Unlike in China, where they do presently escrow keys to the government for mass surveillance.
Apple used to be able to access iMessages through iCloud backups. They changed their system worldwide, now they can’t. So presumably GCBD also lost access to iMessages in iCloud backups.
Even if you turn it (e2ee iCloud Backup) on, it's ineffective, as both parties to a conversation must have turned it on for the conversation to be private.
Your beliefs are inaccurate.
I don't see any option to enable e2ee iCloud Backup on iOS 16.6, does this mean your information is outdated and it's all e2ee now?
It’s off by default.
I wonder. Is this an attempt to market? Make it optional, but tout "we do this!', as if it is?
It's not a bad marketing position.
You the have the same level of privacy (if not higher) than with ADP. But with the same drawback, if your recipient does backup to iCloud without ADP then messages can be intercept by apple at rest on your recipient iCloud backup.
Incidentally ADP mainly target users that didn't trusted iCloud backup for the lack of e2e encryption at rest.
The optional iCloud feature called "Advanced Data Protection" is currently an opt-in. It comes with a significant drawback for typical pop and mom users --> If you lost you password and recovery key it's game over you loose everything. So I guess it's sensible to keep this as an opt-in until users are better educated about this drawback.
What will be quite significant is wether or not this feature will be available for chinese users.
It make sense from a technical POV to block ADP feature in poorly democratic countries that might request it like China and maybe tomorrow the UK.
PS : Once a significant % of users activated ADP it could be a good UX improvement to display a warning to mixed ADP status conversation that the conversation is not fully e2e encrypted. However this might be premature right now otherwise early adopters of ADP would be flooded by such warning.
If iCloud is enabled, then by default it gets unencrypted copies of these messages from the device unless “advanced data protection” is also enabled which ensures iMessage is encrypted but means losing your password also loses access to these backups. However, disabling iCloud sidesteps this issue and honestly if you want that kind of privacy then disabling iCloud is probably a good idea.
So if one users uses ADP and the other user disables iCloud then the conversion is protected.
So lots of confusion in this thread, my advice for Apple would be make it very very clear to users that your data is safe. I mean they are threatening to back out of UK, so it’s against their core principles and also probably very technically expensive to undo they end to end encrypted system.
Also possible ADP is off as an option in China.
Of course this wouldn’t work for the UK system unless the UK demanded the iCloud keys same way as China has.
There was a rumor about separate HSMs for device personalization in China, and this would be verifiable by determining whether the Chinese HSMs could verify cryptograms produced by derived keys from a US device, against Apple's personalizaiton endpoints in china. I don't know the protocol off hand, but there is a short list of ways to do it. If Apple uses different root secrets in China from the rest of the world, what further evidence would you need?
Congress knows this would only kneecap one of their largest companies (with no fallback option at present). There is no iPhone without China.
Apple can and does already provide surveillance of this type domestically to FBI/DHS/et al. Approximately all iMessages are readable by Apple and extension by the USG in real-time, with or without a warrant.
There's wiggle room in what you wrote: "Apple doesn't allow China to intercept communications, China just does it on their own" for example is a way to parse that sentence.
Apple can say they don’t allow it, because their local partner company is the one actually doing it. And the local partner would say they don’t allow it, because Chinese law (and the Party) requires them to keep all national security assistance secret.
There's also no evidence to support the claim of this architecture, either.
Famous, sure.
Rich? Perhaps… but I suspect that annoying a superpower will mean that, like Snowden, one would be somewhat restricted in ability to make use of any such wealth or fame.
It's really hard to be a credible "privacy/security" choice when your morals are plainly for sale...
And iPhones ceasing to be sold in the UK would probably be all it takes for public backlash to neuter the law. I imagine that's not on the table in China.
It's very difficult to square these two sentences together.
On one hand, if they break their privacy and security for the UK government, it's bad for business because they'll continue to sell iDevices and services?
On the other hand, if they break their privacy and security for the CCP, it's good for business because they'll continue to sell iDevices and services?
You're tacitly admitting my assertion - Apple's morals are for sale.
If the US threatened Apple, we can expect they'll sell out there too, no?
Yes.
China is much further from the Western world than the UK. Capitulation there isn’t a step onto the slippery slope. Doing the same thing in the UK would lead very quickly to EU and US demands to do the same.
By exiting such a small market, Apple defends the much larger markets against creeping surveillance.
Remember how fierce the backlash was to their CSAM scanning proposal? They walked that back. Some people might think it was for moral reasons, but I’m pretty sure they realized it would harm their bottom line.
The way things work in China is not the same as the UK. They either play by CCP rules or they don’t play at all. Apple’s calculus here seems to be that not playing in the UK market is worth it, whereas missing out on the Chinese market is not worth it.
Apple made a choice to operate there - and would have still been the world's most valued company regardless.
So, Apple's choice was to sell-out their privacy and security credentials to make more money - counting on their other large markets (ie. the US) not paying close enough attention to see the blatant hypocrisy.
"Security and privacy are great - unless we can make more money selling off your security and privacy to oppressive government regimes!"
Somehow that just doesn't have a catchy marketing ring to it...
So now there's precedent that Apple will violate everything they stand for if a large enough market demands it. What happens when the US government decides to place Apple in the crosshairs for not "helping catch terrorists" or something? Will Apple sell out too? Why not?
We have examples of this from previous attempts to weaken encryption. The FBI’s San Bernardino case being the most memorable one for me.
Apple could simultaneously backdoor their devices while also keep them secure from anyone but the government with a warrant. These things are not mutually exclusive.
The China precedent is troubling - to say the least.
Without China, there is no iPhone, and there is no Apple. Apple, presently, needs to operate in China. They have them by the balls.
Compliance with CCP demands is non-optional.
This may change in the future. Today it is 100% true.
That seems incredibly dubious.
Who forced Apple to manufacturer iPhones in China?
Nobody.
It will take about five years optimistically to build that capability.
It's the effect of the monetary system squeezing the masses hard which forces everyone to buy the cheapest things and it created a kind of technological shrinkflationary race to the bottom.
In my mind, and definitely informed by my attraction to medieval Catholic philosophy, the problem isn’t really debt but rather usury.
I actually think that if it's one's own money, they should be allowed to loan it at any interest rate since they're taking the risk upon themselves. If they can find a willing borrower at such high rates, then good for them. If the borrower agrees to a bad deal, then it's the borrower's own fault.
What I most strongly oppose is the idea of public institutions loaning citizens' money through the issuance of new currency (which dilutes the value of previously issued money). It's especially harmful when the interest rate is low.
For example, if the interest rate is 0%, then it's unjust for a government institution to dilute citizen's currency and shift the risk of borrower default onto currency-holding citizens (savers) without offering any upside to those savers; in that case, the central banks turn regular citizens (savers) into suckers by loaning out their money for free for the benefit of reckless borrowers who borrow it for free.
Manufacturing consumer goods in the west was never unaffordable, just that insane corporates profits weren't possible while keeping manufacturing in the west, as they were in China.
A lot of consumer electronics were made in the west before the mass exodus to China. Nokia phones was made in Finland and Germany, Siemens phones were made in Germany, Ericsson phones were made in Sweden, etc.
It was all possible and they also didn't cost an rm and a leg, but companies saw the allure of ultracheap labor and loose environmental regulations in China to jack up their profits.
Check out the global battery supply chain
That's not dubious, that's obvious.
> Nobody
Ironically correct: the absence of alternatives — nobody else could do it — is what forced them in the first place.
The recent pressure from the US government to "bring it home" is because the US government finally started to realise that was both true and bad (doesn't matter if Huawei was really spying, Washington believed they were); similarly for equivalent EU pressure.
Make no mistake - Apple traded their moral high-ground for a few bucks.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/27/prices_of_gallium_and...
Apple made a choice folks... and it was to sell out to an oppressive regime. There is no other way to see this.
Apple made a choice. It's really simple.
They could have not been a large scale electronics manufacturer, but then they don't operate in China by making an entirely different kind of choice to be an entirely different kind of company. I don't think any electronics manufacturer (or meta-manufacturer/designer/whatever/globalization is weird) within an order of magnitude of Apple's scale can practically operate without benefit of China's manufacturing base.
It feels like you have to bend the intuitive notion of "deciding" to operate in China even means for this to make sense and you just want to pin something on Apple here because they're a giant corporation, and all giant corporations are morally gray at best. The global economy has "decided" that China has the manufacturing base for this kind of business.
This doesn't seem productive in the way that appeals to personal responsibility fall flat in dealing with societal issues, like, we shouldn't have public drug treatment programs because people shouldn't do drugs. People do drugs, and there are costs to not having public treatment programs, so if you want to pretend it's just a matter of personal responsibility, you are indeed pretending, because it is also a societal problem not negated by framing it as personal responsibility.
Here, we assign "personal responsibility" to Apple for operating in China, when we have the "societal issue" of large scale electronics manufacturing centralizing there so that they have the industrial base for it. The world, on the whole, has allowed China to link into the world economy in this manner regardless of their humans rights record and other issues.
So, while there's nothing to love about Apple here, I feel like it's really missing the forest for the trees to frame this as an "Apple" issue in any sense whatsoever, but should be framed as a China-human-rights, globalization, and world economy issue, and we don't do ourselves any favors with appeals to "corporate personal responsibility"
When it happens, a company acting purely on someone’s moral code (usually a dictator CEO, though) sounds fine and reassuring. But on the contrary, this is unstable as you never know when that person will be sidelined, forced out, or realign their principles. At this point the company you trust can very well become an enemy. Just look at Twitter or Reddit.
On the long term, you need the company’s financial interests to be aligned with your (various) interests. This is the only thing that remains stable. Well, as long as nobody comes and make it private; then anything goes. It sucks, but that’s capitalism for you.
For the moment, Apple is mostly safe because basic privacy is their brand, and dropping it would be costly. This gives them leverage against some governments, but not so much against others. You can also count yourself lucky not to be born in China, but then there’s nothing Apple can do about that.
Apple makes 10x more selling in the Chinese market than they do in the United Kingdom, even with all of the roadblocks and handicaps China erects. Further Apple realizes that as the UK is a Western, democratic nation it is easy to essentially bargain about policies. Apple's current threats are essentially negotiating. There would be no negotiating with China about stuff like this.