They did not "threaten to disable it" and apple's stance on E2EE is not the issue here, UK's stance is. UK essentially made icloud E2EE by demanding apple to make a global backdoor into it, and essentially thus forced them to disable it. It is not disabled anywhere else in the world.
Essentially the UK (and other states) want somehow to have their pie and eat it too, but that's just not possible.
The torches and pitchforks that are soon to follow? You might get away with that in oppressive “some countries”, but I just can’t imagine it ending well in someplace like the UK.
Sure, it's orthogonal to the EE backdoor issue, but Apple or any other company, having a monopoly of a nations youths means of communication is still an issue.
Read a book before trying to be a smartass.
How do you plan to address this supposed monopoly? Force all children born in February and March to use Android only? Demand that people respond better to Samsung’s marketing? I’m a bit curious how you de-“monopolize” something consumers are choosing over numerous, plentiful competition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-laws...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple...
I used to have a simple Nokia back in the day. Then I switched to Compaq, then to HTC (Windows Mobile). Then back to Nokia 7110. Then to iPhone 3GS, then 4, 5, 6, then I stopped using iPhones and switched to Android.
But to be fair I'm 'in/into tech' since I was 9-10yo. I will jump from one tech to another when I think that this new tech will give me what I need at reasonable cost and at minimal privacy cost.
I remember loving syncing my Nokias with Outlook, then my iPhone, now my Android. There are always solutions out there and it is always easy to jump ship (at least for me). But I never used OneDrive or iCloud or Google Drive to begin with. So, for those who take the lazy approach, yes they will eat whatever is served and be thankful to their 'masters'.
For those who spend the time to think it through, there is no 'corner an entire market'.
We in the UK just want the same products that are available everywhere else, including encryption.
You're doing them a favour calling them halfwits, if most of the current crop of British politicians were light bulbs they wouldn't be bright enough the light the cupboard under my stairs.
I believe one of the filthiest snakes out there is Boris Johnson; yes the lunatic with the silly hair, who can recite HOMER in ANCIENT GREEK. And people still think he is 'stupid'? And all he does is 'mistakes'???? He is the filthiest of all snakes - except from his true masters (who is not the people).
So.. yeah. If they end up broke and in jail, they are stupid. If they end up working for 7 digits, and you cannot afford a home.. well..
You don’t get there by being incompetent, you get there by being amazing at manipulation, cunning and whatever the positive coded synonyms of those words are.
Butchering common phrases on live TV, or spouting verifiable falsehoods are all part of the game. I feel stupid myself for not playing it as well.
I think someone can be very good at those and also very stupid when it comes to, say, encryption and societal side effects thereof. In fact I think it's quite common. Intelligence is multi-dimensional.
Also, a good politician hates 'encryption' because they can't read your messages, read your mind, so you are dangerous because you can have independent thought which they cannot identify in order to manipulate.
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica is an amazing example for this.
If you remember the television show, Columbo, starring Peter Falk, he's the Ur example I go to.
It's not that black and white.
It's pretending to claim we have a position other than pandering to both the EU and Trump whilst not actually taking responsibility to do anything (other than act as a banker)
Whether that applies to Starmer is a matter of opinion I suppose
One of the least spine-owing politicians in the world
I'm not evangelizing the show itself, but the clip search function is very useful.
https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1740955500.049_starmerafterse...
When your politician is using the same terminology and phraseology as George W. Bush, I'd say there's probably some war mongering going on.
trivial edit: that was the most recent Starmer clip, from a week or two ago. I was on my phone and i only really remembered the coalition of the willing quote. I don't know much else about Starmer, sorry!
I listened to the full speech when it was broadcast live recently. Everything he said made complete sense. Of course Europe needs to stand up and defend its territory from russian invaders. You can't possibly believe that bolstering defence in Europe is tantamount to warmongering, surely?!
I suppose Winston Churchill was a warmonger in some ways, too, but thank goodness he was.
https://ukraineworld.org/en/articles/analysis/what-russia-wa...
Please stop throwing around random facts or internet stuff to justify rhetoric. Peace is peace. If you want it to last both have to compromise.
This war didn't just start because someone woke up and decided let's start a new empire. Painting it as such is just part of a problem looking for a solution.
Also notice how at any point I am not saying an invasion is justified or correct. But the situation is that both sides are in a state of war and that peace is better for everyone. Everyone.
What compromises do you believe russia should make?
As for us no NATO, elections, settling of debts and disarmament probably backed by the reshaping of borders because what else does Ukraine have other than mineral wealth. And probably some agreement to build a gas framework that actually works or an agreement to dismantle the pipelines through this territory. As for EU protections Russia never used to object to that but the name calling may have changed their minds.
Edit: Name-calling tends to happen once someone had struck close to an unfortunate truth. At that point it's no longer a discussion or even an argument, it has descended into anarchy.
As it stands Russia's concerns were multi-faceted. 1) The un-elected negotiations toward ascension into NATO brought on by a Western backed convicted corrupt oligarch. 2) Said group was referring to itself as "Fatherland", last time we saw such rhetoric we ended up paying the price for several years. 3) There was no significant attempt after the revolutions to curtail talks of this nature and the political status-quo probably stood to benefit to pleading ignorant. 4) The debts from the gas pipeline are not insignificant, it's the reason Germany kept the peace broadly.
Russia was wrong to invade. This could have been settled otherwise, but would have taken a lot longer and would have been costly, i.e. economic warfare or trade disputes. Ultimately the nordic states changing their affiliation from neutral to pro-NATO has weakened Russia's hand so in that regard this invasion has already cost them face, as well as political and strategic manoeuvrability in this region.
If elections were such a foregone conclusion nobody would mind this statement, the reality is we expect change as a result, much as Chruchil never became de-facto king.
Want something from someone after spending months insulting them, don't be surprised when trust has gone which is the start of negotiations and ultimately the bedrock peace is built on. An example of that was recently demonstrated in the whitehouse where someone could have recently said, "yes and thankyou" and received all the help they could have wanted, but due to some biblical almost aesopian level of pride this never happened so no the reality on the ground changes. There's a reason for the saying of the pen is mightier than the sword.
Appeasement would be the further surrender of lands, the admission of guilt through actions that concerned and weren't approved of. The admission of guilt bearing the cost of rebuilding. The acknowledgement that certain other super-powers tried to extend their reach too far, and the surrender of land based not on ethnic breakdown but on capital gain. That is appeasement and thankfully is not something either side has seriously expected out of peace negations (yet, either side could say/do something stupid tomorrow I suppose).
Are you russian by any chance? Or just deeply, irredeemably brainwashed?
> Not that it was illegal
Yes it was.
> Not sure I believe the press either side over civilian exodus vs evacuations
Straying into conspiracy territory again, unsurprisingly.
> And as a nice bonus a demilitarised zone
Ah, you mean a DMZ in Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, and so on, down the internationally recognised border? Somehow, I don't think you do.
> With regards to land, imo that's unfortunately best either traded for goods or leave it as is
Surprise, surprise. You want to give the terrorists everything they want.
> no NATO
That's not for you or russia to determine. And this was never about NATO anyway, given that NATO has been on russia's immediate land border for decades already. The narrative about NATO is yet more kremlin bullshit that you not only believe, but propagate here.
> elections
The Ukrainian opposition parties don't want this, so why do you? Zelensky's approval rating is through the roof. Ukrainians trust Zelensky. He is a true hero.
> As for EU protections Russia never used to object to that but the name calling may have changed their minds.
Oh really? The EU are now the bad guys for saying mean things? Oh goodness, poor russia. My heart truly bleeds. Yes, I can now understand why they've killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured people, raped people, stolen children, levelled entire cities, displaced millions. Yes, yes. How dare we say mean things.
---
Honestly, I find you disgusting. This discussion is over.
And at no point is unilateral disarmament sensible, that is capitulation. But arming one side to the teeth and walking away after peace just leads to more violence. It's the basis of so many sci-fi stories and clearly what has happened in recent post WW2 history. It's a bad idea.
Edit: also just ploughing in weapons wouldn't give peace or this conversation would be mute and people wouldn't be dying. Clearly a balance needs to be achieved. Counter armoured vehicle weapons for Ukraine is sensible and clearly worked in the opening hours without giving them ambition of hitting Russia in advance.
Do you really think Ukraine is going to attack Russia? They have no motive, they (along with the rest of Europe) were happy to do business with Russia until Russia's various aggressions (starting in 2014, mind you) soured them. No matter what happens they're not going to be in a state for aggression after this war, even if they have the appetite. Most of the arms we send them are being consumed. Even Russia will take a while to rebuild.
This is like saying Russia's number 2 decided to visit Mexico after a political landslide and that America would be happy about that. Last time anything similar happened we got the bay of pigs...
Ideally a large demilitarised zone (which would obviously mean into Russian territories) would help people feel easier. That's unlikely to happen, but is the closest we'd get to something sensible. It's not about appeasement, but any peace is likely to involve land concessions. If not, the peace is American bought with huge interest terms which is closer to what we had crippling the kaiser and we all know how that ended...
Now, given that highly likely scenario its a bad idea to leave Ukraine with large amounts of Western mid range armorments. They won't be looking to take St Petersburg, but in the sort term future they may look to reunite post soviet territories which will just put us back to square 1.
The aggressions started after Ukraine made moves (supported openly by unelected politically connected groups on _both_ sides) to join NATO after failing to do much to really make any attempt to deal with the corruptions around the gas supplies and arguable thefts.
Trying to portray a trade agreement with the EU as an existential threat to Russia was a tough sell, so Russians invented the entire NATO narrative.
This same political party which fails to make it into a significant position of power at home but still engages openly with foreign diplomatic entities close to or in the whitehouse included. Nothing conspiratorial, just 100% fact. Again this does not justify any military action, this is just the scene as things were before the war.
This is akin to the reform party in the UK negotiating with China or the liberal party in the USA negotiating with the EU. It could, should and would be shutdown by the ruling party unless it benefited them in some way.
Again imagine if a nation went through a revolution on the doorstep of America then Russia was to move to support this revolution unilaterally through arming them and supporting them. Regardless of subtitles this is the optics as seen by Russia. We know Ukraine was armed because otherwise there would be tanks in Kiev. Again this doesn't justify any military action, but the fact this happened behind the scenes and wasn't transparent concerns people.
Everybody knows there's Russian assets in Georgia now, this could be benign military aid and rest or could be nuclear first strike assets. Given the lack of transparency we have to assume the latter, that is how risk assessment works.
Have you not made clear that you don't consider this a justification for invasion? Then why do you keep bringing it up? That's why you sound like a Russian shill, because those are Russian talking points. They only serve to distract from the main dynamic of the situation. The rest of us recognize that those are an entirely lower tier of concerns relative to the global incentives for wars of conquest.
Note that Ukraine started with an unusually large stockpile of Soviet arms, with which they completely failed to invade Russia. I repeat: most of the arms being sent to Ukraine are consumed. That includes the vehicles. Even in the best case scenario they'll be lucky to break even, much less end up with a huge stockpile. As things were going during the war even before Trump's freeze, they were barely staying ahead of attrition.
Also note: your Ukrainian invasion scenario presupposes that there will be some complicated/stupid re-arrangement of borders. No kidding, that would cause problems. Maybe you're starting to get an inkling why a lot of us don't consider that acceptable? (In my view, the only sensible arrangement is a return to the 2014 borders, whereupon the Ukrainian side of the border turns into miles of minefields. You can consider that a DMZ or territorial concession if you like. Certainly neither side will be using it productively.)
I find it funny that you're proposing a demilitarized zone that extends into Russian territory. They won't accept that in a million years, unless you kick their asses on the battlefield even harder than I'm proposing. As in, they might actually break out the nukes first... Wait, what's this?
> With regards to land, imo that's unfortunately best either traded for goods or leave it as is.
I guess you actually don't have a consistent position, because "as is", with half of four different Ukrainian oblasts under Russian control, is nowhere near a DMZ in Russia. Even if you call it an aspirational vs good enough goal, the policies implied by those proposals are irreconcilable. One of them is capitulation, one of them is tantamount to WWIII.
Reason and justification are different. If you don't understand this please steer clear of upper management or politics in your career for everyone sake. Bay of pigs was not justified yet nobody is freaking about that incident they wave a banner and start chest thumping "because we're the good guys"... If Russia wanted to march on Kiev and damn civilian casualties they could have done so on the first few weeks. Clearly Russia is not interested in this and clearly the West until recently hasn't been interested in reducing the death toll so we keep throwing people at the guns to make a point of who is stronger and who can outlast which isn't David and Goliath, it's a significant fraction of the Ukrainian people Vs a fraction of Russia's standing army.
Again this isn't insulting those in a position of fighting. They probably have a "ours is to do or die" situation. But given that a lot of Western weapons are now ending up in the world's black markets and corruption again and again from the top, this is being faught less strategically by either side and more a case of who can feed the meat grinder the most bodies.
> Maybe you're starting to get an inkling why a lot of us don't consider that acceptable?
And again nobody is promoting that. Nobody is yet. Nobody is saying that is for the better. Nobody is saying this is amazing.
People are saying there were large highly polarised pro Russian regions within Ukraine before this war started and deciding to make them subservient to Kiev without an acknowledgement of their political right to self determination is a problem. Again this isn't a justification it's an unfortunate fact. But demanding a "restore everything to what it was and go away", is just saying "I refuse to listen to you I'm going to do my thing", which is where a lot of the political strife comes from. Demanding the borders be exactly as you want them is fine, but what does that mean? What do they want and how do you get to get to a point where both are satisfied if not happy? American and Russian investment in the region and profits split between everyone? It's a sensible goal. If people present this calmly hell it might even happen, but chest thumping will make sure it doesn't.
Regardless of how we got here now. This is the situation. It needs to be fixed and the fix saves lives.
Yes Ukraine denuclearized. And before that we had Vlad the impaler running the region and before that...
There is history and there are direct contributing factors to an incident. I'm not bringing up ancient historical points I'm bringing up factors relating to individuals who were in positions of influence and power when the war started. That unfortunately has a direct bearing on the situation. I'm sure if Dr Christmas was working in her region we'd be discussing her background in arms reduction at the time but that is settled. (Yes bad 007 reference)
My point is that if we want to go back far enough who drew up borders, when, how and we're there sensible are basically the reasons for most global conflicts currently being faught. And most are a result of a collapsing empire giving someone who was a friend just a little bit more support, power, weaponry and land then they should have received in fairness. Eventually countries in this situation collapse as was almost happening in Ukraine in 2020, saying Russia bad for supporting people to wanted to leave Ukraine is the same as saying Hillary was misguided for visiting or we should arrest the Spanish politicians who wanted the same recently for their region. No matter how it's cut it's oppression of a popular option by a state. And for sake of clarity, yes we all know Russia could give a masterclass on disappearing and killing political dissidents. In that regard, yes, current Russian political people bad. But that doesn't mean they will go away because you don't like them. It means you have to understand them, engage with them and try to find common ground whilst hoping the situation internally changes naturally like Gorbochev coming to power. Saying Russian plants, simps and CIA assets is often an extension of either sides true political influence abroad, and something to be feared, but trump is no more a KGB agent than Putin is an MI5 asset gone rouge. Great, even compelling fiction, but not real.
Ok on this point at agree the war only lasted more than about a week because of Western intervention. We're ignoring the socioeconomic divides that existed within the country and we're supporting the side we like strongly. Why before the war were Ukraine troops being trained in Western countries? This again looks like a prelude to something or another Castro like insurgency on Russian borders.
Yes Russia engaged in a trade war over trade. Omg. So does the UK, India, China, now America... This is a million miles away from a shooting war in terms of justification and frankly may contribute to bad blood, but is just trade. Given that this kept leading to Ukraine flip flopping rather of picking sides rather than finding a way to work with both shows how the country is being abused by both sides to their own ends at the cost of the Ukrainian people ultimately as with all conflicts sadly.
Actually there's precedent for DMZ within territories within the region and moving back military assets from a flash point is sensible global politics. If this isn't obvious again then cest la vie. Again beating the "Russia will never do this unless we fight them" is stupid, it's a clear line in the sand that shows you understand their upper hand and strategic and military might which doesn't compromise because they likely gained territory. However deciding that we're going to engage in a proxy war just fight Russia is just admitting we want to send more people to die.
I hate to bring it up but for those feeling passionately enough, there has been very little Western govt effort to stop individuals to go and join the war effort with Kiev if you believe this is a manpower or technical challenge to be overcome. The sad reality is tanks in Kiev and political arrests by day 4 or 5 of the war would have probably been less bloody in the short and medium term and we'll never know if Russia was looking to hold the country or simply bring about change because we're not Russia.
Yes again, for the umpteenth time Russia is clearly the aggressor. Nobody is denying this unless they're trolling you. But people thumping their chests thinking this is a cold war starting again. Get a break. This is an isolated incident with complex history not the "the first domino to fall". With that regard it needs to be treated like it is. Not a battlefield that needs a surrender by one side. But a conflict that can be stopped by hearing where the differences now lie.
If you want to view the world as black or white America is a country founded on the slaughter of indigenous peoples by a group who demonstrably wrongly claim religious oppression who have taken land and assets from indigenous and local people's around the world and refuse to give them back. Hawaii being an excellent example, but then we have Iraq and our original "coalition of the willing" who openly declared an illegitimate war, but people now shrug that off as "well can't change that now". Direct USA involvement alone as well as the impact of EU states in several middle Eastern countries is worse than a week defined conflict with all defined goals. The coalition of the willing have us death, oppression and then a return to a hungry starving people.
Both are bad. Both could be resolved better. But true global politics is closer to giants in the playground so we should be trying to get them to stop standing on anthills.
> If Russia wanted to march on Kiev and damn civilian casualties they could have done so on the first few weeks.
Are you kidding me? Russia literally did send tanks and airborne troops to Kyiv in the first days of the war. They've been targeting civilians with missiles. What planet are you on?
Ok let's remove rhetoric.
There is a disagreement which has turned into a shooting match or armed conflict. People are dying and there's destruction going on.
We want to resolve this.
That involves people sitting down and not shouting or name calling but talking. Resolution involves compromise, compromise brings peace.
This is ignoring the fact that one player is much bigger than the other, who is right or wrong, but simply trying to move forwards.
Unfortunately the point that the tanks were knocked out by Ukraine within the opening hours on Ukrainian soil is a "Russian talking point". Kiev was clearly armed with Western anti tank weapony beyond their means and arguably beyond their financial ability to pay for (arguably).
A Western talking point is that Russia is much bigger, a known bully and could have worked to resolve this. Yes they could. But the other party involved was sitting there claiming they're a bully and are "just going to attack no matter what"... It's sad but the response is really calculable at that point.
Russia did not send it's high class latest tanks for the same reason we aren't seeing the latest and greatest American vehicles holding the line in a shooting war, that is a different level of aggression that would have different consequences. That is closer to a blitzkrieg and so was likely not the point of the engagement. (From the perspective of a military analyst position).
Russia has hit civilians with missiles yes. Again you're taking what I have said and extending it to make claims I am not making. Please stop this it gets old.
Israel hits civilian targets, not casualties, _targets_, and the world sits in silence this is a concerning reality.
The fighting in Ukraine is over Ukrainian soil so yes most of the casualties are Ukranian. This is not saying this is justified or correct again, this is not saying they should be Russian, this is saying water is wet and the survival rate of CV19 for non at risk groups was >99%>> these are all, uncomfortable for some, facts.
Again Russia could hit much harder and be more deadly. I hope for all that is sensible they don't, but they're capability compared to Ukraine is a different league. Like it or dislike it they are obviously showing restraint of a kind by not carpet bombing the whole country and moving the Russian border to Poland.
Again, does this make what they've done correct, or nice or good or defensible. No.
Again understanding a position is not defending it it's understanding context that helps understand the problem which helps conversations and candidly helps peace.
Not a taking point. Peace.
Truth is a 3 edged sword.
But frankly if you're going to insist on facts not being facts I'll just bid you good day and go back to gardening.
> This war didn't just start because someone woke up and decided let's start a new empire.
You're almost right! The Russian empire is very old. They just want it back.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/starmer-the-...
The only spine he has is pleasing his sponsors, not for having his own thoughts.
This is ridiculous.
It would also be banning Macbooks, imagine what companies would have to say about that.
The reason Apple isn't calling their bluff is not that they're scared the UK will actually ban their products. It's for optical and political reasons.
If Apple wasn't a walled garden neither opinions would matter since the user could just decide for themselves without Apple or the government having power over it.
I dislike how removing a optional feature is being equated to a backdoor since unlike this situation it would effect everyone without there knowledge. If no E2EE is a backdoor then Apple by default is backdoored (which it is but people here like to pretend otherwise).
As we are talking about E2EE for cloud storage, governments have very much control over it as in banning the use certain software by law and applying it through ISPs and other means. Not saying I wouldn't prefer a scenario where there was indeed some degree of such choice, but that would not change anything if a government decides it does not want E2EE.
> Apples stance on E2EE is off by default
True E2EE in the context of cloud storage has also certain downsides that one should acknowledge, notably if you lose access to your keys your data is effectively gone. When we talk about a large userbase that includes people who do not have a good understanding of this fact (prob most people) and this choice is not made by themselves in a more conscious manner, this could be a headache for a company (and customer service). Go to subreddits of E2EE encrypted services and notice how often people come up with having forgotten their passwords thus effectively their keys and their data (and that's an audience making a more conscious choice) and not actually understanding that forgetting password + losing any recovery keys = loss of data and that proton cannot give them access back (if they could, there could not be much privacy there). I am not saying that E2EE is bad, but that it is not necessarily the best choice for everybody, and thus I have no issue with apple's opt-in approach.
They ofc can however it would take a new even more tyrannical law that applies to each citizen which would impact all encrption software not just apple. The Cryptowars have also shown that such laws are not only technical unenforcable but also economical disadvantageous.
The current law does impact all encryption, not just Apple. It gives the government the right to force any provider to backdoor their encryption, and gags those providers in the process. There's nothing in the law that restricts it to Apple, or to cloud providers, or to large companies, or to it being blanket applied to all providers of encryption operating in the UK.
The only reason why we're talking about it with regards to Apple, is because Apple is the first confirmed case of a provider being instructed to backdoor their crypto, and we only know about it because the order leaked, and Apple coincidently took public action that unambiguously confirmed the leaked info.
>It gives the government the right to force any provider to backdoor their encryption
I could not find anything about individuals or developer only (service) provider. Ofc I wouldn't not put it past them to change that on a whim.
This is all clearly documented here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
What’s changing is the UK government is apparently serving a Technical Capability Notice compelling Apple to provide access to their customers data, and the only reasonable way for Apple to comply is to remove ADP as an option in the United Kingdom.