One thing I’m seeing re: today’s Apple news is a lot of people blaming Apple. Saying that Apple is selling people out by withdrawing encryption features from the U.K. market. For example, here’s Tim Sweeney. I want to propose a different take.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Let’s imagine the following hypothetical. Apple is not asked by the U.K. government to compromise encryption features for only U.K. users. They are asked, by the U.K. government, to compromise encryption features for iCloud users in countries all over the world, including the US.
This would be an absolutely crazy request, by the way. It would put the U.K. in the position of controlling the maximum level of security available to any user anywhere in the world, and doing it *secretly*. If you engage with that request, there is no coming back.
If you’re Apple in this situation — keeping in mind that you’re dealing with laws that mandate total secrecy, and a government that mixes national security and criminal law — what’s your first move? My guess is that your best strategy is to flip the table.
After all, if you disable the encryption feature at issue from all U.K. customers, to some extent the issue appears moot. (It’s not moot, of course. The U.K. would still be asking for access to non-U.K. users.) But it gives you a place you can work from.
Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace still "giving to caeser that which is caesers", because fine, Caeser, sign your own weakness and incontinence into law if you must.
So I don’t know that this is where Apple is coming from. I *do* know that, despite some deserved criticisms (many from me) Apple has never seemed like a company that just wants to submit and turn off encryption. So I want to propose that maybe, just maybe there’s more here.
Also, he's wrong about the basic facts. Apple's decision doesn't affect normal iCloud backups, AFAIK. Those aren't E2EE anyway, right? This just affects ADP users.
I think it would have also opened concern to the Five Eyes. Since one of them would have global access, all would have global access. Almost like a way to circumvent getting Apple to do it without passing laws in your own country
Tim Sweeney is hereby a self-published imbecile, and so is anyone who would expect Apple to a) comply or b) act illegally in any one country. But yes, it's actually jaw-dropping to learn how many would want exactly that... Beam me fucking up now!
I have never seen Sweeny have an even remotely nuanced thought when it comes to Apple they could cure cancer and he'd claim they shot his gran in the process.
I do so enjoy getting blocked by perverts, paedophiles, drug dealers and the likes when their nasty little habits are called out when they try to defend Apples' attempts to defend them.
You see, I'm allowing my elected government, the judiciary and the police forces of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to decide these matters.
You see, democracy is about the people, and the government they elect. Not corporations protecting the guilty.
Where are you people coming from? If you understood how those things were investigated and prosecuted you'd know cloud storage is essentially irrelevant. Encryption at that layer doesn't stop investigational when they confiscate devices, etc.
Brit here, and I've been programming computers for very nearly 60 years. I'm generally not keen on Apple as a company because they try and keep too much control over the kit they sell.
All that said I think Apple are behaving reasonably here. They are close to complying with the (legal) UK order /
Apple is far from my favourite company - I hate how closed their ecosystem is. But this is the right decision! If they can get their users to protest the UK government position there is a chance the policy gets reversed.
I agree with you both. Sweeney's right, UK users are compromised, but it's disingenuous to compain about the inevitable rich company spin. And I believe Apple could've made a much worse choice here.
But Apple could have tried to fight it. What's gonna prevent other countries from passing similar laws, or the UK government from asking for a backdoor to iMessage?
I appreciate this "solution" prevents non British from being affected, but for people in the UK, this is the same as a backdoor.
Understatement. He’s a petty troll who FAFO with Apple and now whines incessantly about how he was harmed. Absolutely insufferable human being. TS’s antics/cost cutting to make up for them - cost my friend his job.
Tim saw a win against Apple helped Epic PR and decided to make that his entire strategy. It seems disingenuous at this point. But I mean, he did tried the same with Steam and failed.
Comments
Depending on how high that person is in the org you get very different decisions.
Agree there's likely some off screen chess moves happening.
“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”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-07/apple-ordered-by-uk-to-build-backdoor-to-access-customer-data
False.
You see, democracy is about the people, and the government they elect. Not corporations protecting the guilty.
I don't know if you're being played, or are a player in the illegal image industry, but whichever it is, you should quit it now.
What are you hiding ?
Nothing illegal to see on your devices, eh ?
🤣🤣🤣
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/04/7-reasons-why-ive-got-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-response-to-mass-surveillance/
All that said I think Apple are behaving reasonably here. They are close to complying with the (legal) UK order /
Don't think it's perfect. Don't like the Law that allows it. But Apple are behaving tolerable well (for once).
I appreciate this "solution" prevents non British from being affected, but for people in the UK, this is the same as a backdoor.
I'm told that it's fine and that no one really has real privacy anyway....