• paffdragon 20 minutes ago
    Sorry, I'm not an Apple user, so I'm not 100% sure if this is about forcing Apple to avoid/break E2E encryption (E2E in the true sense like Proton Mail) in the UK or to give them the keys they already can obtain themselves?
  • chatmasta 5 hours ago
    What is a “UK user?” Someone with their App Store region set to the UK? (Meaning they have a UK payment method.)

    What about US citizens living in the UK? Would they have standing to sue Apple in a US court for breach of contract?

    I’m also not clear on how Advanced Data Protection could be turned off without affirmative user consent – by definition, won’t the user need to provide their secret key to decrypt their existing data? Or will the iPhone have a multi-hour update where it decrypts its entire iCloud archive on the client-side, and then reuploads it without encryption?

    [-]
    • Infernal 4 hours ago
      > Or will the iPhone have a multi-hour update where it decrypts its entire iCloud archive on the client-side, and then reuploads it without encryption?

      More likely that the phone just sends the keys to Apple in that case

      [-]
      • chatmasta 3 hours ago
        The phone doesn’t have (all of) the keys. That’s the point. I had to save a passphrase somewhere out of band.
    • GeekyBear 3 hours ago
      They notified users that they would lose access to their encrypted data in the future.

      The user can choose to download, delete from the server, and upload it again unencrypted, if they want.

      [-]
      • chatmasta 3 hours ago
        When did this notification happen and by which channel?
        [-]
        • GeekyBear 3 hours ago
          It was discussed in the media when Apple announced that UK users could no longer enable ADP if they had not done so already.

          > For users in the UK who have already enabled Advanced Data Protection, Apple will soon provide additional guidance. Apple cannot disable ADP automatically for these users. Instead, UK users will be given a period of time to disable the feature themselves to keep using their iCloud account.

          https://support.apple.com/en-gb/122234

          [-]
          • chatmasta 2 hours ago
            Right, I saw that. That’s not as explicit as what you claimed, though:

            > They notified users that they would lose access to their encrypted data in the future

            There is an implicit threat of data loss here but it’s far from clear.

    • basisword 4 hours ago
      >> What about US citizens living in the UK?

      Why wouldn’t they be subject to UK laws like any other person living in the UK?

      >> I’m also not clear on how Advanced Data Protection could be turned off without affirmative user consent

      If I remember right from when this was initially discussed there isn’t any way to do it without incurring data loss (because the users device has a key Apple can’t access). As someone using ADP the risk of this led me to manually disable it at the time.

      [-]
      • chatmasta 2 hours ago
        > Why wouldn’t they [US Citizens] be subject to UK laws like any other person living in the UK?

        Yes, anyone in the UK is subject to UK law. But there is no UK law criminalizing the choice of a UK resident to enable Advanced Data Protection (or, if it’s already enabled, to not disable it).

        They’re threatening Apple, not its users. Sure, Apple is subject to UK law (although it’s debatable if they’re even violating it). But they’re not immune to lawsuits in the US just because another country told them to violate their implicit contract with users.

        > As someone using ADP the risk of this led me to manually disable it at the time.

        That’s precisely the opposite of what you should have done. I was (and am still) using ADP in the UK. If I disabled it then I would no longer have the option to enable it. Nothing is forcing me to disable it – where is the threat of data loss? It’s only a risk if I don’t disable it, which I can do at any time in the future. You surrendered your only form of leverage for no reason and made yourself less safe in the process.

        [-]
        • lenkite 48 minutes ago
          From https://support.apple.com/en-gb/122234

          > UK users will be given a period of time to disable the feature themselves to keep using their iCloud account.

          Doesn't this mean that you will be unable to use your iCloud account in the future if you have ADP enabled ?

          [-]
          • chatmasta 39 minutes ago
            Maybe, but any reasonable person would expect some clear, explicit notice of when that would happen. Until they “give me that period of time,” I have no reason to disable the safety feature that I won’t be able to re-enable…

            And disabling your iCloud Account doesn’t mean that they would stop you from disabling ADP. It would probably be a red icon in settings that says “iCloud sync is paused, disable Advanced Data Protection to resume.”

            (But I’m not sure I’m even subject to this, which is why I asked my original question… what’s a “UK user?” I have the US App Store active right now. I can switch to the UK store but that cancels all subscriptions, presumably including Apple Care+, which I could not re-purchase without buying a new device.)

  • aucisson_masque 7 hours ago
    Aren't the English already forced to give cops their phone passwords and face jail time if they refuse to?

    Giving away Apple's encrypted cloud is just another small step into making 1984 a reality.

    In France, they tried to make a law to force signals, WhatsApp, and other encrypted messaging to implement backdoors so that they could catch drug dealers.

    Thankfully, it wasn't voted for, but truthfully, the average people didn't give a shit. I wish there was a way to make people learn how important privacy is to freedom and, therefore, to democracy.

    I blame the education system that teaches almost nothing relevant. We even had 'citizen lessons', but it was about learning how the political institution works. We never spoke about what is freedom, what it involves, how easy it is to lose it, how hard it is to gain it.

    [-]
    • 1vuio0pswjnm7 4 hours ago
      "Giving away Apple's encrypted cloud is just another small step toward making 1984 a reality."

      The big step was "Apple's cloud", i.e., people storing their data on someone else's computer^1 where the someone else is also collecting the data of millions of other people, too

      1. Some HN commenters and others define "the cloud" as "someone else's computer"

      [-]
      • Terretta 3 hours ago
        There are various "threat models", one of them is people losing their life's digital cupboard. For that, Apple provided Time Machine, then provided the equivalent of a digital safety deposit box in somebody else's room, like a bank fault. People can break, lose, or have their phone stolen; then open a new one from the box and have their digital cupboard back.

        Well before Apple, the recommendation was to store a backup offsite – almost nobody did. Now many do.

        In response to a warrant, a bank opens that box. In response to a warrant, clouds open that box. That part of the threat model isn't new.

        Another threat is forgetting the key to your safety deposit box. Most people would be angry if Apple, or their bank, wouldn't let them back in the box. Apple used to be able to help.

        Now, unlike the bank, they offer a mode where only you have the key.

        It's hard to say this is a step to 1984, given that up to this point, the safety deposit box threat models were similar, just Apple's digital vault was much more likely to be have the user's latest valuables when the user needed them recovered, and when they diverge it is in user privacy favor.

    • pbalau 6 hours ago
      [flagged]
      [-]
      • varispeed 6 hours ago
        Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

        This section grants police and other public authorities the power to issue a formal written notice (a "Section 49 notice") demanding that a person disclose the password, PIN, or encryption key to a protected device or data.

        A notice cannot be issued lightly. It requires approval from a judge and can only be used when it is deemed necessary and proportionate for purposes such as:

        In the interests of national security.

        For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.

        In the interests of the economic well-being of the UK.

        Refusing to comply with a lawfully issued Section 49 notice is a criminal offence under Section 53 of RIPA

        Standard cases: Up to two years' imprisonment.

        Cases involving national security or child indecency: The maximum penalty is increased to five years' imprisonment.

        [-]
        • NoImmatureAdHom 5 hours ago
          "For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime."

          LOL

          "For whatever the fuck we want", more like.

  • ktallett 8 hours ago
    As someone who lives in the UK, I hope Apple tell the government where to shove their requests, and that they don't bow down like they did in China. I would prefer a company withdraws from the UK than listens to these over reaching requests of a power hungry government.
    [-]
    • wotmatetherow 6 hours ago
      If you're hoping for multi-trillion dollar multinationals to fight political battles on your behalf, you're playing the wrong game.

      Either your country is a democracy where people get to choose what their government does (aka, a majority of people want these invasive policies), or it's illegitimate and should be treated as such.

      [-]
      • GeekyBear 4 hours ago
        > Either your country is a democracy where people get to choose what their government does (aka, a majority of people want these invasive policies), or it's illegitimate and should be treated as such.

        The US government has previously tried to force Apple to insert a backdoor into its iPhones.

        Apple did fight it in court.

        https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_...

        [-]
        • schrodinger 3 hours ago
          I didn't read the quoted message as saying that Apple won't fight, but that if you need to rely on Apple to fight (especially when you live outside Apple's home country), you've got serious problems.
          [-]
          • thewebguyd 2 hours ago
            Agreed. This is the people’s fight with their government, it’s not Apples fight.

            The answer is don’t store your data on iCloud. Self host everywhere you can, and protest. Don’t wait for or rely on a corporation to fight your battles against your government for you.

      • jbjbjbjb 5 hours ago
        Sadly, the majority of the people want these policies because they’ve been brainwashed or they’re too apathetic to care. The major political parties want it too. Democracy is flawed.
      • zarzavat 6 hours ago
        The UK isn't a democracy anymore. There are now five parties in England trying to co-exist in an electoral system designed for two. Our democracy is in the process of collapsing under its own weight.
    • blitzar 7 hours ago
      CEOs wont go to jail for their customers, especially when there are billions of customers.

      There are only two defences, the law - which is on the governments side or not giving your data to people who fuel their yacht and their jet with customer data.

    • jeroenhd 7 hours ago
      > I hope Apple tell the government where to shove their requests

      They complied with the previous request, and stopped because the US government pressured the UK government because they didn't want US nationals to also fall victim to reduced security.

      I'd love to see Apple stand up this time, but given their history I don't think it'll happen beyond a miffed comment on a blog somewhere.

      [-]
      • GeekyBear 4 hours ago
        > They complied with the previous request

        Nope.

        They refused to comply, and then publicly announced that they would strip encryption features from UK users before they would add an encryption backdoor.

        A threat they later made good on.

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43128253

      • jonplackett 7 hours ago
        If they do it once though, they’ll have to do it everywhere that asks. I hope they can see they’re standing at the top of a very slippery slope.

        I also hope our idiotic government starts to go deal with the country’s _actual_ problems sometime soon instead of coming up with pointless / dangerous bs ideas like this + digital ID

      • Onavo 6 hours ago
        There's an easy way out of it but most HN users here would hate it. Apple can just donate to Trump and the problem with the British would go away overnight. Downing Street and GCHQ combined cannot match the coffers of Apple and the greenback is the only currency of power that the whitehouse acknowledges.

        At the end of the day, the emperor is happy to yank on the leash of the special relationship so long you pay him off.

    • bigyabai 8 hours ago
      > I would prefer a company withdraws from the UK than listens to these over reaching requests of a power hungry government.

      That doesn't sound super profitable. Apple made money by the truckload bending over to accommodate surveillance in China.

      [-]
      • GeekyBear 4 hours ago
        Sort of like Google designing a censorship friendly search engine for the Chinese market to try to get back into China's good graces?

        > The Dragonfly search engine was reportedly designed to link users' phone numbers to their search queries and censor websites such as Wikipedia and those that publish information about freedom of speech, human rights, democracy, religion, and other issues considered sensitive by the Chinese government. It is not designed to notify searchers when the information they want has been censored.

        https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)

        [-]
        • bigyabai 2 hours ago
          Yes, exactly like that. If the CCP demands a morally base monopolist like Google do that for zero tangible gain, they must be holding Apple over a barrel with backdoors for market access. After all, Apple's competitors in China all acquiesce to Chinese control. Tim's really gotta give the ring lip service if he wants to keep his reputation for supply chain magic.

          AOSP at least lets users disable a nosy baseband firmware and uninstall Play Services spyware. Apple customers are fish in a barrel if your rogue government orders an OTA update that compromises your security. Would be pretty nightmarish if you lived in a country like the United States where both companies have already been coerced into shipping backdoors: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

      • Normal_gaussian 8 hours ago
        Whilst this is true; its also worth considering:

        If Apple did not stay in the Chinese market they will very quickly have a competitor appear in that market that will then threaten other markets. Arguably, there are already Apple competitors in it and Apple's position keeps them from occupying a space that quickly leads to competing with Apple globally.

        China is generally viewed as a unique market and capitulating to the Chinese government may lead to capitulation to the US, but not to any other nation as they are incomparable.

        The UK market will neither create an Apple competitor nor will it provide enough scope to allow existing competitors to meaningfully grow.

        Capitulating to the UK government will lead to many other countries requiring similar capitulations.

        [-]
        • anonymousiam 7 hours ago
          So from the selfish Apple perspective, it made perfect sense and Apple did the right thing (for them). From a rights/freedom perspective (for their users), they did the wrong thing, but that's not a battle that they they alone can win.

          Out of the 197 countries in the world, how many have governments that respect the privacy rights of their citizens enough to prevent mass surveillance of them? Answer: Zero. Bring on the arguments about the various laws that prevent this, and I'll point you to the "national security and law enforcement exceptions" they they all have, sometimes in the form of "classified" contracts or court orders, and sometimes in the form of "executive orders" or other similar instruments. There are also agreements between the intelligence services of allied countries that facilitate information sharing, so each counterpart can do the collection and analysis of the partner nation and share the results, without technically violating any of their laws.

    • beeflet 8 hours ago
      Keep hoping
  • pessimizer 6 hours ago
    The most important thing about this, and other similar overreach, is that there is no democratic constituency for this. It's a waste of time, almost a distraction, picking at the rationality of these constant attacks. The important thing is to find out exactly who they are doing it for.

    Who asked for it? Let them speak up, and explain why they are so special that governments should and do obey them. Starmer doesn't personally care about any of this (or anything.) No Labour MP cares about any of this. Who is convincing them to override democracy to create tools that make it easier to override democracy? Force them to drop the pretense that they have come up with this themselves, and that they personally believe that it is important.

    Start by finding out who the hands were who wrote the actual text. The MPs themselves, and the network of important nephews and nieces that work on their respective staffs are too stupid to write this stuff. Who are the minds that are crafting law for supposed democracies from whole cloth?

    [-]
    • commandersaki 7 minutes ago
      Intelligence agencies, and they have a legitimate edict to catch paedos or stop terrorists. Through Investigatory Powers regulation they have been granted powers to make such demands.

      Australia has close legislation with the Technical Assistance and Access bills that can be used by Law Enforcement / Australian Intelligence Community, but it explicitly doesn't allow the deliberate weakening of security or backdoors, unless such a weakness is inherent in the technology.

    • skippyboxedhero 5 hours ago
      Security services. You have to be absolutely blind at this point not to realise this. The "media campaigns" are identical to the ones used for the past few decades, in print media these were run by tabloids and they have moved on, with less success, online (in the 90s, the coverage of the tabloid campaigns was wall-to-wall). OSA was textbook: unrelated tragic event, young child, grieving parents, mentioning this campaign in relation to the OSA repeatedly despite them being unrelated, same thing every time.

      The really odd thing is that you have people who will claim that the media is run by right-wing billionaires. On certain topics, you will see every story come from civil servants, the government is just too big (the easiest way to tell is the sources, articles run by civil servants will almost never have actual sources and will usually not be constructed in a logical way, for example a new one is to repeatedly refer to Russia). But because so many people are making so much money from the government, this kind of thing is ignored (and I will also say, the observation that this isn't the actual government just civil servants is important...some newspapers are now notorious for having civil servants contacts who brief journalists against their own ministers, Home Office is the most well-known but it has happened in almost every area...there is nothing that elected officials can do).

      [-]
      • pessimizer 56 minutes ago
        > Security services.

        "Security services" isn't a power center, they are a tool used by power centers. We are not being attacked by nameless institutions, we are being attacked by people who have names.

        I have absolutely no idea what theory of power people are operating under who believe that "civil servants" are trying to take over the world. Even if they're all secret Satanists working for the devil to impose evil upon the planet, let the devil introduce himself.

        > The really odd thing is that you have people who will claim that the media is run by right-wing billionaires.

        It is so odd to think that power is wielded by the powerful. No, it's actually powerless administrators on 80K/year who force heads of state to make bizarre power grabs. And I have no idea why right-wing billionaires get pointed out as absurd, and "left-wing" billionaires get off scot-free by going completely unmentioned. Unless you think that it's a contradiction for a left-winger to be a billionaire, then that's fair enough. A lot of them get called left-wing because they believe in global warming and vaccination or something (I don't remember Marx or the Jacobins writing about that, or trans people, or illegal immigrants.)

        > But because so many people are making so much money from the government

        That's the billionaires. You realize that there are people making money, and you realize that they're the ones that must be driving things, but you don't identify them and indemnify the most powerful people on the planet. I simply can't see this as a thought process at all. I have no idea how people are convinced to focus all of their anger on people with no power who they don't know.

    • afh1 6 hours ago
      Government is overreaching, it must be someone else's fault!
      [-]
      • pessimizer 53 minutes ago
        Government is not a guy, it's run by guys. They've got you blaming an abstraction.
    • miroljub 6 hours ago
      [flagged]
  • bigyabai 9 hours ago
    If your OEM can be coerced into pushing a backdoor in an OTA update, maybe our software habits are to blame.

    We'll always be powerless to stop top-down attacks like this until we demand real audits and accountability in the devices we own. Shaming the UK only kicks the can down the road and further highlights the danger of trusting a black box to remain secure.

    [-]
    • thewebguyd 8 hours ago
      That’s the trick. We don’t own the devices. We merely license their use. No root, no ownership.

      People have been warning of this outcome for years and years. Stallman was right and all that. We got laughed out of the room and called paranoid weirdos.

      Ever since smartphones were a thing it’s been obvious that this is where we were heading.

    • beeflet 8 hours ago
      When a company has the ability to push OTA updates to a device locked down with trusted computing, it's not even a backdoor at that point, it's a frontdoor.

      I agree political action here is totally fruitless. The UK government and Apple could already be cooperating and you would have no way of telling the difference.

      [-]
      • JoshTriplett 8 hours ago
        > When a company has the ability to push OTA updates to a device locked down with trusted computing, it's not even a backdoor at that point, it's a frontdoor.

        Ideally, everything that runs outside of an app sandbox would be 100% Open Source. Anything short of that is not sufficient to give people full confidence against a backdoor. (Even that also relies on people paying attention, but it at least gives the possibility that people outside of a company whistleblower could catch and flag a backdoor.)

        [-]
        • zzo38computer 8 hours ago
          I think so too. It should include full free open source specifications of hardware, as well as fully FOSS for all software that is not inside of the sandbox system, and probably also FOSS for most of the stuff that is using the sandbox, too. Other things should also be done rather than this way alone, but this will be a very important part of it.
        • Xelbair 7 hours ago
          I'll go even further and bring up Trusting Trust - whole chain needs to be open source and verifiable.

          and you need to be able to compile each and every part of it.

        • mulmen 7 hours ago
          Open source alone isn’t enough. You also need a way to build and deploy the code yourself.
          [-]
          • JoshTriplett 7 hours ago
            Agreed. And demonstrated reproducibility showing that the result is identical.
      • hunter2_ 8 hours ago
        > you would have no way of telling the difference

        If only specific individuals are targeted, I agree. But if it's pushed to all users, wouldn't we expect a researcher to notice? Maybe not immediately, so damage will be done in the meantime, but sooner than later.

        [-]
        • michaelt 8 hours ago
          > But if it's pushed to all users, wouldn't we expect a researcher to notice?

          Think of the security a games console has - every download arrives encrypted, all storage encrypted, RAM encrypted, and security hardware in the CPU that makes sure everything is signed by the corporation before decrypting anything. To prevent cheating and piracy.

          Modern smartphones are the same way.

          We can't expect independent researchers to notice a backdoor when they can't access the code or the network traffic.

        • SV_BubbleTime 8 hours ago
          How long was HeartBleed exploitable? How many people looked at that code? Now, take the source away and make the exploit intentional.
  • amelius 5 hours ago
    If they succeed, we'll probably never know.
  • pfexec 4 hours ago
    Everyone is so preoccupied with losing their minds every time Trump trolls the media with some new nonsense on the socials that they're ignoring the completely insane things going on in the UK right now. Like arresting people for using naughty language online.

    20 years ago this would have been daily outrage on Slashdot's YRO section but I get the feeling no one cares enough anymore.

  • wonderwonder 3 hours ago
    The UK has gone full thought control. They have also gone full immigration.

    Going to be a very different place in 10 years.

  • pipes 8 hours ago
    The article states that apple removed the feature in the UK. So what are the UK government demanding access to?
    [-]
    • leakycap 8 hours ago
      Advanced Data Protection, where Apple does not keep a copy of your encryption keys (essentially), was removed in the UK.

      The UK seems to now want Apple to decrypt/provide access to encrypted iPhone backups. This is where your device backs itself up in a restorable format to the cloud, including passwords and private data. Since Apple has a way to decrypt non-ADP iCloud data, UK wants it.

      [-]
      • commandersaki 2 minutes ago
        Just want to elaborate on this:

        If you do not have ADP enabled (which is the case in the UK as of now), device (iPhone) backups are not end to end encrypted and are stored on Apple's systems unencrypted (or encrypted with a key that Apple knows).

        If you have ADP enabled then device backups are end to end encrypted; only you have the keys and therefore only you can decrypt the backup.

      • blitzar 7 hours ago
        Frankly if Apple (or any provider for that matter) hold the encryption key then it isn't encrypted.
        [-]
        • leakycap 6 hours ago
          Frankly most of the services you use work exactly like this, so you must think very few things are encrypted
        • varispeed 6 hours ago
          It's encrapped.
          [-]
    • throawy 8 hours ago
      It's not removed in the UK for users who enabled it before the ban. There may be existing users of it that the UK gov are interested in.
  • basisword 4 hours ago
    The reason this is a story again is because the reporting the last time was piss poor. The UK only agreed to drop the request for access to data for all users regardless of their nationality after pressure for the USG. They never said they were going to back down from the request for UK user data.
  • sneak 8 hours ago
    They don’t need to. All of the photos and iMessages are stored in iCloud without e2ee (nobody has ADP turned on, and it’s blocked in the UK anyway) and Apple provides the data to the Five Eyes without a warrant.

    This is already the status quo in the US. The fact that ADP is offered as an option is irrelevant.

    [-]
    • leakycap 8 hours ago
      > nobody has ADP turned on

      This isn't the type of question I normally ask people, so it sounds like you've made a bad guess here and are treating your own assumption as fact. You are incorrect; I have ADP turned on.

      > Apple provides the data to the Five Eyes without a warrant.

      Source? Or are you assuming here, too?

      > The fact that ADP is offered as an option is irrelevant.

      Only if you think no one uses it.

      [-]
      • andrewmcwatters 6 hours ago
        Don’t be glib. Of all Apple device users, those who have ADP enabled are almost certainly a rounding error.
        [-]
        • leakycap 5 hours ago
          > Don't be glib

          followed by

          > almost certainly

          with zero links. Sure, I'll take your word for it.

          [-]
          • andrewmcwatters 4 hours ago
            Do you really think that most users enable such a feature? Do you think everyone compiles their own Linux kernel, and port forwards for their own Minecraft server, too?

            No, it’s a feature tucked away in Settings where small, small percentages of users are going to use it.

            It’s great that it exists, but let’s listen to life experience. You don’t need to retort “Source! Source!” for things like this. Be our guest, ask everyone in your life and keep a tally.

            [-]
            • schrodinger 3 hours ago
              I've got it on. I don't take any other extensive means to protect my security but this was very easy and felt worth it given the honeypot of info living in my phone.

              There may, in fact, be dozens of us.

    • zer00eyz 8 hours ago
      https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651#:~:text=Advanced%20Da...

      Lots of things to fault apple about. This likely is not one of them.

      [-]
      • bigyabai 8 hours ago
        > likely

        These load-bearing assumptions are part of Apple's issue.

        Anyone can write a whitepaper, keeping a transparent SBOM is a different level of commitment.

    • throawy 8 hours ago
      This must be a response to the headline, without reading the article. It's specifically users' ADP content that the UK gov wants to be able to access.
      [-]
      • leakycap 8 hours ago
        It's encrypted iCloud backups, not ADP.

        ADP hasn't been available in the UK for some time now.

        [-]
        • throawy 8 hours ago
          It's ADP. That's why Apple didn't reinstate ADP in the UK. The UK wants a backdoor for UK users of ADP.

          And there are plenty of UK users of ADP - those who got in before it was banned still have it.

          From the article:

          > After the U.K. government first issued the TCN in January, Apple was forced to either create a backdoor or block its Advanced Data Protection feature

          > the US claimed the U.K. withdrew the demand, but Apple did not re-enable Advanced Data Protection

          > The new order provides insight into why: the U.K. was just rewriting it to only apply to British users

          [-]
          • leakycap 7 hours ago
            perhaps you overlooked the literal first line?

            > The Financial Times reports that the U.K. is once again demanding that Apple create a backdoor into its encrypted backup services.

            If you read further, or click the FT link, you'll see the UK is now demanding access to encrypted iPhone backups.

            ADP is not relevant beyond the history; the UK is not doing anything with ADP but I understand the confusion if you don't know that "iPhone iCloud backup" is a separate service for iPhones.

  • lucasRW 7 hours ago
    What, so JD Vance was right ?!
  • bradley13 8 hours ago
    [flagged]
    [-]
    • supermatt 7 hours ago
      You mean like FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc in USA?

      And let’s not forget the proposed 2025 VÜPF amendments in Switzerland (that’s where you are from,right?): user identification, mandatory metadata retention, removal of e2ee, etc for any service with over 5k users. They make even the UK proposals sound tame!

      But sure, bash the EU some more over a proposal that hasn’t been passed..

    • mulmen 8 hours ago
      > Guillotines were made for this purpose.

      So were voting booths. Calls to violence are unacceptable.

      [-]
      • AnonymousPlanet 7 hours ago
        Karl Popper made the point of democracy being the only form of government that provides getting rid of those in power without bloodshed and violence.

        If voting will not remove them, what will?

        [-]
        • mulmen 7 hours ago
          Voting will remove them, that’s the point.
          [-]
          • keanb 7 hours ago
            If voting could remove them it wouldn't be allowed.
            [-]
            • wizzwizz4 6 hours ago
              This is a pithy description of a post-democratic political system. Its pithiness does not make it an accurate description of any given political system.
      • tremon 7 hours ago
        Please don't shoot the canary in the coalmine. Quoth JFK, in 1962:

        > Those who make peaceful transition impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.

      • dseGH3FETWJJy 7 hours ago
        No, they are sometimes necessary.
      • lucasRW 7 hours ago
        People, at least in France, but another country if as well iirc, rejected the EU constitution in 2005. It is in place, though.
      • wakawaka28 7 hours ago
        The only reason you have voting booths is because someone in the past threatened someone else and made them agree to a democratic process. These threats to privacy are a threat to free speech and therefore a credible threat to democracy and personal liberty. By implementing these policies, politicians are guaranteeing violence. By all means try to change things peacefully, but in my opinion the current crop of politicians (especially outside the US) don't care so much what you think about their awful policies.
      • jiggawatts 7 hours ago
        When voting is made ineffective by design, such as via gerrymandering, what other recourse do you propose remains for citizens?

        Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians?

        Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals?

        What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?

        [-]
        • mulmen 7 hours ago
          What a sad and hopeless take. Gerrymandering is as fixable as any other problem. What makes you believe violent revolution will create a better outcome than what the last violent revolution created?

          > What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?

          Vote for someone better. Get involved in the political process. Stop acting defeated.

          [-]
          • jiggawatts 7 hours ago
            > Gerrymandering is as fixable as any other problem.

            Can you link some historical examples of gerrymandering being fixed, where there wasn’t a violent revolution or something similar “wiping the slate clean”?

            [-]
        • wakawaka28 7 hours ago
          >When voting is made ineffective by design, such as via gerrymandering, what other recourse do you propose remains for citizens?

          Gerrymandering is awful but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that only Republicans do it. Both parties do it. At least the Republicans aren't trying to import the entire third world to pad numbers and get a loyal multitude of welfare cases behind them.

          >Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians?

          You have the right to protest in the US, not impede and intimidate law enforcement and traffic, nor to loot and destroy buildings in the vicinity of your "protest."

          >Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals?

          How about the countless people censored on Twitter and YouTube, and the obvious political prosecutions of an ex president based on bullshit? I don't agree with censorship or two wrongs make a right, but these people are getting the abuse that they provoked.

          >What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?

          In the US, voting works. But there are evidently unelected officials in the US and around the world who control a surprising amount of policy. They work against the will of their constituents on many issues. Things are not so bad yet but I'm not sure they will never get so bad that violence would not be justified. The only reason we can vote at all is because a group of independent thinkers told a monarch to go to hell, and come get some if you don't like it. Words on paper don't guarantee your rights.

          [-]
          • jiggawatts 7 hours ago
            I never said Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I don’t even live in the United States.

            Your guilt is showing.

            > How about the countless people censored on Twitter and YouTube, and the obvious political prosecutions of an ex president based on bullshit?

            Is it bullshit?

            How are you so certain?

            Must all actions by politician be somehow “tainted” by partisan tactics without objective foundation?

            Here, let me pick a random example of blatant wrongdoing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump

            Explain how it would be “bullshit” to impeach Trump over that.

            Would that be “political prosecution” or long overdue justice?

            [-]
            • wakawaka28 6 hours ago
              >I don’t even live in the United States.

              Sorry to hear that.

              >Your guilt is showing.

              Gtfo with that. I just know that has been a Democrat talking point lately, because there was some locale with Republican gerrymandering.

              >Must all actions by politician be somehow “tainted” by partisan tactics without objective foundation?

              No, but these were tainted by partisan politics, and also very unconstitutional. Maybe you are ok with censorship but most Americans recognize it as incompatible with democracy.

              >Here, let me pick a random example of blatant wrongdoing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump

              That sucks but I don't think it's illegal. And that is NOT what they went after him for over a period of 8+ years. They manufactured hoaxes about fraud, rape, Russia collusion, and an insurrection and went after him and everyone he was associated with so bad that the dude could hardly find any lawyers to take the cases. All while saying he and his supporters are literal Nazis for specific very mainstream policy preferences like "let's not import the third world or destroy American jobs with excess immigrants" or "let's not fight wars all over the world as we are going bankrupt over here"... God forbid you wear a MAGA hat, or the crazed thugs will attack you. All of these things are ACTUAL political persecution. Trump is not perfect but he is not at all what he's been made out to be.

      • immibis 7 hours ago
        Violence is a law of nature and a law of human history. Voting was created as an alternative to violence - I think most of us have forgotten that. Voting allows us to achieve similar results as the former solution (killing powerful people who abuse their power), but without anyone actually having to die.

        It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. And if that happens, whoever starts first has the advantage of surprise.

        Game theory is the most powerful force on the planet, and it sucks.

        According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.

        [-]
        • schrodinger 2 hours ago
          > According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.

          Ironically, this is the only line that I see that goes against the forum's expectations for decorum. What do you think you would otherwise be punished for saying? (And to be honest, I don't think the last line adds _anything_ to the discussion.)

        • mulmen 3 hours ago
          > It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence.

          “If” is doing a lot of work in this unsubstantiated comment.

      • hagbard_c 7 hours ago
        Or, in box terms four boxes to be used in the defence of liberty in the given order, these being the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and finally the ammunition box.
      • pixxel 7 hours ago
        [dead]
  • holoduke 8 hours ago
    What is happening in the UK really?. I see numerous clips of the desperate state of many parts of various cities. It seems the country is in a steep decline. The once mighty UK sailing the world now became an island of elitists and many more poor low class folks. Sad reality
    [-]
    • Normal_gaussian 7 hours ago
      I'd be very curious to see the desperate state you are talking about.

      For physical infrastructure, there are certainly less well maintained areas and historical policies causing issues, but I'm not aware of any areas that are structurally/physically unsafe.

      There are 'rougher' areas, places where theft is more likely but very, very few areas that are genuinely unsafe to walk through. The only ones I'm really aware of are two very small areas in London (basically 2-3 buildings) and certain kinds of traveller camps.

      For pretty much everything else, it seems to be on par with other European nations - generally behind the Nordics of course.

      Share the videos - I'd love to understand where you are coming from.

    • basisword 4 hours ago
      Sounds like you spend too much time watching clips on the internet.
    • crimsoneer 8 hours ago
      Clips don't tell you anything. The UK is suffering in the same way as every other developed country outside of the US and China - low growth that isn't propped up by booming AI and demographic issues.
    • monero-xmr 8 hours ago
      I have been following this thread for a long time. The UK is poor, simply put, but it has taken a long time to realize it. But the chickens are coming home to roost now. The blame is primarily the rich and immigrants. The real problem is socialism and heavy taxes, plus a denigration of entrepreneurs and business owners. They will learn, once everything has gone to utter shit
      [-]
      • leakycap 7 hours ago
        > The UK is poor, simply put

        That's far too simply put

        The UK has incredible wealth, it is just more concentrated than ever in a few select pockets

        [-]
        • monero-xmr 7 hours ago
          Yes like I said you have the socialism take and your enemy is the rich. You will learn eventually
          [-]
          • argomo 6 hours ago
            Capitalism and socialism are both pretty effective at killing competition and rewiring the government & economy to seek extractive rents. Granted, it takes longer with capitalism.
    • encom 6 hours ago
      >What is happening in the UK really?

      Everyone knows it, but you're not allowed to say it, and you're definitely not allowed to say it in the UK or you will literally be arrested for speech.

      [-]
      • NoImmatureAdHom 5 hours ago
        viz.: they let in a bunch of low-quality people, and now they have to deal with it.