The secret order would give the UK access to encrypted backups belonging to any user — not just Brits.
  • KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world
    81·
    7 hours ago

    E2E encryption is still available in the US for now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the government forces that to change soon.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      6 hours ago

      I had thought that 5+ years ago, Google, Apple, Meta, etc. all created “master” private keys that would allow them to unencrypt users’ data. At the time, the argument used was to combat CSA material/trafficking. I could be wrong, though. I’ll try looking it up later.

      Edit:

      I did a quick search while on break at work.

      Apple claims they have no master key and do not allow governments direct access to their servers. They only provide data when legally required to;

      https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/

      Google claims the same thing.

      As for Meta, I could only find anecdotal Reddit posts that seem to somewhat contradict the E2EE claims from Meta, as an example:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1g6tqg7/meta_ai_scanning_private_conversations/

      https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/1al9dk9/messenger_has_access_to_the_endtoend_encrypted/

      So it seems that Meta is likely scanning content before the encryption takes place. So they can still claim that messages are indeed E2EE, but that’s useless when their AI tools are still scanning the content beforehand.

      There’s also this recent development:

      https://www.medianama.com/2024/03/223-meta-end-to-end-encryption-europe-interoperability-2/

      In spite of these processes, Meta has concerns. The blog post said, “Without ownership of both clients (endpoints) we cannot guarantee what a third-party provider does with sent or received messages” and thus cannot assure that messages are safely encrypted and protected. Further they said that with interoperability they would “lose connection level signals that are important for keeping users safe from spam and scams such as TCP fingerprints.”

      Finally, Meta said that having a intermediary between third party provider and a Meta server could expose the “chat metadata to the proxy server, which increases the likelihood that this data could be accidentally or intentionally leaked.”

      Tldr; I wouldn’t trust Meta’s E2EE.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 hours ago

        I think trusting Meta’s (or Google’s) E2EE at any point would have been a bad decision. Facebook thrived on collecting user data, and end-to-end encryption of private conversations spits in the face of that. If it’s antithetical to their profits, there’s incentive to bypass the intent but still technically be implementing it (on-device keyword scanning, maybe?).

    • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.businessEnglish
      31·
      8 hours ago

      Oh, I’m pretty sure they fully understand how it works.

      They simply expect tech to roll over when commanded, and in this case, it does indeed look like Apple is going to do exactly that.

      • fuzzzerdEnglish
        31·
        7 hours ago

        The article says Apple is opposed. Additionally, they’ve already offered E2E backups, but you had to opt in. Well know they’ve capitulated if/when they remove that option.

  • dance_ninja@lemmy.world
    7·
    9 hours ago

    In response to the order, Apple is expected to simply stop offering Advanced Data Protection in the UK. This wouldn’t meet the UK’s demand for access to files shared by global users, however.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    47·
    6 hours ago

    “EU orders Apple to let anything in to the AppStore”

    Androiders: Yeah! Open that shit up! Stupid Apple!

    “EU orders encryption back door”

    Androiders: . . . Not like that!

  • Autonomous User@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    7 hours ago

    Only possible as iOS fails to include a libre software license text file. We do not control it, anti-libre software.