That doesn't sound super profitable. Apple made money by the truckload bending over to accommodate surveillance in China.
If Apple did not stay in the Chinese market they will very quickly have a competitor appear in that market that will then threaten other markets. Arguably, there are already Apple competitors in it and Apple's position keeps them from occupying a space that quickly leads to competing with Apple globally.
China is generally viewed as a unique market and capitulating to the Chinese government may lead to capitulation to the US, but not to any other nation as they are incomparable.
The UK market will neither create an Apple competitor nor will it provide enough scope to allow existing competitors to meaningfully grow.
Capitulating to the UK government will lead to many other countries requiring similar capitulations.
They complied with the previous request, and stopped because the US government pressured the UK government because they didn't want US nationals to also fall victim to reduced security.
I'd love to see Apple stand up this time, but given their history I don't think it'll happen beyond a miffed comment on a blog somewhere.
This is already the status quo in the US. The fact that ADP is offered as an option is irrelevant.
Lots of things to fault apple about. This likely is not one of them.
These load-bearing assumptions are part of Apple's issue.
Anyone can write a whitepaper, keeping a transparent SBOM is a different level of commitment.
ADP hasn't been available in the UK for some time now.
And there are plenty of UK users of ADP - those who got in before it was banned still have it.
From the article:
> After the U.K. government first issued the TCN in January, Apple was forced to either create a backdoor or block its Advanced Data Protection feature
> the US claimed the U.K. withdrew the demand, but Apple did not re-enable Advanced Data Protection
> The new order provides insight into why: the U.K. was just rewriting it to only apply to British users
> The Financial Times reports that the U.K. is once again demanding that Apple create a backdoor into its encrypted backup services.
If you read further, or click the FT link, you'll see the UK is now demanding access to encrypted iPhone backups.
ADP is not relevant beyond the history; the UK is not doing anything with ADP but I understand the confusion if you don't know that "iPhone iCloud backup" is a separate service for iPhones.
This isn't the type of question I normally ask people, so it sounds like you've made a bad guess here and are treating your own assumption as fact. You are incorrect; I have ADP turned on.
> Apple provides the data to the Five Eyes without a warrant.
Source? Or are you assuming here, too?
> The fact that ADP is offered as an option is irrelevant.
Only if you think no one uses it.
The UK seems to now want Apple to decrypt/provide access to encrypted iPhone backups. This is where your device backs itself up in a restorable format to the cloud, including passwords and private data. Since Apple has a way to decrypt non-ADP iCloud data, UK wants it.
That's far too simply put
The UK has incredible wealth, it is just more concentrated than ever in a few select pockets
For physical infrastructure, there are certainly less well maintained areas and historical policies causing issues, but I'm not aware of any areas that are structurally/physically unsafe.
There are 'rougher' areas, places where theft is more likely but very, very few areas that are genuinely unsafe to walk through. The only ones I'm really aware of are two very small areas in London (basically 2-3 buildings) and certain kinds of traveller camps.
For pretty much everything else, it seems to be on par with other European nations - generally behind the Nordics of course.
Share the videos - I'd love to understand where you are coming from.
bigyabai•1h ago
We'll always be powerless to stop top-down attacks like this until we demand real audits and accountability in the devices we own. Shaming the UK only kicks the can down the road and further highlights the danger of trusting a black box to remain secure.
beeflet•1h ago
I agree political action here is totally fruitless. The UK government and Apple could already be cooperating and you would have no way of telling the difference.
JoshTriplett•1h ago
Ideally, everything that runs outside of an app sandbox would be 100% Open Source. Anything short of that is not sufficient to give people full confidence against a backdoor. (Even that also relies on people paying attention, but it at least gives the possibility that people outside of a company whistleblower could catch and flag a backdoor.)
zzo38computer•1h ago
mulmen•22m ago
hunter2_•58m ago
If only specific individuals are targeted, I agree. But if it's pushed to all users, wouldn't we expect a researcher to notice? Maybe not immediately, so damage will be done in the meantime, but sooner than later.
SV_BubbleTime•50m ago
michaelt•33m ago
Think of the security a games console has - every download arrives encrypted, all storage encrypted, RAM encrypted, and security hardware in the CPU that makes sure everything is signed by the corporation before decrypting anything. To prevent cheating and piracy.
Modern smartphones are the same way.
We can't expect independent researchers to notice a backdoor when they can't access the code or the network traffic.
thewebguyd•1h ago
People have been warning of this outcome for years and years. Stallman was right and all that. We got laughed out of the room and called paranoid weirdos.
Ever since smartphones were a thing it’s been obvious that this is where we were heading.