Comment by hatwd
14 days ago
It's baffling to me that any sane, healthy person would advocate for invasion of not just one person's privacy (in the case of known or highly suspected criminal activity), but a whole country's people's privacy. (In this case, at least, the privacy of all Apple users in the UK.)
Where does this problem start? Is it a basic education thing that valuing one's own and others' privacy needs to be taught to kids from a young age?
For instance, in the meetings in which these ideas are proposed, why are they not considered a serious, fireable offence, like bringing up racist or sexist comments?
I very much agree. I think to many people the preference for safety/security over privacy is just very tilted toward the former. That especially becomes true once there is some incident that triggers people's amygdalas, like a terrorist attack or even petty crime. Nothing makes "privacy" seem stupid like getting assaulted or otherwise victimized. Although I'm heavily skewed toward the "privacy" end of the spectrum, I do understand people's need and desire for safety above privacy/freedom. I wish they would recognize when they're decision-making is being driven by emotion rather than logic, but alas we can't change humanity.
It baffles me how you seem to think intelligence agencies have some sort of morals or sense of duty to their citizens. These organisations are set up with the sole purpose of spying on all people. They have done it for decades and have done it in some fantasticly dispicable ways. So no, asking a corporation for data on their customers is probably is probably a relatively weak action for them to pull on the grand scheme of things.
Sure, but something like this isn't limited to just the spy agencies. They don't have the authority to do something like this on their own. Therefore there must be some buy-in from people outside the intelligence communities such as MPs, members of Congress (in US), etc. Those are the groups I think GP's comment deserves an answer to.
I totally get the spy agencies' "moral flexibility" requirements, as I've heard it put.
From what I understand, the spy agencies have ways of obtaining your private information that don't necessarily involve blanket requirements to access all users' data (e.g. creative ways of injecting malware into specific people's devices). But those approaches don't scale, of course. And they shouldn't need to.
Intelligence agencies may have their own definitions of morality, but they do not exist outside of the law, which is supposed to be the output of a democratic process.
> For instance, in the meetings in which these ideas are proposed, why are they not considered a serious, fireable offence, like bringing up racist or sexist comments?
Hate to tell ya, those aren't fireable offenses at the highest offices anymore either.
This problem starts when people in power are addicted to power and are accountable to foreign agents and not the population.
Privacy should absolutely be treated as a fundamental right, not a luxury that can be revoked when convenient
“It’s for the children!”
> Where does this problem start?
It starts with UK citizens buying iPhones and expecting their data to be private at all.
Is it any different with Android phones? From what I've read it doesn't seem so.
My comment applies just as much to the people working at Apple and Google as to the folks in the UK government.
It is, Android handsets are not prevented by Google from selecting an entirely different operating system if they distrust the one installed by the OEM. It is expressly the choice you would make if you expected userland encryption to be mandated broken.
It doesn't protect against every attack (eg. Stingray or evil maid) but it absolutely would protect you from a situation like the one in the OP. Breaking your encryption can only work if the OEM controls your phone more than you do.
3 replies →
It starts with ALL citizens buying iPhones and expecting their data to be private at all.