The choice was either eliminate it now (globally, via introduction of a backdoor) or eliminate it in the UK (but keep it globally).
So, perhaps this is a bit of a dangerous precedent, but it was the least-bad option.
So, perhaps this is a bit of a dangerous precedent, but it was the least-bad option.
Another choice, however unpalatable to all parties, would have been for Apple to stop doing business in the UK.
They could also sell the entire business to Google. Why bother with listing options even worse for everyone involved?
This play by Apple applies pressure to the UK government indirectly via its citizens, for free, rather than taking the risk and expenses of a lawsuit.
Being a business does not remove ethical considerations. And I’m an environment where corporations are considered people, it seems reasonable to expect some degree of alignment with normal citizens.
> Apple's goal is to make money. The government is a representation of your will.
The government is increasingly not a representation of the collective will, and is instead captured by those corporations.
I can’t help but feel the “but they exist to make money” line too often ignores the many ways this is not a sufficiently complex explanation of the situation.
People always get this wrong. Corporations are not people. They just have certain rights like owning property. Corporate personhood != full personhood.
Because Apple marketing keeps relentlessly bashing their customers skull that privacy is their advantage?
Apple employes thousands of people in the UK. I really don't see any practical way they could have done that.
They could pull out of the UK, and to hell with the consequences, but then if the EU decide to do the same thing, or the US, or China says "hold my beer", then the problem becomes much larger.
Losing the UK market wouldn't impact Apple that much - it'd be a hit to the stock, of course, but as a fraction of worldwide business, it isn't that huge. Larger markets would be a bigger issue.
This is still better than a back door but it sets an awful precedent.
The UK would still lose ADP (and then also just Apple products in general). A precedent would still be set.
Your posing a strictly worse third option. Sure, it's an option, I guess. Apple could also just close down globally, as a fourth option. Or sell off to Google as a fifth. But I was trying to present the least-bad option (turn off ADP), rather than an exhaustive list.
To my knowledge, Apple has always said that their response would be to withdraw affected services rather than break encryption.
> Apple has said planned changes to British surveillance laws could affect iPhone users’ privacy by forcing it to withdraw security features, which could ultimately lead to the closure of services such as FaceTime and iMessage in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-survei...
IMO they could’ve categorized the whole iCloud service as “affected” and disable all of it.
Users in the UK do still have the option to perform an encrypted backup to their local PC or Mac.