10 ms·
It creates a nasty precedent doesn't it? If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK
by TechnicalVault 2y ago
It creates a nasty precedent doesn't it? If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile? I can't see on what basis the government thinks they're going to get to be exceptional here?
- aunty_helen 2y agoWhy are you using Russia and China as examples of the bad guys here. They're not asking for global access to everyones data, the UK is. The UK are the bad guys.
- outside1234 2y agoHe is just trying to show how it would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.
- 1234letshaveatw 2y ago[flagged]
- cbsks 2y agoBecause the UK is “on our side”. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
- Paradigma11 2y agoI dont think that is actually true in those cases. Relations with China were pretty cosy till they did a 180 around the second Bush administration and started all that Wolf Warrior diplomacy, 9 dotted line stuff, Hongkong crackdowns....... Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it was absolutely impossible to ignore. Putin seems to think that he needs the west as an enemy to bolster his standing and power. Just remember after starting the full scale invasion he proudly declared "I hope I will now be heard" or something to that effect. In Russian mass media the imperial project has long been clear and accepted.
- cbsks 2y agoIt’s a reference to 1984 by George Orwell. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninet...
- Paradigma11 2y agoI know. I just dont think it fits particularly well with those cases.
- toast0 2y agoI was pretty sure there was a flipflop in the book too, though. Where the narrator reported now being at war with whomever, and that they had always been at war with that party.
- eru 2y agoYes, and the flip-flop happened within a few minutes.
- devmor 2y agoBut you just explained how it fits perfectly in your last comment. That’s literally the same thing that happens in the book.
- Paradigma11 2y agoSure, but the parent comment was aimed at the western side and not at the Russians. The West did everything it could to ignore and deny Russians growing hostility because it would have been inconvenient and maybe it would go away somehow.
- lazide 2y agoThat is pretty much ‘the plan’ since the 90’s. Delulu is the solulu.
- sepositus 2y agoWhy did you assume the context was "bad guys?" It's a well-known fact that there's a lot of geopolitical tension between Russia/China and Western Europe. The comment is raising the point that by setting this precedent they are opening the doors for their geopolitical rivals to publicly do the same (we already know it happens through private state-sponsored cyber gangs).
- koiueo 2y agoBecause russia is a bag guy? (Idk about China, but considering they support russia...) Have you been living under a rock?
- koiueo 2y agoI'll be explicit: russia is a terrorist state. Majority of russian population supports the unprovoked genocidal war it currently wages on Ukraine.
- SlavikCA 2y agoRussia is no more terrorist state, than USA is. That was USA scorched Vietnam. That was USA killing civilians in Iraq and Afganistan. That was USA overthrowing foreign goverments, including Ukrainian... And then it preached to Russia on what to do with neighboring states...
- koiueo 2y ago[flagged]
- int_19h 2y agoUSA did a lot of nasty things. But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate their population.
- zimpenfish 2y ago> But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate their population. True but the current lunatic POTUS is essentially threatening that to 2 territories (Canada, Greenland), making noises towards part of a 3rd (Panama), and explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing in a 4th (Gaza). I think the USA's "we're not as bad as Russia" sheen is rapidly disappearing (which makes sense when you consider the two lunatics at the top are essentially considered to be Putin lackeys.)
- reverendsteveii 2y agoI read it as using Russia and China as the other guys, rather than the bad guys. The idea is to eliminate any pre-existing feelings of trust and illustrate the fact that once your data is held by anyone in the global intelligence community you should think of it as being held by everyone in the global intelligence community.
- MobiusHorizons 2y agoWhatever you think of their politics, they are authoritarian in structure. There are fewer restrictions on what those governments can do with the information. I’m not saying anyone should trust the UK government here, but it’s easier to see the risks in a country that doesn’t have to be accountable to the people or the legal system.
- kabdib 2y agothis is at best a disingenuous argument (russia and china would love to have access to that data. so would a lot of other governments)
- Ray20 2y ago>They're not asking for global access to everyones data, the UK is. They literally do.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y agoBecause they are ruthless crazy murderers? Because they want to turn us into radioactive ash (basically every day on Russian state TV)?
- throwaway48476 2y agoDPRUK
- dathinab 2y ago> If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile? nothing the first precedence of not-draft law here was Cloud Act I think through I would be surprised if China doesn't "de-facto" requires Chineese companies operating outside of China (including Subsidiaries) to cooperate with their secret service in whatever way they want and if we go back to the "crypto wars" of the ~2000th then there is a lot of precedence of similar law _ideas_ by the US which where turned down similar we can't say for sure that there aren't secret US court orders which already did force apple to do "something like that" for the FBI or similar, SURE there is a lot of precedence of Apple pushing back against backdoor when it comes to police and offline device encryption, but one thing is in the public and the other fully in secret with gag orders and meant for usage in secret never seeing the light of courts so while it's somewhat unlikely it would be foolish to just assume it isn't the case, especially if we go forward one or two years with the current government... Anyway UK might realize that now they have left the US they have very little power to force US tech giants to do anything _in the UK_ not even speaking about regulation which is a direct attack on the sovereignty of other states to own/control/decide about their population(s data). IMHO ignoring the US for a moment because they are in chaos the EU, or at least some key EU states should make a statement that a UK backdoor allowing UK to access EU citizen data would be classified as espionage and isn't permittable if Apple wants to operate in the EU (but formulated to make it clear it's not to put pressure on Apple but on the UK). Sadly I don't see this happening as there are two many politcans which want laws like that, too. Often due to not understanding the implications undermining encryption has on national security, industry espionage and even protection of democracy as a whole... Sometimes also because they are greedy corrupt lobbyist from the industry which produces mass surveillance tools.
- 8338550bff96 2y agoAt what point is this just extortionary cash grab from U.S. tech companies? Want to fund some expensive grand program? Find a reason to fine U.S. companies.
- eastbound 2y agoWhy not. Their hegemony is used as a weapon of war, since 1998 when Microsoft was condemned-but-not-penalized for its monopoly. Make it costly for USA to spy & conquer.
- 8338550bff96 2y agoLet us see how that works out for you
- RobotToaster 2y agoIt's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizens the UK government want to spy on, and GCHQ spy on American citizens the US government want to spy on. So this would indirectly allow the US government to spy on US citizens (even more than it already does, anyway)
- ekianjo 2y agoWhy do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law? Ever heard of Snowden leaks?
- nemomarx 2y agoone of the Snowden leaks was exactly about the five eyes countries coordinating in this way to dodge oversight though?
- 0xCMP 2y agoRight, but the point is they went through the motions to attempt to follow the law. They weren't simply saying someone else was doing the work and then doing it themselves. They at least attempt to follow the law internally. Which is not something we knew for certain or not in the public.
- Nevermark 2y ago> They at least attempt to follow the law internally. What you are describing are successful attempts to subvert the law, avoid letting know they are subverting the law, and carefully crafted legal defenses in case they have to fight the real law’s enforcement. That isn’t remotely what trying to follow the law looks like. It shows no respect for what the writers of the laws meant or the law’s purpose. It shows no good faith attempts to firewall legal interpretation from parties interested in stretching the law. Blatant legal corruption used as a standard process. It demonstrates no honest or genuine curiosity for collaborating on legal interpretations with other relevant constituencies. Relevant constituencies for good faith legal interpretation include the law’s writers, the legislatures who passed the law, the courts who are ground truth for interpretation, a wider audience of constitutional experts in the executive branch beyond limited specific lawyers chosen to stretch the law, or citizens.
- palmotea 2y ago> what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile? Realistically: Apple is a US company (with lots of foreign entanglements) with US leaders, and the US and UK are close allies with extradition treaties and the like. I'd expect the US government to put lots of pressure on Apple to prevent it from acting on such requests from Russia or China, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple execs would get slapped with espionage charges if they didn't head the warnings (especially if they "provide data on UK minister's phones").
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Habgdnv 2y agoImagine Kim Jong-un goes to a few police stations in North Korea. It might not work on the first try, but eventually, he manages to trick one officer into believing that Trump threatened him on Facebook. Now, the police of a given country can legally request Apple to provide all information from Trump’s iCloud for an "investigation" into threats of violence— even if they are completely fabricated.
- oneplane 2y agoWhat stops them is one of two things: Option 1: they operate a separate shard in that country and that shared is only accessible by that country. Companies like Apple, AWS, Cloudflare etc. have been doing it this way in China for a while now. Result: they can spy on the stuff in their country, but the only stuff in their country is their own stuff. Option 2: no longer operate in an official capacity in that country. Have no people and no assets. Mostly works when the country is not a significant market. This usually means some things are only available grey market, black market or not at all. This is why certain products have lists of "supported countries" - it's not just ITAR stuff but also "we don't want to deal with their regime" stuff. Result: country gets nothing, no matter how loud they ask. Side-effect: you can't really risk your employees visiting such a country as they will be "leveraged".
- polski-g 2y agoOption 3: Cook talks to Trump and asks for tariffs in the UK until this demand is rescinded.
- JusticeJuice 2y agoThere are tangentially similar precedents already, such as the American FACTA law. It is obviously a quite different context, as it just relates to financial information, not all information - but it's a law from the US government, that demands foreign companies send information back to the US. The wild thing is that foreign companies actually do it. To avoid annoying the US, a lot of other governments ensure that the data is reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
- fauigerzigerk 2y agoThe key difference being that it is perfectly legal for the US to request data on income and gains received by US taxpayers while it is illegal for the US to spy (in certain ways) on US residents. It is completely routine for countries to exchange data on financial accounts [1]. The only aspect that makes FATCA somewhat unusual is that the US taxes US persons even when they are residents of other countries. [1] https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-exchange-of-information/ieim400080 https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-excha...
- JusticeJuice 2y agoOh 100%, the content (and context) is completely different. The similarity I mean is a government passing a law that asks a foreign company to hand data over to them.
- lmz 2y agoIt's legal in the same way this UK thing is legal - because there's a law justifying it. It may make more moral sense, depending on your political persuasion.
- Miraste 2y agoThe US can get away with this through its immense power and economic influence (for the moment, at least). The UK is a small market of middling relevance, and their government's belief that they're a global power is an anachronism. I hope these decisions cause enough companies to break ties that they're forced to realize their position.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y agoWe are watching the redefinition of the idea of territorial sovereignty that emerged from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. We in the US see our expectations of privacy shaped in the UK, and the reverse.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoWhat if Apple just stops operating in the UK? They could start selling "English language" iPhones in France, let people go on a day trip if they wanted to buy them. There are ways of sidestepping this bullshit if you're an international company. Supposing they have any integrity, I mean. How far will the UK double down?
- xp84 2y agoI still don’t think the UK is a big enough market for Apple to be that worried about the following, but if the government and Apple escalate to the point of Apple pulling out of the UK, it would be pretty easy for the government to force all of its telecoms to ban any new iPhones from their mobile networks. So the citizens will probably not get to simply walk right around the restrictions that way, assuming the government is serious about this.
- MrScruff 2y agoGiven the desperation for economic growth in the UK, the idea that they would inflict such a massive bit of self harm on themselves over increased spying options is frankly ludicrous.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoSo, any visiting American businessmen with iPhones are inconvenienced? What happens when that curtails investment? I think Apple might just have some leverage here, if they choose to exert it. Starmer's government would, at minimum become a laughingstock. Hell, do we know whether Chucky Three uses an Android? Or would the royals get a secret exemption?
- eru 2y agoOr what's keeping the US from asking for Data, too.
- bayindirh 2y agoThe thing is, most people think that governments wants new tools for surveillance. The fact is, they had this power for a very long time (see Crypto A.G. and history of NSA and others), and practical and verifiable E2EE took these capabilities away. Now they want their toys back. This is why the push is so hard and coming from everywhere at once.
- mplewis9z 2y agoI think this is an extreme take - they only had those mass surveillance tools since the start of the internet, and any other method of communication (phone calls, physical mail) all required warrants individualized to specific people to tap. But somehow the internet is excluded from all those privacy protections, and now that there’s technology available to ratchet us back to where we used to be, law enforcement agencies are throwing a tantrum about not being able to constantly violate our privacy. In my mind, it’s pretty simple: if you want to surveil someone, get an individualized warrant to access their devices and data. If they refuse or wipe their data, treat it like destroying evidence in a case and throw the book at them. There’s zero excuse for what law enforcement and intelligence agencies have done to our privacy rights since 9/11.
- bayindirh 2y agoThese (mass surveillance) programs go back to 60s, and it was already prevalent before internet was widespread, also internet was also under blanket surveillance way before. Moreover, this is not only limited to internet per se. Phone calls and any form of unencrypted communications are probably actively monitored for signals intelligence. We're not seeing laws related to this, because mechanisms are probably already in place. So, I'm keeping my stance of "They want their tools back, because they had them before".
- MobiusHorizons 2y agoThere are very strict laws against wiretapping on calls within the US. Warrants are required before the call can be recorded. That’s why there was so much controversy over blanket metadata collection.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cbsmith 2y agoYou lost me at "government thinks". ;-)