You must log in or # to comment.
They have not asked Google for similar does that mean they already have backdoor access to Android?
deleted by creator
I think this is for iCloud, not iOS.
For Android read Google backup storage equivalency - Google Drive, Gmail and Google Photos.
I don’t think Google drive supports encryption.
Google offers that feature but only with an Enterprise Workspace account.
WTF?!? No way am I ever voting for Labour now. I hope the next election gets them out.
Which party promises to defend end-to-end encryption? I thought there were no good options.
The Monster Raving Loony party seems like the best option right now.
Pirate Party?
When I eventually have my own place, I’ll have to put up something during political season to show what my main issues are.
Wasn’t this law started by the Tories?
Average Brit right there
In what way?
Not you, the guy you replied to
Me?
Controversial opinion: maybe it’s a good thing to allow law enforcement to access communications when necessary (e.g. with a court warrant)
Do we want serious criminals like terrorists and paedophiles to be able to plan their crimes with impunity?
deleted by creator
I’m not comparing privacy fans to paedophiles and terrorists, that’s not what I mean. What I mean is that I want serious criminals to be caught.
I think properly private technology is good to protect yourself from an authoritarian government for example. You could use something like Signal for messaging (I’ve not used it, but apparently it’s good).
But the big popular platforms like WhatsApp and iMessage, which many laypeople use just because they’re popular - on those platforms I think it makes sense for law enforcement to be able to access messages, but only in certain circumstances. So maybe Apple could keep the encryption key and they could decrypt someone’s messages if a court warrant is issued.
I’m not saying end-to-end encryption should be entirely outlawed. Hopefully services like Signal would still exist. Sure, some criminals might jump to those platforms, but you could still catch some at least, who use big services like iMessage.
If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against both government overreach/abuse and third-party intruders tend to outweigh the benefits of government surveillance through encryption backdoors.
Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it’s the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.
I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument… but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.
deleted by creator
I guess I think of it like bugging a phone. The technology for bugging phones has been around for a long time, but that doesn’t mean the authorities are bugging everybody’s phones all the time. Even if they can theoretically listen to everyone’s conversations, that doesn’t mean they are always listening. There would be too many conversations to listen to.
deleted by creator
Maybe I should read more about encryption. I was thinking maybe a company like Apple could just keep the encryption keys stored somewhere. So if needed they could decrypt particular messages. There could be big punishments, prison time, for anybody within Apple who decrypts messages without a court warrant.
deleted by creator
Word would just get out that you should only use the secure services to communicate anything sensitive. We already have plenty of messaging services that are insecure, but enough people are preferring to use a secure option that it’s worrying the UK Government.
Maybe people just use what’s popular. Telegram is pretty popular in some countries even though I don’t think they have end-to-end encryption by default.
Anyway I guess I don’t know what the answer is. Personally I would probably still use iMessage and WhatsApp even if I knew the companies behind them could potentially read my messages by decrypting them. If there’s a proper system in place so that messages are only read when there’s a court warrant, it’s probably unlikely my boring messages to friends and family would be spied on by anybody.
Maybe I need to send more interesting messages and then I would care about the privacy of them a bit more.
deleted by creator
I don’t want end-to-end encryption entirely outlawed. But for the biggest platforms from massive corporations, maybe those corporations could keep their encryption keys stored with high security somewhere, so they can decrypt particular messages if a court warrant is issued.
People who are uneasy about that could go to a more privacy-focused platform like Signal. Some criminals would do that too, but at least something would be done to catch criminals on the popular platforms.
deleted by creator
Fair points. Also I guess practically big companies like Apple would never allow a situation where their encryption is compromised while encryption on smaller platforms like Signal isn’t. Apple etc would spend billions lobbying so such a situation never happens.
deleted by creator
I would probably argue that China is a little different to the UK, given that China is a one-party state.
Yeah maybe the UK government shouldn’t be able to spy on Apple messages sent anywhere in the world. But maybe UK agencies like GCHQ should be able to get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK, with a court warrant, like how law enforcement has been able to bug the phones of criminals with a court warrant.
I dunno. Maybe I should educate myself more on encryption and how it all works.
deleted by creator
