←back to thread

UK Effort to Keep Apple Encryption Fight Secret Is Blocked

(www.msn.com)
170 points flanked-evergl | 1 comments | 08 Apr 25 07:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
amiga386 ◴[08 Apr 25 09:41 UTC] No.43619870[source]▶
Users want their secrets to be secret.

Apple wants its users' secrets to be secret.

The UK wants the fact it wants Apple to reveal anyone's secrets to be secret.

replies(1): >>43619903 #
HPsquared ◴[08 Apr 25 09:47 UTC] No.43619903[source]▶
There must be a healthy middle ground between mass untouchable criminal communication networks on the one hand, and full panopticon 24x7 for every civilian on the other. Or I don't know, maybe there isn't. But at least the debate should be public.
replies(16): >>43619926 #>>43619938 #>>43619961 #>>43619967 #>>43619979 #>>43619999 #>>43620044 #>>43620059 #>>43620067 #>>43620078 #>>43620143 #>>43620238 #>>43620371 #>>43620780 #>>43620940 #>>43623532 #
wizzwizz4 ◴[08 Apr 25 10:05 UTC] No.43619979[source]▶
In the olden days, when law enforcement wanted to intercept a letter, they would locate the sender, nab the letter before it got whisked away, and read it. (If the letter was sealed, they would copy the seal, so they could convincingly re-seal the letter after reading.) Law enforcement wasn't able to do this with whispered conversations, nor easily identify disguised people without following or arresting them. Things still got done.

I don't understand why computer-mediated communication means we have to choose between a panopticon, or the end of law enforcement. It seems to me that good old-fashioned detective work is still perfectly possible. Sure, there are cyber-enabled crimes, and new classes of cyber-dependent crimes, but each of those is a crime because of an interaction with the physical, human world. Those interactions haven't gone away, and are still amenable to investigation. (At a basic level: how do you know a crime has happened in the first place?)

replies(1): >>43620009 #
1. graemep ◴[08 Apr 25 10:11 UTC] No.43620009{3}[source]▶
Yes, detective work is possible. So are technological extensions to it. For example investigators being allowed (maybe requiring a warrant, or other appropriate controls) to crack the devices for people under investigation.

In fact, things like forcing Apple to backdoor its encryption will not be effective against any but stupid criminals (I admit many criminals are stupid, but the stupid ones are not the most dangerous ones). Once it is known that this can be done, smart criminals will just use other means of communication.

The aim of this is not to help investigate serious crime, it is mass surveillance to deal with things like what the British government has called "legal but harmful speech", or things like "non-crime hate incidents" or minor offences that would not justify putting money into investigations, or civil matters.

I have in mind the way the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act was used to catch people doing things such as not picking up their dog's poo or lying about where they lived to get their kids into a better school.