Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
Customers' photos and documents stored online will no longer be protected by end to end encryption.
You're viewing a single thread.
Controversial opinion: maybe it's a good thing to allow law enforcement to access communications when necessary (e.g. with a court warrant)
Do we want serious criminals like terrorists and paedophiles to be able to plan their crimes with impunity?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm assuming you don't know that likening anyone who doesn't want to have all of their personal information viewed to terrorists and paedophiles is the classic "what do you have to hide?" authoritarian argument to spy on everyone all the time.
- There have already been plenty of cases of data collected without a warrant just because they could.
- Do you still want that data to be collected and used to prosecute you if whichever political party you don't like get in and make something you like doing illegal?
- It is impossible to make a backdoor that only goodies can use. The actual terrorists and paedophiles will use a non-backdoored system, meanwhile every criminal organisation and rival nation state will eventually find out how to use the backdoor and get everyone's information.
The question is do you want serious cyber criminals, and whatever authoritarian government shows up at some point and starts tearing up the already increasingly authoritarian UK rule book (hi America) to have access to all communications? Should they have access to journalist's sources, and other activists' communications? Should cyber criminals have access to all financial data?
You don't get one without the other. Encryption either works or it doesn't. And you can certainly assume that dedicated nation state actors (who will and do work with people that do not want a liberal open society in countries across the world including the UK) will quickly develop the capability to circumvent any exploitable encryption.
In this case the increasingly authoritarian/data-totalitarian UK government and secret services has been trying to do it in secret. They want their eyes on everything at all times and damn the consequences for an open society. They sure are doing their bit to end the 20th century idea of a free, open, tolerant society I grew up being told existed.
Then again, I watched some sort of parliamentary enquiry more than a decade ago where somebody from gchq nonchalantly admitted they abuse UK citizen's human right of privacy as a matter of course and everybody in the room just shrugged. It caused no ripple at all in the press. No doubt the likes of gchq face all sorts of threats we the public are not aware of, but they appear to operate with no checks and balances whatsoever, and they are playing right into the hands of extremists who want to see the end of an open society in order that their extreme views become more acceptable.
It must be said that personal privacy is a cornerstone of a civilised society. You either have that or you don't. For many people, particularly those that pay attention to this stuff, we have already gone too far. There is a lot an individual can do to mitigate the intrusion of US tech corporations, but destroying encryption, in a world where so much can only be done online, affects everybody regardless of personal choices they have made. To try and do it in secret is even worse.
I don't want end-to-end encryption entirely outlawed. But for the biggest platforms from massive corporations, maybe those corporations could keep their encryption keys stored with high security somewhere, so they can decrypt particular messages if a court warrant is issued.
People who are uneasy about that could go to a more privacy-focused platform like Signal. Some criminals would do that too, but at least something would be done to catch criminals on the popular platforms.
I understand where you are coming from, but the encryption is not secure if somebody else holds your password.
Then there is the other issue of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, or Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, or some other entity the likes of Russia, and now America promote, and bang goes journalist's and activists' anonymity. It would be great to have it both ways, but it isn't possible.
If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against both government overreach/abuse and third-party intruders tend to outweigh the benefits of government surveillance through encryption backdoors.
Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it's the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.
I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument... but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.
Word would just get out that you should only use the secure services to communicate anything sensitive. We already have plenty of messaging services that are insecure, but enough people are preferring to use a secure option that it's worrying the UK Government.