• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is no backdoor in Apple’s encryption. That’s the reason the US and UK governments have prosecuted Apple repeatedly. They can obtain iCloud data with a warrant, but are repeatedly pressing for real-time surveillance. The UK banned encryption without a backdoor, so Apple turned off encryption rather than compromising their standard.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The funny thing is, advanced data protection was optional, and not on by default. Apple just stopped offering it in the UK

      https://support.apple.com/en-us/108756

      When it’s enabled, they can’t access iCloud data at all, even with a warrant due to the fact it’s E2E with keys they don’t control. That’s what the UK got really mad about. But Apple shut the whole feature down for the UK in response to the backdoor ask.

      It’s not different from the UK banning signal because it’s E2E encrypted and they can’t access it.

      They’re likely only backing down now because of consumer/media backlash

      • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Apple would need to supply the data if they had the encryption key right? So can we assume that even Apple cannot see the encrypted data?

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Correct, standard iCloud data is accessible with a warrant. But the UK wanted their own backdoor so they have constant access without a warrant.

          But with advanced data protection, Apple can’t provide the data because they don’t have the encryption keys, regardless of a warrant.

          Important to note iMessage is always E2E encrypted though, so iMessages cannot be accessed even with a warrant. Advanced data protection just expands that to all iCloud data

          • Natanael@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Using iMessage with backups does mean the backups are unencrypted and accessible by warrant (unless you use advanced data protection)

          • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Okay interesting, thank you for the info.

            Who even uses iMessage these days? Pretty sure I turned it off completely because it was messing with the 5 SMS I send in a year …

            • kautau@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              iMessage is far more common in the US afaik. Whereas most people elsewhere will use WhatsApp or whatever, nobody in my extended family uses anything but iMessage to communicate

              • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Ah, yeah right, the US is still stuck in the 00s with that (and payment methods).

                But iMessage doesn’t work on Android and by default the message will just fail if they have an Android phone and you use iMessage.

                • coolmojo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  That is interesting. In Europe it just switches to text message automatically when sending to people with android.

                  • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    In The Netherlands it doesn’t and last time I checked we are still part of Europe lol

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      1 day ago

      These things you write, they are not in any way substantiation of the claim that Apple doesn’t make backdoors.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          In theory you can learn mind reading from some fantasy universe and check every Apple person. Or ask a crystal ball. Or use some other way to collect full information about our universe, check every rabbit hole, so to say, and then confidently confirm “there’s no Apple backdoor here”. “Here” meaning this plane of existence.

          In practice yes.

          EDIT: Forgot - the “refused to cooperate” and “they have disagreements” things even in daily wisdom don’t change the probability of Apple having made backdoors. It’s PR. You most likely won’t learn it from the news if they do, in fact, cooperate.

          • testfactor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Even in your made up scenario it doesn’t prove the negative. Maybe your mind reading didn’t work because Apple has a mind wiping device that made them forget. Maybe the crystal ball didn’t work because Apple made an even more powerful “crystal ball blocking” device. You can’t prove that’s not what’s really happening.

            So no, you in fact can’t prove a negative.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              With that additional detail in possibilities it’s also not possible to ever fully prove a positive.

              My example was with an assumption that you have the full information. Hypothetically.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 hours ago

              I didn’t say “prove”, I used another word with bigger allowance. Of “likely backdoors vs likely not” kind. I wanted to say that their “public” conflicts with governments and their statements of the “trust us, we won’t sell you” kind are all worth nothing, because being caught lying won’t cost them anything.