Comment by _Algernon_
16 days ago
If they had some balls, they would just stop offering icloud altogether in the UK until they have appealed. Let's see how the judge feels when half the country can't access their files anymore and Apple points to this decision as the reason.
Not just most of the judges, but most of the MPs who voted on this. Let them eat their own cake.
I think they could do something like what Tik Tok did, by letting users know why they can no longer provide the service.
I would personally give Apple money to see them actually stand-up to this. What's probably more concerning is the number of companies not complaining about this at all.
UK judges are not elected, and don't do things on the basis of what the public thinks.
This headline comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headlin...
Judges only interpret the law as laid down by parliament. And, in theory at least, parliament cares about public opinion.
Even to the extent that parliament does care — and both this lot and their predecessors have ignored a lot of criticism about this specific law — turning public disfavour into a change to the law is often a slow process.
I don't see UK judges getting motivated to rule in favour of a foreign company because they took their ball and went home, not even in cases where the ball happens to be very popular.
> when half the country can't access their files anymore and Apple points to this decision as the reason.
Governments are extremely powerful. They may issue a gag order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order) that makes it illegal for Apple to do that.
Even in that case, Apple could withdraw from the market.
If push comes to shove and apple actually called their bluff and withdrew completely from the UK market, I'd bet that that government would become so unpopular that they would not be elected again for quite some time.
Gag orders affect information, not whether they continue to provide a service or not.
I expect everyone would read between the lines if Apple simply offered "no comment".
> the law does not permit Apple to delay complying during an appeal.
Seems absurdist. They have to implement the backdoor, appeal, and only if the appeal is successful can they disable it.
Apple can't offer icloud with encryption. It doesn't force them to offer the service at all afaict? Forcing a company to offer service at all seems like a gigantic judicial overstep IMO.
Apple doesn't have the same dominance in the UK than it does in the US, so the UK would probably just tough that one out.
I have zero clue where you’re getting this from. iPhone is incredibly popular and every politician has one.
True, the UK is one of the few European countries where iOS is bigger than android just like in the US. I work in mobile management and we see those a lot in northern Europe. Where they're scarce is in South and East Europe.
Here in Spain no person has even tried to SMS me (which is the fallback for iMessage which I don't have) for 6 years or so :). I also don't have RCS enabled. It's all WhatsApp and Telegram.
4 replies →
It's very likely that iCloud is outright disabled via MDM on those politician iPhones anyway, so they probably wouldn't even notice.
2 replies →
Then it sounds like they don’t have much to lose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Apple points to this decision as the reason.
Unlikely. That's illegal.