Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Thursday February 01 2024, @07:36AM   Printer-friendly

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Opportunist on Thursday February 01 2024, @02:36PM (2 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Thursday February 01 2024, @02:36PM (#1342634)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Overrated=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by hendrikboom on Thursday February 01 2024, @06:23PM

    by hendrikboom (1125) on Thursday February 01 2024, @06:23PM (#1342674) Homepage Journal

    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

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Friday February 02 2024, @01:24AM (#1342725) Homepage Journal

    Borders have no meaning on the internet.

    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