Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.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: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Thursday February 01 2024, @04:54PM

    by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 01 2024, @04:54PM (#1342656) Journal

    Assange never had a chance at a fair trial and likely would have been extradited the USA. He may still be extradited. Regarding the rape accusations and other things. Assuming everything is exactly as the alleged victim said, he was definitely not in the right. That said at best it was a case of he said/she said and there was quite a bit of consensual sex going on between them.

    Kim Dotcom's character has nothing to do with the legality of what was done.

    Laws exist as much to protect the individual from government overreach as it does to protect the Nation. The Nation should be the people, the government shouldn't be protected from it's own people. A government should fear it's people, because the people should hold the power.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3