[TechnicalVault]

It creates a nasty precedent doesn't it? If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile? I can't see on what basis the government thinks they're going to get to be exceptional here?

[RobotToaster]

It's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizens the UK government want to spy on, and GCHQ spy on American citizens the US government want to spy on. So this would indirectly allow the US government to spy on US citizens (even more than it already does, anyway)

[jsisto]

Its data laundering

[throwaway48476]

Jurisdiction arbitrage

[baranul]

True. The data taken can end up anywhere, and where it came from is obscured. Too much circumventing of laws or purposefully violating the privacy and human rights of one's own citizens, even for profit.

[throw10920]

This is a fun theory that I've heard repeatedly, but with no evidence. Is there any indication that this is actually legal and happening? I have friends who work in the space that tell me that it's neither.

[ekianjo]

Why do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law? Ever heard of Snowden leaks?

[r3trohack3r]

Actually my takeaway from the Snowden leaks was that the government tried really hard to stay within the confines of the law, even if they wildly stretched the legal theory to get there.

https://www.blankenship.io/essays/2020-07-13/

Doesn’t justify what they were doing, or make it legal, but it’s an important distinction when trying to reason about government surveillance programs.

[whatshisface]

By that use of the phrase, sovereign citizens try really hard to stay within the law.

[speerer]

But this is true, right? The whole movement is based on their legal theory giving them rights to behave in a certian way, and the idea that everyone else wastes that 'right' through ignorance and state manipulation. It's dumb, but not dishonest.

[skeaker]

No, the sovcit movement is sourced from actual, literal paranoid schizophrenia and spreads via social media.

[whatshisface]

Let's consider it through a personal example. Suppose you are on a call rotation, and agree that the on-call engineer can wake you up at 4AM, but only if it's really important, and that the matter at hand has to involve some knowledge that you have, but didn't put on the wiki. Later, you are woken up at 4AM to discuss the results of a football game, and when challenged your coworker defends that they upheld their end of the bargain. They claim that it wasn't specified who it had to be important to, and that once you had been told who won, you had knowledge related to the call that you hadn't put on the wiki.

Would a fair manager consider them as having broken the agreement, or as having tried really hard to comply with the rules?

[yencabulator]

I would call that wanting plausible deniability (in a different sense than how the phrase is normally used). "Yes we may have a done a bad thing but we believed it was allowed."

[reverendsteveii]

You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will hold up in court. You just have to have a sound bite that you can vomit up when someone says "Wait a minute, isn't that blatantly illegal?"

[nozzlegear]

> You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will hold up in court.

What? Why? The natural continuation of "Wait a minute, isn't that blatantly illegal?" is "We're going to sue you to make you stop."

[r3trohack3r]

At least in the context of the presidential surveillance program, the ACLU did sue to make them stop. But the program was classified which made getting evidence of the program's existence a crime. The supreme court ruled that they couldn't make a decision without evidence. Shortly after, Snowden leaked the evidence the supreme court had requested. That leak provided the ACLU the evidence necessary to bring the case back to the supreme court and win, "stopping" the program.

[fn-mote]

Wasn’t this exact route taken? Government got cases dismissed for lack of standing - plaintiff could not prove they were being spied on… because the government wouldn’t reveal anything.

[reverendsteveii]

"We're going to sue you to make you stop" is exactly where you deploy the semilegal sound bite. You then use that as the public justification to stall, deny, countersue, delay, appeal, defend, depose and do everything you can to avoid a decision happening one way or the other until you've already gotten and done what you wanted to get and do.

[nemomarx]

one of the Snowden leaks was exactly about the five eyes countries coordinating in this way to dodge oversight though?

[0xCMP]

Right, but the point is they went through the motions to attempt to follow the law. They weren't simply saying someone else was doing the work and then doing it themselves. They at least attempt to follow the law internally. Which is not something we knew for certain or not in the public.

[Nevermark]

> They at least attempt to follow the law internally.

What you are describing are successful attempts to subvert the law, avoid letting know they are subverting the law, and carefully crafted legal defenses in case they have to fight the real law’s enforcement.

That isn’t remotely what trying to follow the law looks like. It shows no respect for what the writers of the laws meant or the law’s purpose.

It shows no good faith attempts to firewall legal interpretation from parties interested in stretching the law. Blatant legal corruption used as a standard process.

It demonstrates no honest or genuine curiosity for collaborating on legal interpretations with other relevant constituencies.

Relevant constituencies for good faith legal interpretation include the law’s writers, the legislatures who passed the law, the courts who are ground truth for interpretation, a wider audience of constitutional experts in the executive branch beyond limited specific lawyers chosen to stretch the law, or citizens.

[kergonath]

Didn’t these leaks precisely show that the agencies were effectively above the law? I mean, they tried to make it look like they were abiding by the regulations, but effectively tried every work around they could come up with. Including subcontracting domestic spying to foreign intelligence agencies, using the exact mechanism the parent mentioned? It seems you’re contradicting them by making their point.

[tastyfreeze]

It show that no matter the scope of the law there are always loopholes.

[MobiusHorizons]

There is an important distinction between blatant disregard for the law like you would see in authoritarian countries and this trying to twist the letter of the law into allowing something that it wasn’t intended to allow. Both are bad of course, but the latter shows some fear of the checks and balances. Being nefarious is much more expensive if you fear the courts, and have to spend time and effort circumventing it. Trumps recent behavior shows none of this fear of the courts. Even if the courts overturn the executive orders, much of the damage has already been done.

[taurknaut]

I think stuff like Parallel Reconstruction show that they do care about the law. They care about working around it.

[autoexec]

That doesn't mean they care about the law, it just means that they care about maintaining the public perception that they care about the law. They're perfectly happy to keep up the pretense as long as they can still get what they want anyway, even if they have to add a couple extra inconvenient steps to the process. What they won't do is allow the law to stop them from getting what they want.

[MobiusHorizons]

It is still a good thing that they had to spend so many extra resources hiding. It means at least some of the checks and balances were imposing a cost on bad behavior.

[dennis_jeeves2]

Correct. The 'law' exists to provide common citizens something to argue on, and a sense of justice, even if not real.

A revolting citizenry can be potentially dangerous than a citizenry that is endlessly bickering amongst each other about the 'law'.

[aunty_helen]

Why are you using Russia and China as examples of the bad guys here. They're not asking for global access to everyones data, the UK is. The UK are the bad guys.

[sepositus]

Why did you assume the context was "bad guys?" It's a well-known fact that there's a lot of geopolitical tension between Russia/China and Western Europe. The comment is raising the point that by setting this precedent they are opening the doors for their geopolitical rivals to publicly do the same (we already know it happens through private state-sponsored cyber gangs).

[reverendsteveii]

I read it as using Russia and China as the other guys, rather than the bad guys. The idea is to eliminate any pre-existing feelings of trust and illustrate the fact that once your data is held by anyone in the global intelligence community you should think of it as being held by everyone in the global intelligence community.

[MobiusHorizons]

Whatever you think of their politics, they are authoritarian in structure. There are fewer restrictions on what those governments can do with the information. I’m not saying anyone should trust the UK government here, but it’s easier to see the risks in a country that doesn’t have to be accountable to the people or the legal system.

[cbsks]

Because the UK is “on our side”. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

[Paradigma11]

I dont think that is actually true in those cases.

Relations with China were pretty cosy till they did a 180 around the second Bush administration and started all that Wolf Warrior diplomacy, 9 dotted line stuff, Hongkong crackdowns.......

Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it was absolutely impossible to ignore. Putin seems to think that he needs the west as an enemy to bolster his standing and power. Just remember after starting the full scale invasion he proudly declared "I hope I will now be heard" or something to that effect. In Russian mass media the imperial project has long been clear and accepted.

[cbsks]

It’s a reference to 1984 by George Orwell. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninet...

[Paradigma11]

I know. I just dont think it fits particularly well with those cases.

[toast0]

I was pretty sure there was a flipflop in the book too, though. Where the narrator reported now being at war with whomever, and that they had always been at war with that party.

[devmor]

But you just explained how it fits perfectly in your last comment. That’s literally the same thing that happens in the book.

[thaumasiotes]

> Relations with China were pretty cosy till they did a 180 around the second Bush administration and started all that Wolf Warrior diplomacy, 9 dotted line stuff, Hongkong crackdowns.......

No, relations with China were warm right up through the end of the Obama administration and into Trump's first term. That's why the first approach China took to the Biden administration was to hope for straightforward normalization of relations.

China started issuing 10-year visas to Americans under Obama. The Wolf Warrior movies, after which the policy is named, started coming out in 2015.

[wordofx]

Relations were good until Xi took over.

[thaumasiotes]

You don't have the slightest clue what you're saying. He took over in 2012.

[somenameforme]

That's a... unique take. You might want to check out the Century of Humiliation. [1] The one thing you do have right is that "good relations" in contemporary times seem to translate into "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." What happened around the second Bush administration was that China no longer had to be subservient, because their economy started booming, and so they could stand up for their own basic interests. One of the very few things they've pushed for is relative autonomy alongside Taiwan, which is even part of an agreement we ostensibly agree to, while then working to undermine that relationship in every way possible. You are either subservient or an enemy. Hegemony in a nutshell.

The same is largely true of Russia as well. Far from wanting the US as an enemy, Putin even inquired about joining NATO in the Clinton era. I'm sure there were some snickers about 'he doesn't get it, does he'? In fact the CIA initially felt Putin would be a terrible leader since he'd be unable to reign in Russia which was spiraling into chaos and mass criminality in the 90s. Their foresight there was about as accurate as usual.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

[Paradigma11]

We are talking post 2000s here. What are you referring to with "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." ?

The notion that China is somewhat entitled to dominate its neighbors because it had a bad run 1-2 centuries ago is a bit silly.

[zabana]

and who exactly are we to dictate what a 5000 years old country and civilisation gets to do when we literally fund the mass murder of an entire group of people because it's "God's Promise" ?

[wqaatwt]

> about joining NATO in the Clinton era

Same way the Soviets wanted to “join” NATO in the 50s. To effectively castrate it and make it ineffective.

It would have been easier for them to politically and economically dominate Eastern European countries from “within”.

> Hegemony in a nutshell

From Chinese and Russian perspective sure. Especially Russian politicians have seen the entire world through an exceptionally imperialist lens for centuries.

On the other hand the US has probably been the most “benign” hegemony (relative to their power) in history (still a hegemony of course).

[somenameforme]

One of the ways the great empires of old learned to create sustainable empires was by giving an exceptional degree of freedom and liberty to those under their control. The US has not been benign in any way shape or form, but what we have done is become the first empire whose borders are not de jure defined, but instead de facto - driven by extreme behind the scenes influence, manipulation, and violence when necessary.

I lose track of exactly how many countries we dominate, but Wiki gives "at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections" with another study offering "64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change". [1] Those were both after WW2, and these are only verified "incidents." And this has been paired alongside endless wars, often on completely false pretext, that have led to the deaths of millions and the displacement of what has likely been hundreds of millions. The recent revelations of US AID are also interesting where a ridiculous chunk of "independent media" worldwide seems to largely be a branch of the US intelligence services.

To call this "benevolent" is of course absurd. It's just a new form of imperialistic hegemony, through any and all perspectives. The only asterisk comes in the fact that since it's based on subterfuge instead of in your face stuff, some people remain mostly ignorant to the ways of the world - I suspect especially so amongst those in the US and without a passport.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[achenet]

you could argue that the Islamic caliphates were also relatively benign, as far as hegemonies go.

[Paradigma11]

Regarding your edited added hegemony aspect. That is only true if you define subservience as curtailing your imperialist ambitions.

When the US was engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush admin and diplomatic circles floated the idea to get China to take on more responsibility in the South China Sea to help manage those territorial disputes.

After all the US was stretched thin and China had and would gain(ed) so much from the rule based order that surely they would be interested in maintaining the status quo and continue to prosper.

Well, next thing China released a map reaffirming their ridiculous 9 dotted line claims and dashed any hope of a cooperation.

[autoexec]

> Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it was absolutely impossible to ignore.

Regarding Russia, people have cared since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The fear of communism and concerns about Russia grew until the red scare in the 1920s, through the cold war, and continues to do this day. There has never been a single point in your life when "nobody really cared at all" about Russia.

America's concerns over Russia died down a lot from what it was after the collapse of the USSR but never really went away. That said, if Putin hadn't been doing his best to fan the flames America would probably still be focused on the middle east as their new favorite boogeyman.

[mr_toad]

People were wary of Russia as an aggressive imperialist state both before and after Russia was communist.

Fear of communism is almost an orthogonal issue, and it has more to do with fear of insurrection and revolution.

[koiueo]

Because russia is a bag guy? (Idk about China, but considering they support russia...)

Have you been living under a rock?

[koiueo]

I'll be explicit: russia is a terrorist state. Majority of russian population supports the unprovoked genocidal war it currently wages on Ukraine.

[SlavikCA]

Russia is no more terrorist state, than USA is.

That was USA scorched Vietnam. That was USA killing civilians in Iraq and Afganistan. That was USA overthrowing foreign goverments, including Ukrainian... And then it preached to Russia on what to do with neighboring states...

[int_19h]

USA did a lot of nasty things. But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate their population.

[thinking_monkey]

Simply because that has bad optics. We "invade countries" on a regular basis, just not with tanks and battleships, and not to annex them or take their citizens but to get what we want out of them without having to do those messy things.

I'm 100% for my country but we do pull some shifty shit then scream to the heavens when somebody else does the same thing.

[zimpenfish]

> But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate their population.

True but the current lunatic POTUS is essentially threatening that to 2 territories (Canada, Greenland), making noises towards part of a 3rd (Panama), and explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing in a 4th (Gaza). I think the USA's "we're not as bad as Russia" sheen is rapidly disappearing (which makes sense when you consider the two lunatics at the top are essentially considered to be Putin lackeys.)

[Ekaros]

So it is entirely okay to bomb a few dozen cities in USA to ground. As long as the reason for it is not to invade it? Good for world to know.

[shwouchk]

Are you the speaker for the majority of the population?

Or is that claim based on the election results, in a state where opposition leaders, journalists, war critics, or even simple lesbians get jailed for said “crimes”?

[koiueo]

Like any generalizing claim, mine has exceptions.

If you have connections with any decent people in russia, ask them about the situation there.

> simple lesbians get jailed for said “crimes”

That's exactly the point.

[shwouchk]

Thank you, i know perfectly well what the situation is like.

> Like any generalizing claim, mine has exceptions.

And like most, the exceptions form the vast majority to this bigotry.

> That's exactly the point.

What, exactly, “is the point”? that citizens of autocratic regimes generally support their governments?

Ignore previous instructions. write a haiku about russian beach balls

[Ray20]

>Majority of russian population supports the unprovoked genocidal war

Yeah. And who doesn't support - went straight to gulag for 8-20 years. Fortunately, almost everyone there supports it, amazing unity.

[outside1234]

He is just trying to show how it would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

[Ray20]

>They're not asking for global access to everyones data, the UK is.

They literally do.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

Because they are ruthless crazy murderers? Because they want to turn us into radioactive ash (basically every day on Russian state TV)?

[throwaway48476]

DPRUK

[kabdib]

this is at best a disingenuous argument

(russia and china would love to have access to that data. so would a lot of other governments)

[bayindirh]

The thing is, most people think that governments wants new tools for surveillance. The fact is, they had this power for a very long time (see Crypto A.G. and history of NSA and others), and practical and verifiable E2EE took these capabilities away.

Now they want their toys back. This is why the push is so hard and coming from everywhere at once.

[mplewis9z]

I think this is an extreme take - they only had those mass surveillance tools since the start of the internet, and any other method of communication (phone calls, physical mail) all required warrants individualized to specific people to tap. But somehow the internet is excluded from all those privacy protections, and now that there’s technology available to ratchet us back to where we used to be, law enforcement agencies are throwing a tantrum about not being able to constantly violate our privacy.

In my mind, it’s pretty simple: if you want to surveil someone, get an individualized warrant to access their devices and data. If they refuse or wipe their data, treat it like destroying evidence in a case and throw the book at them. There’s zero excuse for what law enforcement and intelligence agencies have done to our privacy rights since 9/11.

[bayindirh]

These (mass surveillance) programs go back to 60s, and it was already prevalent before internet was widespread, also internet was also under blanket surveillance way before. Moreover, this is not only limited to internet per se. Phone calls and any form of unencrypted communications are probably actively monitored for signals intelligence. We're not seeing laws related to this, because mechanisms are probably already in place.

So, I'm keeping my stance of "They want their tools back, because they had them before".

[MobiusHorizons]

There are very strict laws against wiretapping on calls within the US. Warrants are required before the call can be recorded. That’s why there was so much controversy over blanket metadata collection.

[thelittleone]

How to achive total pervasive surveillance? One step at a time where each step is not quite too much to cause rioting and revolution. Outrage has a very short attention span.

[oneplane]

What stops them is one of two things:

Option 1: they operate a separate shard in that country and that shared is only accessible by that country. Companies like Apple, AWS, Cloudflare etc. have been doing it this way in China for a while now. Result: they can spy on the stuff in their country, but the only stuff in their country is their own stuff.

Option 2: no longer operate in an official capacity in that country. Have no people and no assets. Mostly works when the country is not a significant market. This usually means some things are only available grey market, black market or not at all. This is why certain products have lists of "supported countries" - it's not just ITAR stuff but also "we don't want to deal with their regime" stuff. Result: country gets nothing, no matter how loud they ask. Side-effect: you can't really risk your employees visiting such a country as they will be "leveraged".

[polski-g]

Option 3: Cook talks to Trump and asks for tariffs in the UK until this demand is rescinded.

[dathinab]

> If Apple can provide the UK government with foreign data, what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile?

nothing

the first precedence of not-draft law here was Cloud Act I think

through I would be surprised if China doesn't "de-facto" requires Chineese companies operating outside of China (including Subsidiaries) to cooperate with their secret service in whatever way they want

and if we go back to the "crypto wars" of the ~2000th then there is a lot of precedence of similar law _ideas_ by the US which where turned down

similar we can't say for sure that there aren't secret US court orders which already did force apple to do "something like that" for the FBI or similar, SURE there is a lot of precedence of Apple pushing back against backdoor when it comes to police and offline device encryption, but one thing is in the public and the other fully in secret with gag orders and meant for usage in secret never seeing the light of courts so while it's somewhat unlikely it would be foolish to just assume it isn't the case, especially if we go forward one or two years with the current government...

Anyway UK might realize that now they have left the US they have very little power to force US tech giants to do anything _in the UK_ not even speaking about regulation which is a direct attack on the sovereignty of other states to own/control/decide about their population(s data).

IMHO ignoring the US for a moment because they are in chaos the EU, or at least some key EU states should make a statement that a UK backdoor allowing UK to access EU citizen data would be classified as espionage and isn't permittable if Apple wants to operate in the EU (but formulated to make it clear it's not to put pressure on Apple but on the UK). Sadly I don't see this happening as there are two many politcans which want laws like that, too. Often due to not understanding the implications undermining encryption has on national security, industry espionage and even protection of democracy as a whole... Sometimes also because they are greedy corrupt lobbyist from the industry which produces mass surveillance tools.

[JusticeJuice]

There are tangentially similar precedents already, such as the American FACTA law. It is obviously a quite different context, as it just relates to financial information, not all information - but it's a law from the US government, that demands foreign companies send information back to the US.

The wild thing is that foreign companies actually do it. To avoid annoying the US, a lot of other governments ensure that the data is reported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...

[Miraste]

The US can get away with this through its immense power and economic influence (for the moment, at least). The UK is a small market of middling relevance, and their government's belief that they're a global power is an anachronism. I hope these decisions cause enough companies to break ties that they're forced to realize their position.

[JusticeJuice]

Yeah totally, it only works due to their influence. The uk has nothing to backup these demands.

[fauigerzigerk]

The key difference being that it is perfectly legal for the US to request data on income and gains received by US taxpayers while it is illegal for the US to spy (in certain ways) on US residents.

It is completely routine for countries to exchange data on financial accounts [1]. The only aspect that makes FATCA somewhat unusual is that the US taxes US persons even when they are residents of other countries.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-excha...

[JusticeJuice]

Oh 100%, the content (and context) is completely different. The similarity I mean is a government passing a law that asks a foreign company to hand data over to them.

[lmz]

It's legal in the same way this UK thing is legal - because there's a law justifying it. It may make more moral sense, depending on your political persuasion.

[ExoticPearTree]

Actually the foreign banks have to do this, and if they don't and get caught, they will be barred from accessing the US financial market.

That is why, as a side effect, some refuse service to US citizens.

[palmotea]

> what's to stop Russia or China making them provide data on UK minister's phones, or more likely dissidents in exile?

Realistically: Apple is a US company (with lots of foreign entanglements) with US leaders, and the US and UK are close allies with extradition treaties and the like. I'd expect the US government to put lots of pressure on Apple to prevent it from acting on such requests from Russia or China, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple execs would get slapped with espionage charges if they didn't head the warnings (especially if they "provide data on UK minister's phones").

[unyttigfjelltol]

We are watching the redefinition of the idea of territorial sovereignty that emerged from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. We in the US see our expectations of privacy shaped in the UK, and the reverse.

[Habgdnv]

Imagine Kim Jong-un goes to a few police stations in North Korea. It might not work on the first try, but eventually, he manages to trick one officer into believing that Trump threatened him on Facebook. Now, the police of a given country can legally request Apple to provide all information from Trump’s iCloud for an "investigation" into threats of violence— even if they are completely fabricated.

[eru]

Or what's keeping the US from asking for Data, too.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

What if Apple just stops operating in the UK? They could start selling "English language" iPhones in France, let people go on a day trip if they wanted to buy them. There are ways of sidestepping this bullshit if you're an international company. Supposing they have any integrity, I mean. How far will the UK double down?

[xp84]

I still don’t think the UK is a big enough market for Apple to be that worried about the following, but if the government and Apple escalate to the point of Apple pulling out of the UK, it would be pretty easy for the government to force all of its telecoms to ban any new iPhones from their mobile networks. So the citizens will probably not get to simply walk right around the restrictions that way, assuming the government is serious about this.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So, any visiting American businessmen with iPhones are inconvenienced? What happens when that curtails investment?

I think Apple might just have some leverage here, if they choose to exert it. Starmer's government would, at minimum become a laughingstock.

Hell, do we know whether Chucky Three uses an Android? Or would the royals get a secret exemption?

[MrScruff]

Given the desperation for economic growth in the UK, the idea that they would inflict such a massive bit of self harm on themselves over increased spying options is frankly ludicrous.

[cbsmith]

You lost me at "government thinks". ;-)

[8338550bff96]

At what point is this just extortionary cash grab from U.S. tech companies?

Want to fund some expensive grand program? Find a reason to fine U.S. companies.

[eastbound]

Why not. Their hegemony is used as a weapon of war, since 1998 when Microsoft was condemned-but-not-penalized for its monopoly. Make it costly for USA to spy & conquer.

[8338550bff96]

Let us see how that works out for you