Fights like this only legitimize the EU's DSA to me. UK users would not be beholden to Apple for E2EE if their clients had legitimate alternatives to the first-party iCloud service. There would be no world where Apple could even threaten to disable it.<p>Break the walled garden down, and all of the sudden it doesn't matter what Apple's stance on E2EE is. But Apple wouldn't want that, since then you might realize they aren't the sole arbiters of online privacy.
<i>So the question in my mind is: is the UK Government attempting to cover-up its previous advocacy of ADP, by censoring this old document?</i><p>In a word, yes.<p>I'd be fascinated to know who in the hive mind decided to do it though; I can't see someone too senior coming up with an http redirect as the answer. I guess the scrub order came down the chain and an automaton jumped into action.
Simply turning off ADP for UK users seems like it wouldn't satisfy the UK who likely wants the keys to people's data who live outside the UK as well.<p>So Apple either has to fight this in court, compromise security worldwide, disable iCloud worldwide or exit the UK market.<p>The same law can arguably be used to compel Apple to backdoor phones and devices themselves as well.
Interesting that these five eyes nations are backing out of intelligence sharing with the US, and also removing the advice to use Apple encryption. Does this mean the US is able to get that encrypted data in plaintext already, and was previously sharing such with these governments? Now they won't have that and need (want) to see the communications move to platforms they have readily access to.
Related:<p><i>Apple takes UK to court over 'backdoor' order</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43270079">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43270079</a>
I'm always curious about the digital rights erosion. The frog boiling in a pot is a pretty apt metaphor. At what point do we throw are hands up and just assume all channels of communication are compromised to the point its public.
There is still a picture of the front of the document available:<p><a href="https://archive.ph/uXyEf" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/uXyEf</a>
Why would you want to live in the UK, especially under this government?<p>Unless you want to enjoy a full surveillance state close to China?<p>Even if you are running away from the US, you should just ignore the UK as a destination at this point.
The UK border is completely porous and counter-terrorism services repeatedly fail to investigate reported threats.<p>This isn't about improving security.
"Confirmation. So the question in my mind is: is the UK Government attempting to cover-up its previous advocacy of ADP, by censoring this old document? Or does it instead want the UK legal profession to avoid use of ADP and to what end?"<p>No, they just changed their advice/webpage. They aren't trying to "cover-up" anything. They just changed their stance in the face of current requests and laws. It's not a conspiracy.
Wankers! Sorry that's not constructive. But that's what they are.<p>Especially when government ministers regularly accidentally delete everything and get away with it...
I assumed from the headline this was about GDPR Article 32. Instead, I got tricked into reading about Apple fighting for their right to sell me another adapter to add back the features they removed for security.<p>Edit: It appears my comment was moved from a duplicate discussion titled "UK quietly scrubs encryption advice from government websites" which linked to TechCrunch.<p><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/06/uk-quietly-scrubs-encryption-advice-from-government-websites/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/06/uk-quietly-scrubs-encrypti...</a>
There is too much deflection from the true purpose for these regulations.<p>The main thing here is that if a Govt approaches a party to gain access to their encrypted data the party can stall them, destroy the data, claim amnesia or point the Govt in the direction of their lawyers. If the Govt approaches Apple or some other company, the companies don't have to inform the targets and can probably compel the companies not to inform the targets.<p>With encryption there is even no hard evidence that the data sought exists.<p>This is the main reason for the laws. Their purpose is to gain access to encrypted information without their target's knowledge.