SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Apple has attacked what it calls the UK's "unprecedented overreach" in proposing that it have the power of veto over all Big Tech security features across the globe.
The UK's House of Lords is due to debate an update to the country's Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016 on January 30, 2024. In a much earlier form in 2015, the IPA was slammed by Apple for how it then proposed breaking encryption.
According to BBC News, Apple is now attacking the latest update proposals. Apple is against the UK having a veto over security updates, and also over how if the country were to exercise that veto, no Big Tech firm could even say that it has.
[...] Separately, in September 2023, the UK backed down from a nonsensical law after firms including Apple and WhatsApp said they would cease operating in the UK if the government passed a law requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption.
The issue of Apple and others not being legally allowed to reveal that a government had vetoed a security update is similar to how the US forbade the company from revealing push notification surveillance.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Thursday February 01 2024, @12:46PM (3 children)
Yes.
Multinational companies (and other multi-national/transnational organisations) are finding out that the Internet has borders. Who knew?
In the past, the borders were minimal, or not enforced at all. But every fibre-optic cable, copper (including co-ax) and radio signal that crosses a jurisdictional boundary becomes subject to the laws of both jurisdictions. The surprise is that the laws and other regulations do not need to be the same, consistent, or even sane.
Politicians also have an annoying habit of (a) being replaced and (b) even if not replaced, not staying 'bought-in' to whatever your organisation finds most amenable. So 'comfortable' jurisdictions can change.
In the USA, people are finding out that state boundaries have meaning on the Internet - age verification and abortion being two of the most salient examples; and the same works in spades across international boundaries. The 'extra-territoriality' of US legal jurisdiction is not 100%, which comes as a surprise to some.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Opportunist on Thursday February 01 2024, @02:36PM (2 children)
Borders have no meaning on the internet. Anything you could do to stuff the cat back into the bag will have fallout worse than what you want to deal with.
You outlaw my porn site? I move abroad. You outlaw people accessing my porn site? I don't care. You bully the country I sit in into compliance? There will be token compliance and a dog-and-pony show of "restrictions" that are easily circumvented. You block access to my site on your end? I'll make your constituents aware of your censorship and let them deal with you.
Your laws mean jack shit on the internet. Unless it is something that can somehow be globally established because you can actually find global consensus for it (good luck with 99% of what you'd like to vanish), you're SOL.
(Score: 4, Touché) by hendrikboom on Thursday February 01 2024, @06:23PM
They mean more than jack shit. They mean that you may be forced to perform all those circumventions you listed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jasassin on Friday February 02 2024, @01:24AM
Tell that to Sen. John Thune (R. South Dakota) after he the started the internet commerce state tax legislation that passed into law many years ago (yes kids you used to be able to buy things off amazon or ebay and not pay sales tax).
So I'm pretty sure borders have meaning on the internet, or maybe I'm hallucinating the sales tax when I purchase things on the internet.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A