Isn't this already effectively the case - not just in the US but universally? If the government 'lawfully' requests access to investigate a crime, there are only a few carveouts that are available to dispute the request (journalists with 1st amendment privileges, etc...). That's why Apple and others just architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data - so the answer is 'no' not because they're declining the request but 'no' because they have no path to get the data (because they designed it that way).
back
4 comments
> That's why Apple and others just architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data
No, that is not why. Yes, they architect so they do not have visibility into much of the data, but not (primarily) because they want to protect their users. It's because they want to save costs spent on lawyers debating whether the subpoena is indeed applicable and lawful and doesn't invade constitutional right to privacy or violate some state or international law or even a third party EULA.
By shutting themselves out Apple weaponizes technology into some legalism that carves the right to privacy or freedom of speech into stone. That's great, but it doesn't magically solve all legal problems; it just makes sure it's not Apple's problem anymore.
That’s an interesting idea. What evidence do you have for it other than your personal belief?
The question is which is a greater societal power, Apple's desire to minimize lawyer costs or the US government's desire to be able to surveil everyone who owns an Apple device? I believe it's the latter, in which case Apple is simply lying that they provide privacy. Room 641A existed.
> The question is which is a greater societal power, Apple's desire to minimize lawyer costs or the US government's desire to be able to surveil everyone who owns an Apple device?
For sure. But to broaden the picture, this isn't the only for coming from governments. While right hand might be pushing for surveillance, the left hand might mandate that companies put reasonable effort into protecting the privacy (and other constitutional rights) of its users; be transparent about data handling etc. Companies don't want to be caught in the middle, especially if doing that right gets prohibitively expensive. See also WhatsApp adopting OWS' Signal protocol and Telegram moving from Russia to UAE to escape "the hassle".
I think what Apple intends to do with end-to-end encryption is hide their responsibility behind unbreakable math that say: look, don't ask us because we're not in the loop. Ultimately, that cannot be true unless Apple's soft- and hardware were completely open and transparent — which they won't do for commercial reasons. So some level of trust is always involved. So trust is what Apple sells to end users — warranted or not — but the profit margins are mostly in not needing to be involved in moderation between users mutually or between customers and law enforcement. I think "hassle" and IP are Apple's primary motive for security, selling trust is a second and doing good to the world is an afterthought.
I suppose the difference here is surveillance vs investigation.
The difference is A WARRANT.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The US Consititution is set out as definitive of "democracy", but it's vague, it's 200 years old, and apparently even eminent jurists can't agree on what it means. Oh - and it's irrelevant for anyone who isn't a US citizen (it doesn't apply to visitors or overseas residents).
The spirit of the law is being violated by a contorted interpretation of the letter of the law. I feel.
The US Constitution is set out as an iteration of a "republic", and the things you list are arguably strengths rather than weaknesses.
> Oh - and it's irrelevant for anyone who isn't a US citizen (it doesn't apply to visitors or overseas residents).
What country does this successfully? And making the bill of rights relevant to the entire world means violent adversaries are apparently not a concern.
It's not completely irrelevant for visitors. Some of the provisions apply to anyone subject to US courts, although it's not always clear which ones.
The Bill of Rights (in this case 4th amendment) applies to all people in the US regardless of citizenships.
There is also a type of worry that if cyber surveillance suddenly doesn't need a warrant than any group that is targeted by whatever party is in power (ie. whoever they don't like) suddenly are being surveilled, possibly for private speech/thought crimes, the definition of which could change every 2-4 years. I'm not saying that is true, but that would be the slippery slope version of this.
Americans don't understand the difference. specially if the phrasing also includes "children" or "communist"/"terrorist"
Who does? Europeans are mostly happy giving more power to their government including surveillance (they're tried to make end-to-end encryption illegal how many times now?). Australians allow the government to force companies to build backdoors.
Humans inherently care more about tangible past dangers repeating versus new potential dangers.
>Europeans are mostly happy giving more power to their government including surveillance (they're tried to make end-to-end encryption illegal how many times now?)
No, we aren't. And we haven't tried to ban end-to-end encryption. You're conflating the European political ruling class with regular European citizens. Our interests are mostly opposed, and we don't have a say on none of the shit they do. I get what you're trying to say, but until there's a popular vote held on any of those issues so we can blame general stupidity for how they are tackled, if at all, I'm blaming politicians.
You live in a democracy (thus have the power to vote), support the system they rule through and overall benefit from its policies.
edit: There's also polls that say European citizens are very much in favor or at least don't care enough to consider the negatives. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2656
>until there's a popular vote
If we're talking banning end-to-end encryption specifically, the general population is largely oblivious to it, or electronic privacy in general, or people wouldn't post like 90% of the stuff they put on Instagram.
I've watched a guy on YouTube discuss his experience buying a plot of land and building a house on it, and I think he straight up pointed out exactly where he lives, what car he drives and what not. No need to put effort into doxxing him, he did everything himself.
This might sound insane to you or me, but most people don't even think about it.
So if you seed couple articles and TV documentaries on how end-to-end encryption is bad because terrorists and pedophiles use it, and you as a law abiding citizen have nothing to fear, while not so carefully avoiding the other side of the coin, I think think the general population would vote for it.
This is all part of the freedom/privacy vs security balance discussion, which we don't have a good solution for.
>This might sound insane to you or me,
Why is it insane? For example, my address is more or less public record one you know my name since I purchased a piece of property. Keeping your name hidden while being a public figure is hard. So you'd need to use a shell company to buy the land ahead of time. Normal for movie stars probably but not for someone on YouTube. The vast majority of people don't view their own name as highly sensitive information to never give out. They use it every day all the time.
The risk is that the YouTuber pisses of someone and they swat him or try to steal the land or some such. What that really comes down to however is that "knowing my address someone can do an illegal act on me with impunity." Most people would view that as a societal or government problem versus one they should personally tackle by perpetually hiding. Hiding might be a viable short term or stop gap solution but if it's a long term requirement then you're living in a dystopia which most people would prefer not to.
> You're conflating the European political ruling class with regular European citizens.
The exact same thing can be said about "the Americans". In both regions there are more than enough people that want surveillance and banning of encryption, it's not just "the politicians" (because, you know, "think of the children/terrorists").
Yeah; Here in the USA, there's tons of folks you can explain how "Why should I worry? I have nothing to hide." is not a valid way to look at this issue until you're blue in the face, and they'll still "stick to their guns" that you're just bein' paranoid. Doesn't matter how many times throughout history or how many different ways the lesson's been taught; Some folks just don't "get it" until it's literally on their doorstep with weapons and handcuffs over some strange law they never even knew got passed for sayin' or doin' something they didn't even know was illegal or that anyone else even noticed them doin' or sayin'.
> they're tried to make end-to-end encryption illegal how many times now
Isn't the fact that they fail each time rather a sign that people don't want it, and are not happy with it?
Some fail, some succeed. Same as the US. That's my point.
In terms of terrorism, let's look at what France could do for the last almost 20 years:
> The ability of the government to establish “individual monitoring and surveillance measures” against individuals who present a “particularly serious” threat of terrorism.
> Police may access an individual's computer files without a warrant to prevent a terrorist act.
> Internet service providers and Internet cafes are required to retain login and connection data for one year and to provide this data to authorities if requested.
> Authorities may receive telephone and cell phone usage details, without the permission of a judge.
> Increased CCTV surveillance in public
> Identity checks, including on board international trains, are strengthened.
> The Prime Minister or a person qualified in the Interior Ministry may authorize listening devices to record conversations.
I think what's new here is that they could now force Apple to use additional devices and software, not of Apple's choosing, to obtain the data for them.
A NSL should already be able do that.
Doesn't look like it. NSLs don't allow them to record calls or message content. Only metadata. (According to Wikipedia...)
People conveniently stopped talking about NSLs
Usually governments can't investigate crimes as such.
There's usually a police investigation, but ultimately it's a court that compels people to do things. The police can't issue subpoenas on their own.
A court is not the government. A court is the people (at least if it's an actual court, and not some fake pseudo-court).
I think you're using the outside US English understanding of 'government' that means the current majority group in the legislature and typically that group picks the executive.
That's a fine definition, but not the operative one in a discussion of the US NSA.
In the US, the government is the apparatus of state power. That includes legislative, judicial, and executive. Including police, court, schools run by the state (we call them public schools, but that's another term that likely means something else to you), parks deparments, municipal services (if not private businesses), etc.
> A court is the people
Maybe in common law countries. In rest of the world the judiciary is simply semi-independent branch of power.
Separation of legislative / judiciary / executive powers.
Speaking of, I realize that I never really thought (enough) about it, it also matters to which one of these the various espionage and law enforcement organizations report to !