Guess someone is angry their illegal spyware is not working anymore.
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.
FBI Calls End-to-End Encryption 'Deeply Concerning' as Privacy Groups Hail Apple's Advanced Data Protection as a Victory for Users
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s because it’s not necessarily legal everywhere. Apple works on figuring out legality but that takes time. Much of the work in that already started but laws are moving targets. As a U.S. headquartered company, Apple starts in the U.S. and works out from there.
Last edited:
Peoples attitudes will change when they become personally involved or affected by the use of security encryption related to criminal action. A person on holiday abroad being kidnapped for ransom, people trafficking, bomb threats/incidents and other terrorist incidents.
How would Tim Cook feel if a close relative of his was blown up in a terrorist incident and the FBI go 'sorry, we knew the bombers were communicating with others via iphones but there is nothing we could do because of Apple's security encription'.
Yes i know it's an argument that has been used time and time again but I do not think for one min that anyone supporting encryption without security authourities having some form of access would agree to such practices if they were on the resulting end of some tradgedy that could be prevented. A loved one on holiday get's kidnapped and killed because no ransom was paid or a loved one get's blown up at some event, there is no way in hell they are going to say 'oh well, such is life, the security services could not access Apple's encryption thus their death could not have been prevented'.
How would Tim Cook feel if a close relative of his was blown up in a terrorist incident and the FBI go 'sorry, we knew the bombers were communicating with others via iphones but there is nothing we could do because of Apple's security encription'.
Yes i know it's an argument that has been used time and time again but I do not think for one min that anyone supporting encryption without security authourities having some form of access would agree to such practices if they were on the resulting end of some tradgedy that could be prevented. A loved one on holiday get's kidnapped and killed because no ransom was paid or a loved one get's blown up at some event, there is no way in hell they are going to say 'oh well, such is life, the security services could not access Apple's encryption thus their death could not have been prevented'.
you can't give any organisation access to just some of the data, it's either all or nothing.
how would you propose they grant them access to just bomb and kidnapping data? can you design the enctyoption to exclude anything related to bombs or kidnapping?
also, who decides what can and can't be excluded? i'm sure Russia would want anything about Ukraine excluded, because they will say it protects them against the nasty Ukrainians.
if you create a door then that door will be pushed open and used.
Did anyone notice we hadn’t seen any articles like this for awhile?
I am convinced that Apple had devised CSAM as a kind of unspoken compromise to get governments to stop asking for back-doors.
And sure enough, one day after they announce it’s dead this talk pops up again.
I know it wasn’t popular around here, but I was hoping that Apple could have used CSAM as a distraction to keep these worse things at bay.
Now that it’s gone it’s gonna go back to full on war and I hope they’re able to hold the line. But the sad fact is they’re going to be fighting every government, not just one or two. It won’t be easy.
I am convinced that Apple had devised CSAM as a kind of unspoken compromise to get governments to stop asking for back-doors.
And sure enough, one day after they announce it’s dead this talk pops up again.
I know it wasn’t popular around here, but I was hoping that Apple could have used CSAM as a distraction to keep these worse things at bay.
Now that it’s gone it’s gonna go back to full on war and I hope they’re able to hold the line. But the sad fact is they’re going to be fighting every government, not just one or two. It won’t be easy.
I believe you forgot "think of the children".
I’ll admit my take on this was a bit different. I want law enforcement to be able to stop terrorist attacks. I want them to be able to prosecute criminals. If every bad person ensures their communications are all done on encrypted devices that does seem like it would make them much harder to catch.
So while I definitely welcome any advancement in privacy, at a minimum I have to acknowledge the downside as this article does. Other than financial data I’m not sure what I have on my iPhone that I’m all that concerned about. If anyone wants to read my texts and look at my pictures they’d likely just yawn but worse case they’d laugh and point.
So while I definitely welcome any advancement in privacy, at a minimum I have to acknowledge the downside as this article does. Other than financial data I’m not sure what I have on my iPhone that I’m all that concerned about. If anyone wants to read my texts and look at my pictures they’d likely just yawn but worse case they’d laugh and point.
"the FBI and law enforcement partners need 'lawful access by design."
Or in other words: have your "security" but make us a backdoor.
Or in other words: have your "security" but make us a backdoor.
I have something to hide - it’s called my privacy…
i criticize apple a lot sometimes but this is fantastic news when the FBI is complaining. good job apple!
The FBI can cry all they want this is a win for the people thank you Apple .
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know this one.
Whenever a government agency is caught spying on people or doing some other unlawful things, we get this humbug - "but think of your safety, how would you feel if your loved ones were in danger, we're the good guys, we're doing it for you, we need to be able to protect you, blah blah blah..." Yeah, right. But who will protect us from you?
I'll take my chances. I'd rather live in a free society with all the inherent risks (including risk of terrorism) than be "safe" in a world where government agencies can do whatever they please in the name of perceived safety.
They should learn how to catch terrorists without invading the privacy of innocent citizens.
The more the FBI cries, the happier I am that Apple is implementing this.
Last edited:
It should be turned on by default once implemented and then allow you to opt out if you're crazy. If big gov is against it, then it must be good. We need more limitations on them.
Well, yes and no. The iCloud backup is encrypted, but Apple holds the key to access it. This "advanced" version, however, if what Apple claims is true, means you (and presumably your device which enables it) are the only one holding the key, meaning Apple should no longer be able to hand over iCloud backup data to law enforcement.
Yes it is. But not End 2 End. There is a difference between standard encryption and advanced encryption.
Standard: we encrypt your data with our key.
Advanced: you encrypt your data with your private key. We don't know your key.
I’m grateful for this step. Kind of surprised how long it’s taken to protect our data!
So you want everyone losing privacy just IN CASE law enforcement can access the data to catch terrorists, which they, more often than not, fail horribly, or even if succeeded, takes so long, the lasting damage has become irreparable.
If people are so willing to give away their power, they might as well just give full access to law enforcement of themselves at that rate. Are you ok with police visiting your house at random times for random reasons without any warrant? Yes, you can say "I have nothing to hide" until you do.
China has already massively strengthened their anti-privacy surveillance, now that they are interrogating your device at will, searching for "illegal" (aka politically illegal) applications and data. If you are comfortable with that, good for you. We don't want US law enforcement to have unlimited power. Full stop.
And 100% China will not allow Apple to implement this, same as Turkey and a few other countries.
The FBI has proven itself to be untrustworthy.
The arguments against it are weird.
It’s like cops complaining that people lock their doors and secure their property because they want to be able to get inside in case a crime happens..
I mean.. thanks and all but I’d rather not? Leaving it unsecured increases the chances of crimes happening to me way more than the positive benefits of allowing you to help me if they do. 😅
It’s like cops complaining that people lock their doors and secure their property because they want to be able to get inside in case a crime happens..
I mean.. thanks and all but I’d rather not? Leaving it unsecured increases the chances of crimes happening to me way more than the positive benefits of allowing you to help me if they do. 😅
Law enforcement can access your house with a warrant. So it’s not comparable.
I guess from now on, instead of accessing your data illegally through a back door, they will abduct you, throw you into a cell, and beat the bejesus out of you until you unlock your phone and show them all they want to see. 😄
![security.png]( "security.png")
Translation: Please make our job easier, we got used to not having to be able to do investigative work.
Laws and regulations. Thankfully. Ones man’s privacy win is another paedophile or terrorists or dirty politicians dream.