US Spy Chief Gabbard Says UK Agreed To Drop 'Backdoor' Mandate for Apple (reuters.com) 80
The UK government has agreed to withdraw its order requiring Apple to create backdoor access to encrypted iCloud data following intervention from the Trump administration. Vice President JD Vance negotiated the agreement during his recent UK holiday after the January order issued under the UK Investigatory Powers Act prompted Apple to pull its iCloud Advanced Data Protection service from Britain in February. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the UK agreed to drop demands for access to "the protected encrypted data of American citizens." Apple had filed a complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal scheduled for hearing early next year.
Even a broken clock... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is right twice a day.
This is the first time I've heard of Vance doing something I approve of. I don't like the man or his opinions but he's on the right side of this one.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
I fear you are correct. Opinion on this site is very obviously one-sided and biased.
Not that the current Admin in the US isn't questionable, they're correct about that one... But objective discussion is usually not what is happening here.
Re: are you serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not objective? I guess that's why they're called opinions. And if you have a lot of EU /.-ers here you'll be getting an earful about Ukraine and other shenanigans of Trump.
Objectivity in opinions is a very strange concept. In facts, sure. In opinions? Impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
I Noticed the EU isn't meeting with Putin or really doing much of anything with respect to Ukraine, other than copious amounts of pearl clutching.
Re: (Score:3)
Not meeting with Putin because it's a waste of time. What would he gain from talking to the EU? And likewise, what would the EU gain from it? Or Ukraine? We all know what Putin needs to get in order to justify his war: the Donbass, with its massive reserves of oil, steel, gas, lithium, cobalt etc. - and we all know why he should never get it: he will use it to rebuild his army and launch another war for the rest of the old USSR.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the EU though. Germany in particular has a ser
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, it's all a waste of time.
I'll admit, I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I don't REALLY care, one way or another, what happens - even if I can intellectually acknowledge that Putin is bad news, all across the board.
That said, he is far worse news for Europe than he is for the U.S. To that end, the EU should be taking the lead here, and I just don't see it doing that.
I do give props to Poland though. It has been sounding the alarm for a while. It's too bad the rest of the EU doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting to know. I've been looking for a tech news site which is a little bit more unbiased. I'm British, but they all seem to be "Orange Man Bad!". Anyone know one which just gives me the interesting tech news? The Register used to be good, but they have also gone in this direction. I guess such a place doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All sites are far left wing, unless you get into trash like StormFront and the like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
la Presidenta could sign a peace treaty with Russia, and that would have the same force as his effluent to the press. Any "guarantees" he makes are worthless, and Putin knows his poodle and will understand he has free rein to do anything he likes with Ukraine.
Re:are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the country that Trump has governmental authority in at war with Russia?
It appears that it is not.
If that is the case, how and what kind of peace treaty can Trump sign and in what capacity?
Re:are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
An actual peace treaty, ratified by representatives of the people of Ukraine? With actual guarantees and enforcement?
I'd welcome it. And a huge number of people that you would describe as American leftists would welcome it.
But we're absolutely going to fucking bitch about it if Trump comes up with some kind of unilateral appeasement that he pretends is a 'peace treaty', and we'd be fucking right about it. And you should be bitching too if you actually want peace in Ukraine.
If Trump was really interested in brokering a peace deal, he'd start by stating that the US was going to stand by the Budapest agreement and insisting that Russia fulfill their obligations.
Instead he spent today delaying meetings with the EU reps so he could call Putin to get instructions. When he came back he was confused about who he was talking to (he repeatedly asked where the prime minister of Finland was when he was directly across the table from him).
Re: (Score:1)
When he came back he was confused about who he was talking to (he repeatedly asked where the prime minister of Finland was when he was directly across the table from him).
"Funny" how there was a constant drum beat about the (then) president's mental state last year but now .... it's not even fucking crickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump could sign a peace treaty with Russia tomorrow and /.ers and other American leftists would still bitch about it. "Ooh, of course Agent Krasnov would broker a peace deal with Putin!!
You say that as if the terms of the treaty wouldn't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am just slightly confused here. You're talking about "defending violent criminals" while the Trump administration itself appears to be mysteriously reneging on their own promises to release details about a notorious child sex trafficker with close historical ties to Trump, even while that same administration mysteriously moves his closest accomplice to a minimum security prison.
No amount of deployment of national guard to DC is going to solve the criminal gang problem if the people issuing their orders
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
while the Trump administration itself appears to be mysteriously reneging on their own promises to release details about a notorious child sex trafficker with close historical ties to Trump, even while that same administration mysteriously moves his closest accomplice to a minimum security prison.
And pardoned about 1,500 people who beat police officers and trashed The Capital during the Jan 6th insurrection.
No amount of deployment of national guard to DC is going to solve the criminal gang problem if the people issuing their orders aren't even pretending to not be regulars at that Pizzagate place.
Exactly they weren't even able to quell an insurrection - oh, wait, Trump didn't activate any law enforcement to protect police, DC or The Capital on Jan 6th ... wonder why? And Republican politicians are complicit as the continue to acquiesce to Trump, his minions - and the Project 2025 people at The Heritage Foundation.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump pardoned multiple violent criminals.
You cheered when that happened. Loudly.
In Russian.
(seriously - your timeline is filled with nothing but drive-bys posting the rwnj talking point of the day. You should pretend to discuss a topic now and then so it doesn't look so much like a like bot).
Re: (Score:1)
Did you omit the fact that the "heavier" police presence in DC is actually a federal takeover of the jurisdiction based on an entirely contrived "emergency" on purpose, or did you simply not know that?
Re: (Score:3)
Reality: Crime is down in DC and the "emergency" was some dude who calls himself "Big Balls" got his ass kicked by a bunch of 15-year-old girls. If you want a more generous interpretation, the president simply doesn't want to see homeless people.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing contrived about this effort.
I mean other than the whole premise of the federal take-over, sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget, they're all about holding Trump up to the law, but completely against enforcing immigration law.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost!
I think sex crimes perverts should simply be executed.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh....I made no comment about Republicans or Democrats.
In general, I try to avoid assuming all people in a group of people are all the same though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, really.
Re: (Score:1)
To you, perhaps. To the other leftists and bots, they'll just be reflexively anti-Trump like they are on every other 80/20 issue.
You miss the point. Perhaps your bias is blinding you. You said simply if trump signs a treaty the left won't like it. You didn't care to qualify it - as long as Trump signs it you're on board. I'm guessing you've also said something like "Trump could cure cancer and the left would be against it." Cutting research funding is not a good way to cure cancer.
Trump is a cancer on America. Even if you agree with his policies you should still be against the man.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump could sign a peace treaty with Russia tomorrow and /.ers and other American leftists would still bitch about it. "Ooh, of course Agent Krasnov would broker a peace deal with Putin!!
OF COURSE everyone sane would bitch about it - the only "peace treaty" Trump is capable of signing is the utter capitulation suggested by Russia.
Re:are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And without robbing Ukraine of its natural resources which Trump would be very keen to have?
Re: (Score:1)
You can tell Vance is very much on the "in" with Trump because he is always there with Trump in important meetings.
Which important meetings? You mean like Cabinet meetings? One of the roles of VPOTUS is to be something of a foreman of the Cabinet. Another role of VPOTUS is to be the acting POTUS should POTUS be temporarily unavailable, as well as take the position of POTUS should that office be vacated for some reason. As VPOTUS Vance is something of a liaison between Congress and the executive branch. In order to fulfill his role as VPOTUS Vance needs to at least be present and listening during important meetings
Re:are you serious? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: are you serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ukraine is a proxy being used in a proxy war, just like all the other proxies of the Cold War era, even the politicians and governmental leaders behind it publicly admit to such.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you're from the US? If a powerful military force invaded the US, let's say aliens, aliens invade the US and they have better technology but it's not totally overwhelming, they've captured parts of the country and are subjecting everyone there to various atrocities, kidnapping children etc. but Americans are fighting back with some success, if the other countries of the world sent all sorts of help because they didn't like the aliens either, would you be thinking "Disgusting, you're just using u
Re:are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hi Anonymous Comrade, nice job derailing this straight into a completely irrelevant pro-Russian diatribe. Extra potatoes for you tonight!
What exactly would this treaty entail, given that the US and Russia are not at war?
Never mind, doesn't matter. Time for your vodka ration.
Re: (Score:2)
...is right twice a day.
Or once a day, depending on how the pendulum swings. Consider former Governor of SD Kristi Noem opposing Biden simply considering federalizing the National Guard vs. current Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem supporting Trump actually federalizing the National Guard...
Noem praised Trump for sending National Guard. She opposed it when Biden considered it. [usatoday.com]
Her position a year and a half ago... Kristi Noem, Feb 6, 2024 [x.com]
If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states' rights.
Over the last several years, we've seen Democrats try to take away our Freedoms of religion, assembly, and speech. We can't let them take away our right to defend ourselves, too.
South Dakota defends the Constitution.
What and/or who is she defending now?
Re: (Score:2)
Or once a day, depending on how the pendulum swings. Consider former Governor of SD Kristi Noem opposing Biden simply considering federalizing the National Guard vs. current Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem supporting Trump actually federalizing the National Guard...
What and/or who is she defending now?
Beats the heck out of me. The bedrock principle in American politics these days seem to be "My team, right or wrong." It drives me bonkers.
UK to drop access to encrypted American data (Score:1)
So they can still access UK citizens data?
Re: (Score:2)
So they can still access UK citizens data?
Is the question about how the DNI isn't protecting UK rights when she should? I don't see how Gabbard could demand anything of the UK government beyond her job description of protecting national intelligence. She could ask nicely but it would not likely carry any more weight than most any other citizen of the USA. She could perhaps give her counterparts in the UK a history lesson on what happens when governments go too far on demanding access to "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of their citizens, but that is also likely beyond her job description.
As a Brit I don't expect a foreign government to do anything to protect my rights beyond, as you say, making a suggestion. That's up to us to do ourselves. And believe me the way things currently are on the political front in the UK we've more than already started. The current government is doing a good job of ensuring Labour will spend another decade or more out in the wilderness come the next election.
Re:UK to drop access to encrypted American data (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the US has no legal right to stop the UK from crippling encryption in UK sold phones. However now you can buy an Apple phone made for any market in which the govt doesn't demand this and it will still properly use encryption. Whereas had the UK's demand been allowed it would have forced a backdoor in all of Apple's mobile phone encryption systems everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't have a back door, though. That's why Cellebrite makes a lot of money by selling their devices.
Re:When will they learn? (Score:5, Funny)
Politicians, read ? And learn ? How quaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do politicians get the idea that they can order companies to put in back doors on encryption?
Since the country had an army with guns and tanks and prisons. What's Apple going to do? Throw Airpods at them?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do politicians get the idea that they can order companies to put in back doors on encryption?
The fact that they make the laws in the country that they govern. They absolutely have the power to bring in legislation to order companies to put backdoors in their encryption in that nation if that company wants to continue to do business there. The company is then left with two choices, comply or stop doing business there. And in the 6th richest nation in the world where Apple has ~50% market share with revenues of almost $2Bn Apple chose to comply rather than stop doing business there.
Criminals use Apple (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Especially as Mossad is providing the security modules
Re: (Score:1)
Huh just yesterday I read Android had a container system that was impenetrable.
Google wouldn't lie.
Pussies (Score:2)
The US wants backdoor access for themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously. Can't let the UK have access too.
Probably no need now (Score:2)
So it could have happen .. (Score:1)
... like this:
vance: hey steimer, no worries, usa has uk back
steimer: how do you mean?
vance: whatever you want to know just ask usa, we'll tell you what is and what's not
steimer: oh well, thats awfully nice sir
Re: (Score:2)
That's essentially a "null" statement (Score:2)
Secret services are known for using a technology known as "lying". In fact this is a very common tool in their toolbox.
If a secret service says, they don't to "X", it may mean what you expect it to mean, it may mean the opposite or anything in between. This way they can say things without revealing actual information.
For example, telephone networks are not "back-doored" for surveillance, they have official interfaces for that. I may mean that the UK has struck a deal with the US to get access to the data th
Maybe because the 5I nations are sharing. (Score:1)
Re: Maybe because the 5I nations are sharing. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see this administration going right thing (Score:2)
It's all an illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
This just means that the NSA will now share with the UK the backdoor into Apple that they already have, rather than the UK having their own.
There's no way that any of the 5 Eyes countries will allow any of their citizens any actual privacy, or resident companies to provide it.
Putie tootie collects them all (Score:2)