Britain Drops Request That Apple Create a Back Door(nytimes.com) |
Britain Drops Request That Apple Create a Back Door(nytimes.com) |
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.
> Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did the British Home Office
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".
I feel safer already.. :|
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.
If anyone has access to your encrypted data other than your intended recipients, that is a back door.
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.
ie in terms of conspiracy theories - those that involve large numbers of people being in the know, but nothing leaking, are the most unlikely.
However I totally agree that the recent trend towards secret courts, the attempts to remove access to a jury of your peers, and the creeping abuse of terrorism legalisation is both wrong and worrying.
However that's kind of my point - the existence of state powers of search isn't the issue, the issue is whether they are under proper control. The issue isn't whether the government can see the stuff I have with Apple, it's what's the process to allow that to happen.