UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple-break-encryption-to-allow-govt-spying-worldwide-reports-say/
Apple last year opposed UK's secret notices demanding encryption backdoors.
The United Kingdom issued a secret order requiring Apple to create a backdoor
for government security officials to access encrypted data,
The Washington Post reported today, citing people familiar with the matter.
.... Work to do ;-)
.
UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple-break-encryption-to-allow-govt-spying-worldwide-reports-say/
Apple last year opposed UK's secret notices demanding encryption backdoors.
The United Kingdom issued a secret order requiring Apple to create a backdoor
for government security officials to access encrypted data,
The Washington Post reported today, citing people familiar with the matter.
... Work to do ;-)
On 08/02/2025 09:34 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 08/02/2025 05:37, Jan Panteltje wrote:
UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple-break-encryption-to-allow-govt-spying-worldwide-reports-say/
Apple last year opposed UK's secret notices demanding encryption backdoors.
The United Kingdom issued a secret order requiring Apple to create a backdoor
for government security officials to access encrypted data,
The Washington Post reported today, citing people familiar with the matter.
... Work to do ;-)
This is batshit crazy, because the genie left the bottle decades
ago. If Alice wants to communicate secretly with Bob, and if
keeping the government ignorant matters enough to Alice and Bob
both, they can do it, and the government hasn't a prayer. We know
it, they know it, and GCHQ know it. If Apple provide a back door,
Alices who care will simply go elsewhere than Apple, or even roll
their own using tried and tested ingredients. The only people an
Apple back door will ever catch are stupid people with stupid
secrets, e.g. politicians.
Encrypted messaging apps should stop offering backups and
make ephemeral ("disappearing messages") the default.
On 08/02/2025 05:37, Jan Panteltje wrote:
UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple-break-encryption-to-allow-govt-spying-worldwide-reports-say/
Apple last year opposed UK's secret notices demanding encryption backdoors.
The United Kingdom issued a secret order requiring Apple to create a backdoor
for government security officials to access encrypted data,
The Washington Post reported today, citing people familiar with the matter.
... Work to do ;-)
This is batshit crazy, because the genie left the bottle decades
ago. If Alice wants to communicate secretly with Bob, and if
keeping the government ignorant matters enough to Alice and Bob
both, they can do it, and the government hasn't a prayer. We know
it, they know it, and GCHQ know it. If Apple provide a back door,
Alices who care will simply go elsewhere than Apple, or even roll
their own using tried and tested ingredients. The only people an
Apple back door will ever catch are stupid people with stupid
secrets, e.g. politicians.
On 08/02/2025 13:23, The Running Man wrote:[...]
On 08/02/2025 09:34 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
This is batshit crazy, because the genie left the bottle decades
ago. If Alice wants to communicate secretly with Bob, and if
keeping the government ignorant matters enough to Alice and Bob
both, they can do it, and the government hasn't a prayer. We know
it, they know it, and GCHQ know it. If Apple provide a back door,
Alices who care will simply go elsewhere than Apple, or even roll
their own using tried and tested ingredients.
The only people an Apple back door will ever catch are stupid people
with stupid secrets, e.g. politicians.
Encrypted messaging apps should stop offering backups and
make ephemeral ("disappearing messages") the default.
Anyone stupid enough to rely on "apps" for illegal endeavours should not
be surprised when Plod knocks on their door, no matter what default the
"app" claims to use.
On 08/02/2025 13:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 08/02/2025 13:23, The Running Man wrote:[...]
On 08/02/2025 09:34 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
This is batshit crazy, because the genie left the bottle decades
ago. If Alice wants to communicate secretly with Bob, and if
keeping the government ignorant matters enough to Alice and Bob
both, they can do it, and the government hasn't a prayer. We
know
it, they know it, and GCHQ know it. If Apple provide a back
door,
Alices who care will simply go elsewhere than Apple, or even
roll
their own using tried and tested ingredients.
That it is not really correct - if it is less easy to communicate
and store data securely then more people will have no option but
to use less secure methods.
Also not being clever enough to write
their own app or code does not count as stupid.
The only people an Apple back door will ever catch are stupid
people
with stupid secrets, e.g. politicians.
Unfortunately catching stupid people is sufficient reason to ask
- many (most?) crooks are stupid. Or merely uninformed about
internet and cryptologic security.
The UK Government does not consider accessing data stored in the
cloud (or Apple servers) as being interception, and it is legally
much easier to demand than plaintext or even ciphertext of
communications.
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to
stored data on demand.
Anyone stupid enough to rely on "apps" for illegal endeavours
should not be surprised when Plod knocks on their door, no
matter what default the "app" claims to use.
Unfortunately not being clever enough to write their own app or
code, or to be able to judge whether an app is secure, does not
count as stupid.
Excepting perhaps here...
UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
That it is not really correct - if it is less easy to communicate and
store data securely then more people will have no option but to use
less secure methods.
I don't see the grounds for your protasis. Why is it less easy to
communicate and store data securely? Why must people use less secure
methods?
I agree, but trusting a cryptosystem known to have a back door certainly
does count as stupid.
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it would be
daft not to superencrypt.
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data on demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the crook has already failed.
On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
That it is not really correct - if it is less easy to
communicate and store data securely then more people will have
no option but to use less secure methods.
I don't see the grounds for your protasis. Why is it less easy
to communicate and store data securely? Why must people use
less secure methods?
Because they no longer have access to more secure methods, ie
Apple encryption.
[...]
I agree, but trusting a cryptosystem known to have a back door
certainly does count as stupid.
ITYM *would* count as stupid..
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it
would be daft not to superencrypt.
But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.
[...]
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data on
demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the
crook has already failed.
Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level policeman.
On 09/02/2025 12:21, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it would be
daft not to superencrypt.
But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.
It's easy. Instead of:
apple < plain.txt
you:
cat plain.txt | aes_for_example > apple
and Bob pipes through aes_for_example -d at his end.
In other words, instead of sending plaintext through Apple, you send ciphertext.
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data on demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the crook
has already failed.
Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level policeman.
Having read the relevant legislation, which is not the kind of document
I'd like to read for the first time in a panic, I'm not convinced either
way. This is a job for an actual lawyer.
On 09/02/2025 14:48, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/02/2025 12:21, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it
would be daft not to superencrypt.
But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.
It's easy. Instead of:
apple < plain.txt
you:
cat plain.txt | aes_for_example > apple
and Bob pipes through aes_for_example -d at his end.
In other words, instead of sending plaintext through Apple, you
send ciphertext.
But most people don't know how to open a terminal - even clever
people. Just because they don't know computers, computer
security, internet security, cryptography - does not make them
stupid.
And even stupid people should have secure comms and data storage.
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data
on demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the
crook has already failed.
Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level
policeman.
Having read the relevant legislation, which is not the kind of
document I'd like to read for the first time in a panic, I'm
not convinced either way. This is a job for an actual lawyer.
Been there, done that, the tee-shirt is now rags.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 159:26:45 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,491 |