TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

NCSC, GCHQ, UK Gov't expunge advice to “use Apple encryption”

376 点作者 jjgreen2 个月前

23 条评论

bigfatkitten2 个月前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;YZF6r" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;YZF6r</a>
bigyabai2 个月前
Fights like this only legitimize the EU&#x27;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&#x27;t matter what Apple&#x27;s stance on E2EE is. But Apple wouldn&#x27;t want that, since then you might realize they aren&#x27;t the sole arbiters of online privacy.
评论 #43272337 未加载
评论 #43272532 未加载
评论 #43272133 未加载
评论 #43273660 未加载
评论 #43272146 未加载
评论 #43272215 未加载
评论 #43285704 未加载
评论 #43317340 未加载
cs02rm02 个月前
<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&#x27;d be fascinated to know who in the hive mind decided to do it though; I can&#x27;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.
评论 #43279678 未加载
评论 #43273732 未加载
评论 #43290239 未加载
mig392 个月前
Man, you know you&#x27;re the baddies when you have to have &quot;secret courts.&quot;
评论 #43273287 未加载
评论 #43272156 未加载
Aloisius2 个月前
Simply turning off ADP for UK users seems like it wouldn&#x27;t satisfy the UK who likely wants the keys to people&#x27;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.
评论 #43274220 未加载
PenguinCoder2 个月前
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&#x27;t have that and need (want) to see the communications move to platforms they have readily access to.
评论 #43298857 未加载
sarcasticfish2 个月前
Could someone that understands more than a third of what was written explain what&#x27;s going on?
评论 #43271812 未加载
评论 #43271806 未加载
评论 #43271820 未加载
评论 #43272170 未加载
verisimi2 个月前
The UK government should mandate http (not https) everywhere.
评论 #43283660 未加载
yapyap2 个月前
We really live in the stupidest timeline
ChrisArchitect2 个月前
Related:<p><i>Apple takes UK to court over &#x27;backdoor&#x27; order</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=43270079">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=43270079</a>
user99999999992 个月前
I&#x27;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.
vsgherzi2 个月前
UK trying to ban math...
评论 #43286641 未加载
dfawcus2 个月前
There is still a picture of the front of the document available:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;uXyEf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;uXyEf</a>
rvz2 个月前
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.
评论 #43272437 未加载
评论 #43288619 未加载
okeuro492 个月前
The UK border is completely porous and counter-terrorism services repeatedly fail to investigate reported threats.<p>This isn&#x27;t about improving security.
GoToRO2 个月前
And they recommend Apple instead.
joelesler2 个月前
&quot;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?&quot;<p>No, they just changed their advice&#x2F;webpage. They aren&#x27;t trying to &quot;cover-up&quot; anything. They just changed their stance in the face of current requests and laws. It&#x27;s not a conspiracy.
giancarlostoro2 个月前
Doubt this is due to security concerns and moreso being instructed to do so for political reason.
ohgr2 个月前
Wankers! Sorry that&#x27;s not constructive. But that&#x27;s what they are.<p>Especially when government ministers regularly accidentally delete everything and get away with it...
评论 #43271897 未加载
theandrewbailey2 个月前
Oy! You got a loicense for that encroiption?
评论 #43283330 未加载
评论 #43283433 未加载
评论 #43283784 未加载
评论 #43283609 未加载
评论 #43283326 未加载
评论 #43283880 未加载
评论 #43283360 未加载
martinsnow2 个月前
Did the site get hugged to death?
评论 #43271729 未加载
评论 #43271684 未加载
smittywerben2 个月前
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 &quot;UK quietly scrubs encryption advice from government websites&quot; which linked to TechCrunch.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2025&#x2F;03&#x2F;06&#x2F;uk-quietly-scrubs-encryption-advice-from-government-websites&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2025&#x2F;03&#x2F;06&#x2F;uk-quietly-scrubs-encrypti...</a>
评论 #43283584 未加载
vfclists2 个月前
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&#x27;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&#x27;s knowledge.
评论 #43277595 未加载