iPhone Pulled From UK Market? Likely? Desirable?

[Steve_MB]

It appears that the UK Government doesn’t really want to have a modern high-tech economy any more:

First, here’s the tweet from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales which inspired me to write this:

[QUOTE=Jimmy Wales]
I would like to see Apple refuse to sell iPhone in UK if gov’t bans end-to-end encryption. Does Parliament dare be that stupid?

Here’s the deal. The UK government is trying to pass legislation that will prevent anyone from using strong encryption. What it means is “any encryption we can’t break is banned”. So Apple, which has great security and makes it quite clear that it doesn’t want to see users data, will have to make a decision.

The options for Apple and WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat and any other service that encrypts user chats will be the following:

[ul]
[li]Let the UK government in through a back door[/li][li]Do not use encryption for messaging[/li][li]Do not allow UK citizens access to your product or service.[/li][/ul]

To be quite clear, Apple can happily manage without the UK and barely notice a dent in its profits…
[/QUOTE]

Looking at the list, it does appear to be comprehensive, and Door #3 does appear to be the one that has solid ground on the other side (being the only way to maintain actual security).

The larger issue here boils down to: Have we reached the point where megacorps are the counterbalance that keeps nation-states overreach in check, the way the Church and the kings used to push back on each other back in the day?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I think you’ll find that 99.9% of users couldn’t give two fucks about their Snapchats being encrypted.

[Novelty_Bobble]

On the surface of it I think it would be hilarious if the iphone was banned, I’ve an aversion to the fetishisation and quasi-religious nature of certain brands.

Having said that, I don’t want this to come to pass. I should have the right to encrypt my data in such a way that no-one can ever break it and I should not be compelled to unencrypt on pain of legal sanction.

If the intelligence services consider me a threat and choose to break my encryption anyway then good luck to them, spies are gonna spy, but I think making it too easy for them is a step too far. They should be forced to think long and hard about whether I’m an important enough target before they invest the resources in strong-arming my data.

So I think it is a bullshit law and I hope it fails.

[Baron_Greenback]

The encryption stuff wasn’t in the draft Bill that was published last week.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Baron_Greenback

The encryption stuff wasn’t in the draft Bill that was published last week.

Ah good, it had been proposed and I thought that, judging by the OP, they must have snuck it back in.

Looks like my rant was wasted.

[Steve_MB]

@Baron_Greenback

The encryption stuff wasn’t in the draft Bill that was published last week.

Er, yes it is:

Buried in the 300 pages of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill (aka the Snooper’s Charter), published on Wednesday, is something called a “technical capability notice” (Section 189). Despite its neutral-sounding name, this gives the UK’s home secretary almost unlimited power to impose “an obligation on any relevant operators”–any obligation–subject to the requirement that “the Secretary of State considers it is reasonable to do so.”

There is also the proviso that “it is (and remains) practicable for those relevant operators to comply with those requirements,” which probably rules out breaking end-to-end encryption, but would still allow the home secretary to demand that companies add backdoors to their software and equipment…

That may effectively require Apple to not merely quit selling new iPhones, but to cut off service to existing ones that use their security features.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Steve_MB

Er, yes it is:

Oh balls, sorry, missed that.

(Lesson learned: Read the tech press after they’ve had the chance to read the whole Bill, and don’t rely on the initial reactions)

[Smapti]

@Steve_MB

Have we reached the point where megacorps are the counterbalance that keeps nation-states overreach in check, the way the Church and the kings used to push back on each other back in the day?

If you believe that a “megacorp” has your best interests in mind more so than your government, then you’re going to be very disappointed in the long run.

[Steve_MB]

@Smapti

If you believe that a “megacorp” has your best interests in mind more so than your government, then you’re going to be very disappointed in the long run.

It’s obvious in this case that the megacorps have our back against the governments (not just the UK) that want to put shivs in it.

[Stringbean]

@Smapti

If you believe that a “megacorp” has your best interests in mind more so than your government, then you’re going to be very disappointed in the long run.

Care to apply this poignant revelation to the situation at hand, where a corporation stands at the behest of a government seeking to invade privacy rights?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, it’s not as though the megacorps care about our rights. They just don’t want to redesign their software and like having encryption as a selling point.

[Smapti]

@Stringbean

Care to apply this poignant revelation to the situation at hand, where a corporation stands at the behest of a government seeking to invade privacy rights?

You speak as if “privacy rights” were an issue of concern to a “megacorp”. Apple doesn’t care about your privacy; they care about the extent to which they can profit off of you. If their marketing people tell them that pretending to care about your “privacy rights” will generate more profit for them in the short term, then that’s how they’ll market themselves in the hope that you’ll believe them and give them your money in exchange for their saying the things you want to hear.

As soon as “privacy” ceases to be profitable, they’ll throw you under the bus, and you won’t have a leg to stand on, because your prior fealty will have paved the way for them to buy laws that benefit them at your expense.

[Steve_MB]

What the previous rant neglects is that it is fundamentally in the corporate interest to 1)provide what the customer wants and 2)avoid being co-opted to do the government’s job for them. Both of these basic imperatives point in the direction of doing the right thing in this case.

[Stringbean]

So we, as the people (or consumers if we are to be unfettered about it), want privacy in our digital communications.

A megacorp hears that and offers unbreakbale encryption.

A government says “we must be able to see your private communications.”

Which should I find more laudable, the profit-seeking entity listening to my demand for privacy knowing it could affect their bottom-line, or the untouchable government entity which seeks to invade privacy with no recourse or public accountability?

I guess Big Brother is the friend of some around here, but empty platitudes that we ought trust Him despite particulars is not convincing.

[Smapti]

@Steve_MB

What the previous rant neglects is that it is fundamentally in the corporate interest to 1)provide what the customer wants and 2)avoid being co-opted to do the government’s job for them.

“The corporate interest” is generally antithetical to the public good. Especially so in this case, where what the corporation is marketing is an unencryptable system which is openly available to criminals, terrorists, and other enemies of both the state and the people (that’s you!)

Do you want a society which is safe from organized crime, drug/human trafficking, and terrorism? Yes? Then the product Apple is providing is not what you, the customer, wants, regardless of how much money they have spent on persuading you that you want what they’re selling.

[Smapti]

@Stringbean

Which should I find more laudable, the profit-seeking entity listening to my demand for privacy knowing it could affect their bottom-line, or the untouchable government entity which seeks to invade privacy with no recourse or public accountability?

I believe you’ve got that backwards.

The profit-seeking entity is “listening” to your demand for privacy because they believe it will benefit their bottom line. If they thought that “listening to your demand for privacy” would cost them, they’d sell you out in a New York minute.

As to the government entity, you have the ability to touch them and hold them accountable at the ballot box several times a year, which is far more control over them then you will ever have over any corporation.

[Memnon]

@Smapti

As to the government entity, you have the ability to touch them and hold them accountable at the ballot box several times a year, which is far more control over them then you will ever have over any corporation.

I’m pretty confident that if the millions of UK citizens who own Apple products suddenly find they’re unable to use them because Apple won’t kow-tow to the government, the Tories will find themselves thrown out of Parliament faster than a speeding bullet.

Ergo, I’m all for it

[lisiate]

Nonsense, how could the iUsers organise anything without their devices?

[Stringbean]

@Smapti

The profit-seeking entity is “listening” to your demand for privacy because they believe it will benefit their bottom line. If they thought that “listening to your demand for privacy” would cost them, they’d sell you out in a New York minute.

True. But implicit in this statement is that “voting with dollars” is more immediate and effective than actual voting. Right?

@Smapti

As to the government entity, you have the ability to touch them and hold them accountable at the ballot box several times a year, which is far more control over them then you will ever have over any corporation.

Until I can vote for the director of the NSA, and all of its executive administrators, after lengthy and public debate, you can’t tell me with a straight face that I have any power to hold them accountable.

This is precisely why conservatives are skeptical of non-elected bureaucracy.

[Steve_MB]

@Smapti

“The corporate interest” is generally antithetical to the public good.

Nonsense. The corporate interest is to sell goods and services, not to space aliens, ghosts, or elves, but to the public.

Especially so in this case, where what the corporation is marketing is an unencryptable system which is openly available to criminals, terrorists, and other enemies of both the state and the people

That’s life. When something is created, it exists for everyone. Your proposed solution of staying in the caves has been rejected.

Do you want a society which is safe from organized crime, drug/human trafficking, and terrorism? Yes?

My taxes pay the police’s salaries. I am paying them to do a job. I am not paying them to whine that it’s too haaard.

the product Apple is providing is not what you, the customer, wants

I, the consumer, want a product that keeps unauthorized persons out of my private business. Unless you have evidence that Apple’s claim to offer same is somehow fraudulent, you have no complaint against them in that regard.