crossings exceed 4,000 in rolling 1 week period (emphasis on the word illegal. does that mean something different to you progressive dipshits?)
So yeah, that 'solution' is complete horse crap, and no sane person should support it. And yes, you can fuck right off too.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say any solution was perfect, but the current one Republicans are wanting is NO SOLUTION, they want to stick it to Biden more than they want the problems solved
And if life was actually precious then the idea of anyone getting caught in razor wire and drowning would be abhorrent. But yet again, americans love of violence shines t
Re: (Score:2)
If this was actually a REAL problem, then republicans would be voting for any legislation they could to stop the problem.
First off, no they wouldn't since the Republicans want the cheap labor for their corporate buddies in big-ag, hotels, and meat processing. Neither side wants to stop illegal immigration because they both have internal reasons for wanting it. Voters for the blues, workers for the reds.
There is a cheap and easy way to not only stop illegal immigration, but also send back a big portion of current immigrants. All either party would need to do is enforce e-verify and make a couple examples out of those curren
Re: (Score:2)
But if we are after frauds, then Trump will goo to Jail, as will Santos, Musk, and a whole pile of others.
And you aint seen nothing yet, climate change is going to force hundreds of millions all over the world to move....illegally. Unless you advocate for mass murder/genocide then a better solution will have to be found.
Re: (Score:2)
YOU claim the right to invade based on some nebulous justification, and then deny that same justification to others.
How very "Its fine for me, but not for thee" of you.
Re: (Score:2)
So you farm it out to corporations, which are allowed to fire you for your speech putting you on the street, with those corporations being threatened by the government to silence you as often as not. Then there are those secret courts that can tell you to shut up and you're going to prison if you mention those secret courts and their security letters.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I guess that's why Freedom House rates all of those countries you mentioned as freer than the United States. Here is the source [freedomhouse.org].
The UK has some issues at the moment due to an outgoing conservative government who's pulling out all the stops to make themselves unelectable (and trying to delay the next general election as long as they cant... 17 Dec can't come soon enough... Mr Soon-out). Over-reaching laws are usually sorted out by the upper house or courts long before they become laws in the UK.
I fully expect that this thing will be forgotten about within a week or so by everyone as the next foot is placed in the Tory mouth in thi
How could this be enforced? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Linux kernel or some other open-source project introduces new security features, how exactly could the UK government do anything about this? Short of blocking all access to non-UK git repos, this seems impossible.
And the zeroth rule of lawmaking is: Don't make a law you can't enforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Fines. Big fines.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would they fine? Linux developers and companies who are outside of the UK? Ignore that. End-users within the UK? Not a chance; there'd be riots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That is the way to do it, and UK voters should take note.
Re: (Score:2)
China does it
Indeed. Since they already have a whole separate snoop certified infrastructure for China, just add the UK to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. China just tries to make things a bit harder.
Re: (Score:2)
They may be stupid enough to do this for FOSS. They will fail. But Apple is a big target if they keep selling stuff in the UK. Given how drastic and completely unacceptable this requirement is, I expect Apple will give up on the UK market entirely. And the decline of the UK will continue.
Re: How could this be enforced? (Score:2)
Historically, it was usually the US that put up restrictions for software crossing their borders. Remember when SSH had export restrictions for "weapons grade encryption"? They had more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
I remember different openssh repositories for US and non-US users.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK government has been a shit-show for over a decade (I live here.)
Part of me wants them to force WhatsApp or similar to break encryption for them / backdoor it somehow. Then we can count down until the method escapes into the wild and a big drop of all the cunts' (Tories mostly) messages gets dropped out there for the world to see.
The worst part of the legislation is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part of the legislation is that if the UK government uses a veto, it is a secret veto! How can a government be accountable to the people with secret veto powers? We can't even challenge a veto of our on privacy interests.
On the flip side, if it is secret, Apple can just ignore the ruling that they don't like. After all, they wouldn't even be thinking about passing a law that requires things to be done in secret unless they know that the public would throw a fit. And if the UK government punishes Apple for ignoring one of their rulings, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore, and they would have to justify their actions and lose elections over it.
Seriously, though, I think the right answer is for Apple to simply say flat out
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, though, I think the right answer is for Apple to simply say flat out that if this law passes, they will stop selling products in UK, and let the politicians decide whether continuing to act like authoritarian nutters is worth the risk of mass uprising. That's really the only way UK's government will ever get back to being remotely reasonable.
Apple has already threatened to pull FaceTime and iMessage over this, which is a more measured response than a full withdrawal.
New police state on the horizon (Score:2)
Just enter "Britain becoming a police state" into your favourite search engine. You'll find lots of gems like these:
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/... [churchtimes.co.uk]
https://www.politics.co.uk/vid... [politics.co.uk]
When a King's Police Medal-winning high-profile chief constable says that Britain risks becoming a police state, (first link) it's pretty hard to dismiss the idea.
When your country's leaders have passed a bill which "increases the maximum sentence from 3 months to 10 years for criminal dam
Under the proposed amendments to existing laws (Score:2)
Which laws?
The UK Brexited the EU, so they have no pull there. Where else can they impose their will on global anything? They try telling the USA how to do business and we'll just throw more of their tea in the harbor.
This is way too much power... (Score:2)
I expect Apple is trying to salvage its UK business by getting this removed. If they accept, many other countries would do the same, so obviously they cannot, under any circumstances, go along with this. But keeping the UK market is nice too, so they try to do that.
My take is that the UK administration has basically lost all contact to reality, because otherwise they would have to realize how massively and repeatedly they are screwing up. Time to kick them where it hurst.
What am I missing? (Score:3)
Tribalism (Score:2)
Until we don't, I mean.
There's a word for that: Tribalism.
The US likes to name itself world police and doesn't want anyone pissing on its parade. Worse, Britain could spy on banks and plane manufacturing companies like the USA did: The US doesn't want other countries imitating their dishonesty.
EU and UK are getting scary (Score:2)
I find it extremely disconcerting how increasingly aggressive the UK and also EU are pushing for significant invasions of privacy and breaking open encryption. And it is always done very shady and secretive and using all sorts of almost psy-ops gaslighting claiming to protect against csam, wont you think of the children???
Oppressive regimes like Chyna would love to have half of what EU/UK are pushing for.