5 ms·

Britain Drops Request That Apple Create a Back Door

45 points by elijahcarrel 1y ago

elijahcarrel 1y ago
https://archive.is/nVSVp https://archive.is/nVSVp
geoffpado 1y ago
…for now.
- viwiten677 1y ago
  I agree, I wonder what they will then be doing. unless through the 5eyes they have a different agreement..
thrown-0825 1y ago
UK no longer has the leverage to have an impact on Apple.
- DrScientist 1y ago
  Or perhaps GCHQ don't need Apple to access the data any more - indeed the whole demanding access might have been a smoke screen to make people think it's secure....
  - subscribed 1y ago
    Apple is reasonably secure and has one of the two best mobile phone hardware designs from the security perspective. Sure exploits exist (see Pegasus), but they're too precious and fragile to deploy a dragnet. And that was about the indiscriminate surveillance, not selected "targets".
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      I don't think the UK was asking for a dragnet. The normal practice is if somebody is a target of interest, and the proper court order has been issued by a judge, then the authorities have the expectation that they can ask for access to private data, or have the ability to put in a 'tap'. Under Apple's ADP system, Apple are unable to give that access - only the account holder can - and obviously they may not want to - and asking them will obviously alert them they are under surveillance - if that was the original aim. So the talk about a 'back-door' in the Apple product for the UK government is a bit misleading - in the sense they are not asking for direct access that avoids having to ask Apple - they are just asking Apple to build functionality so Apple can fulfill such requests. ie If the government get's a 'search warrant' Apple has the ability to comply. Ironically if GCHQ did have a backdoor without needing to ask Apple then they could do much more dragnet stuff.
      - shaftway 1y ago
        This is a back-door. Just because they have to ask the door manufacturer for a key, that doesn't make it "not a back-door". If anyone has access to your encrypted data other than your intended recipients, that is a back door.
        DrScientist 1y ago
        That wasn't my point. The point is such a back-door doesn't necessarily enable dragnet surveillance - of the kind that,for example, Snowdon revealed the US government was doing. There is a big difference in my view between court authorized search warrants ( in effect ), and blanket surveillance. Can authorities abuse the former? Sure - but on the other hand it's hard to argue that authorities should have no powers at all to perform searches if they make the appropriate case to the courts.
        shaftway 1y ago
        They've already demonstrated that they're willing to use secret courts and gag orders to prevent Apple from disclosing what they're doing (referenced in the article). How would you know if they're abusing it?
fguerraz 1y ago
Also we definitely trust that the Brits just gave up, right? They had nothing in exchange, no guarantees to be able to access the data in other ways… Also, the tweet is only about protecting American people. I personally still don’t feel very safe about it and keep my backups local, thanks.
- graemep 1y ago
  > Also, the tweet is only about protecting American people. I personally still don’t feel very safe about it and keep my backups local, thanks. Its a deal between the British and American governments, that only protects Americans from British spying. its very specific. Nothing about the UK, or the rest of the world, or the details of the deal. Apple might have made a lot of concessions to either or both governments. It needs a lot of trust in both governments (something many people will lack) to trust this.
IT4MD 1y ago
The government will continue to use exploits to access devices of interest instead of the horrifically stupid idea of baked-in backdoors in encryption. I feel safer already.. :|
tehwebguy 1y ago
Similar to the other post, the only proof offered for this is a tweet from Tulsi Gabbard. From the article: > Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did the British Home Office
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
Some later discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44950600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44950600

45 points by elijahcarrel 1y ago

elijahcarrel 1y ago

https://archive.is/nVSVp https://archive.is/nVSVp

geoffpado 1y ago

…for now.

viwiten677 1y ago
I agree, I wonder what they will then be doing. unless through the 5eyes they have a different agreement..

thrown-0825 1y ago

UK no longer has the leverage to have an impact on Apple.

DrScientist 1y ago
Or perhaps GCHQ don't need Apple to access the data any more - indeed the whole demanding access might have been a smoke screen to make people think it's secure....
- subscribed 1y ago
  Apple is reasonably secure and has one of the two best mobile phone hardware designs from the security perspective. Sure exploits exist (see Pegasus), but they're too precious and fragile to deploy a dragnet. And that was about the indiscriminate surveillance, not selected "targets".
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    I don't think the UK was asking for a dragnet. The normal practice is if somebody is a target of interest, and the proper court order has been issued by a judge, then the authorities have the expectation that they can ask for access to private data, or have the ability to put in a 'tap'. Under Apple's ADP system, Apple are unable to give that access - only the account holder can - and obviously they may not want to - and asking them will obviously alert them they are under surveillance - if that was the original aim. So the talk about a 'back-door' in the Apple product for the UK government is a bit misleading - in the sense they are not asking for direct access that avoids having to ask Apple - they are just asking Apple to build functionality so Apple can fulfill such requests. ie If the government get's a 'search warrant' Apple has the ability to comply. Ironically if GCHQ did have a backdoor without needing to ask Apple then they could do much more dragnet stuff.
    - shaftway 1y ago
      This is a back-door. Just because they have to ask the door manufacturer for a key, that doesn't make it "not a back-door". If anyone has access to your encrypted data other than your intended recipients, that is a back door.
      - DrScientist 1y ago
        That wasn't my point. The point is such a back-door doesn't necessarily enable dragnet surveillance - of the kind that,for example, Snowdon revealed the US government was doing. There is a big difference in my view between court authorized search warrants ( in effect ), and blanket surveillance. Can authorities abuse the former? Sure - but on the other hand it's hard to argue that authorities should have no powers at all to perform searches if they make the appropriate case to the courts.
        shaftway 1y ago
        They've already demonstrated that they're willing to use secret courts and gag orders to prevent Apple from disclosing what they're doing (referenced in the article). How would you know if they're abusing it?

fguerraz 1y ago

Also we definitely trust that the Brits just gave up, right? They had nothing in exchange, no guarantees to be able to access the data in other ways… Also, the tweet is only about protecting American people. I personally still don’t feel very safe about it and keep my backups local, thanks.

graemep 1y ago
> Also, the tweet is only about protecting American people. I personally still don’t feel very safe about it and keep my backups local, thanks. Its a deal between the British and American governments, that only protects Americans from British spying. its very specific. Nothing about the UK, or the rest of the world, or the details of the deal. Apple might have made a lot of concessions to either or both governments. It needs a lot of trust in both governments (something many people will lack) to trust this.

IT4MD 1y ago

The government will continue to use exploits to access devices of interest instead of the horrifically stupid idea of baked-in backdoors in encryption. I feel safer already.. :|

tehwebguy 1y ago

Similar to the other post, the only proof offered for this is a tweet from Tulsi Gabbard. From the article: > Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did the British Home Office

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

Some later discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44950600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44950600