Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Threatens to Pull FaceTime and iMessage in the UK Over Proposed Surveillance Law Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What about my reply is the issue? I am not sure how to explain it, maybe ask your mom or dad??
It doesn’t make any sense and has no context. I don’t think I need to ask my mum or dad, I think you need to add more context/explanation.
Really, it is 100% within context of your reply, so there is a problem with your ability to understand context.
Your reply doesn’t make sense in the context of my post. I didn’t mention anything to do with Final Cut Pro or the iPad. I was talking about iMessage.
That’s why I’m saying you need to better explain what your response means.
It makes perfect sense within the context of your post, I see you have an issue with literal and figurative contexts, if you read my reply it was a simple reply, if you have the knowledge of why I mentioned that product...
Final Cut Pro is a piece of software users can subscribe to on the iPad. It bears no relation to iMessage unless your point was for Apple to make iMessage a subscription service that runs on their hardware products, but that would contradict your earlier post about iMessage being available on all platforms.
So no, it still doesn’t make any sense to me and is missing the context that would help communicate what you mean.
Read my comments again, no contradiction, and you are so close to being 100% , so the "huh" was just what again?
I’ve read your comment again. I’ve got no idea what FCP running on the iPad has to do with iMessage running cross-platform.
I still think you need to add additional context to explain what you mean else there’s no point in this discussion continuing.
No further explanation is required, if you understand as I do, what you posted, then my very next comment, about fcp for ipad, and you understand the context, the backstory to fcp for ipad, you would understand my comments, everything I posted makes sense, if you understand the products...
But I just don't see how I can explain it, I am not a trained educator, maybe an educational expert could explain..
But I just don't see how I can explain it, I am not a trained educator, maybe an educational expert could explain..
That’s fine, if you are unable to adequately articulate your point, there’s no point in me trying to continue this discussion with you since I can’t understand the point you are trying to make and you can’t explain it.
No hard feelings towards you for that though
Last edited:
I have no issues understanding what you posted, I confirmed my understanding with my comment about FCP, I am not sure how to explain, as I am not an educator or have access to someone that might be able to explain, I am so sorry that you have found this an issue, really there is no issue, I have concerns for you though..That’s fine, if you are unable to adequately articulate your point, there’s no point in me trying to continue this discussion with you since I can’t understand the point you are trying to make and you can’t explain it
It’s fine if you can’t explain your point, don’t worry about it
I may be the exception. Still, I know I'm not alone. Saying that nobody ever uses iMessage for group chats is not true.
Another truth point is the discussion around RCS. Apparently in the US, lots of people are using iMessage and Google Message to exchange text messages. One of the gripes of the people that want RCS in iMessage is around group chats.
At some point, though, prior to the bombing, didn’t they have to acquire bombs or bomb making equipment? AND, they had to transport that equipment from where they assembled it to another location to set it off, right? The encryption on their phones can’t help them hide the fact that they have and/or are transporting explosives. If they were on the watch radar, then the watch radar didn’t catch those two very critical parts of reality that takes place fully outside of any encryption.
Whilst they was on the watch radar, that does not mean they were monitored 24/7 because in doing do so it would be a breach of privacy their privacy and if the police/security services wanted to get a warrant to allow them legal keep a 24/7 watch going, they would have to have enough probably cause or a judge would refuse the request. Not being able to listen into encrypted conversations about illegal activities prevents getting probably cause because they cannot stand before a judge asking for 24/7 surveillance on the basis of 'we think he/they are going to make a bomb/get bomb making material' because the judge will say 'where is your proof of this'. If the police and security services ignored privacy laws and went ahead with 24/7 surveillance and caught the people buying bomb materials and such for and it went to court, all the bombers defence attorney has to say is 'how did the police/security services know his clients were buying materials to make a bomb?', 'we monitored them', 'and just how did you monitor them? did you get a warrant? can I see a copy of the warrant that allowed you to invade my clients privacy'. and there you have it, bombers would get off on a legal technicality. Now if the police/security services was able to view encrypted messages between the bombers, that would be the probably cause evidence they would need that would justify a warrant into having them monitored 24/7. The law is very strict in the UK, the police/security services can just do as they please because if they do not do it right and it ends up in court, the police/security services will always lose due to legal technicality.
I guess I don’t understand what “watch radar” is. If law enforcement is unable to follow a suspect and detect where they go, what would be the value of a “watch radar”? How did they even have any idea that a “watch radar” needed to be created if it was a breach of privacy to “watch” them?
This didn’t make sense, so I did some searching…
Current Position of Privacy Law in the UK
In recent years, the law on privacy has developed from the time of the traditional breach of confidence cases such as Coco v Clark (1969) and ...
particularly
“This lay more emphasis on the fact that an individual cannot expect a reasonable expectation of privacy when engaging in their everyday activities which acquire a private quality, such as out walking in the public. There can be no protection if the victim is in a public place.”
And, this DOES make sense. So long as they’re not entering any private space illegally and are only monitoring people in public spaces, 24/7 surveillance doesn’t seem to be a UK law enforcement concern. I can see where they’d want it to be a concern because 24/7 surveillance takes time and effort. If they’re understaffed and can’t have everyone on the “watch radar” being… watched, that’s not an unsolvable problem.
You are opening up a very "uncomfortable" can of worms: when something like this happens it is usually because secret services wanted or even intended for this to happen.
At this stage you can just write it off as a "conspiracy theory" or have an intelligent understanding that certain "events" or "things" like private military organizations are in fact very important instruments of conducting and active participation in global politics. For example if I say that I don't want your country to have a private military organization(and try my best to discredit it) what I'm really saying is that I don't want your country to be an active global player.
Representative republic is the best. When working properly it forces government to think things through before any legislation passes. Representatives of states and small states must work together. Unfortunately the 17th amendment broke the system.
Assuming you're referring to the US, a "representative republic" is a type of democracy. It's shorthand for the fact that the US is a representative democracy and constitutional republic. For obvious reason, there is a movement in right-wing cirlcles to reject the fact that the US is and has always been a democracy.
Or, the also likely reality that police organizations just aren’t up to the task of a wide variety of things some expect them to be able to do. As a result, rather than “detection” they need the nefarious no-goods to literally spell out what they’re doing in order to have any hope of even being aware of what’s going on. That being the case, then, even getting access to encrypted conversations would be like giving valuable intel to the Keystone Cops.
You're first part is a bit of potato-potato. But you're losing me on the "obvious movement." What are you referring to?
I've never heard of any "right-wing circles" wanting to breakdown our system of government, but there have been numerous attempts from "left-wing circles" such as the 17th amendment, and the current effort to remove the electoral college.
The common refrain from some conservatives that “We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy.” It's nonsense. We're both.
The 17th amendment was ratified by 41 states and only rejected by 1. Hardly a left wing plot.
And despite your reticence to change, our system of government as described in the constitution, includes the ability to change and adapt the system over time. It isn't a "breakdown" to change the system. It's working as intended.
It is probably true that police and secret services are proved to be less efficient in collecting data than "digital giants". This is also explains why the governments feel threatened and attack/pressure "digital giants" any way they can.