US Spy Chief Gabbard Says UK Agreed To Drop 'Backdoor' Mandate for Apple (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0178754764
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/08/19/0345252/us-spy-chief-gabbard-says-uk-agreed-to-drop-backdoor-mandate-for-apple
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-spy-chief-gabbard-says-uk-agreed-drop-backdoor-mandate-apple-2025-08-19/
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-spy-chief-gabbard-says-uk-agreed-drop-backdoor-mandate-apple-2025-08-19/
[2] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/02/07/1150200/uk-orders-apple-to-let-it-spy-on-users-encrypted-accounts
UK to drop access to encrypted American data (Score:2)
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the UK agreed to drop demands for access to "the protected encrypted data of American citizens."
So they can still access UK citizens data?
Re:UK to drop access to encrypted American data (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the US has no legal right to stop the UK from crippling encryption in UK sold phones. However now you can buy an Apple phone made for any market in which the govt doesn't demand this and it will still properly use encryption. Whereas had the UK's demand been allowed it would have forced a backdoor in all of Apple's mobile phone encryption systems everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't have a back door, though. That's why Cellebrite makes a lot of money by selling their devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians, read ? And learn ? How quaint.
Re: (Score:2)
> Where do politicians get the idea that they can order companies to put in back doors on encryption?
Since the country had an army with guns and tanks and prisons. What's Apple going to do? Throw Airpods at them?
Criminals use Apple (Score:2)
If you have an Android, you have nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:1)
Huh just yesterday I read Android had a container system that was impenetrable.
Google wouldn't lie.
Pussies (Score:2)
government should have agreed to that when the american government agreed to the same for brits,
The US wants backdoor access for themselves (Score:4)
Obviously. Can't let the UK have access too.
Probably no need now (Score:1)
All this probably means is that the authorities have been successful in bypassing the encryption mechanisms so the backdoor is no longer required.
So it could have happen .. (Score:1)
... like this:
vance: hey steimer, no worries, usa has uk back
steimer: how do you mean?
vance: whatever you want to know just ask usa, we'll tell you what is and what's not
steimer: oh well, thats awfully nice sir
Even a broken clock... (Score:3)
...is right twice a day.
This is the first time I've heard of Vance doing something I approve of. I don't like the man or his opinions but he's on the right side of this one.
are you serious? (Score:1, Interesting)
He's one of the main guys getting Trump to pull the fuck out of Ukraine. Which, if you haven't noticed, is a complete waste of blood and treasure among many other negative impacts. You can tell Vance is very much on the "in" with Trump because he is always there with Trump in important meetings. I would take Vance over Trump 10 days out of 10 -- that said, Trump has a cult of personality so he can do anything and not lose his popular support, and hence drive his deals through Congress. Vance doesn't have th
Re: (Score:2)
Trump could sign a peace treaty with Russia tomorrow and /.ers and other American leftists would still bitch about it. "Ooh, of course Agent Krasnov would broker a peace deal with Putin!!
Re: (Score:2)
I fear you are correct. Opinion on this site is very obviously one-sided and biased.
Not that the current Admin in the US isn't questionable, they're correct about that one... But objective discussion is usually not what is happening here.
Re: are you serious? (Score:3)
Not objective? I guess that's why they're called opinions. And if you have a lot of EU /.-ers here you'll be getting an earful about Ukraine and other shenanigans of Trump.
Objectivity in opinions is a very strange concept. In facts, sure. In opinions? Impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
la Presidenta could sign a peace treaty with Russia, and that would have the same force as his effluent to the press. Any "guarantees" he makes are worthless, and Putin knows his poodle and will understand he has free rein to do anything he likes with Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the country that Trump has governmental authority in at war with Russia?
It appears that it is not.
If that is the case, how and what kind of peace treaty can Trump sign and in what capacity?
Re: (Score:3)
An actual peace treaty, ratified by representatives of the people of Ukraine? With actual guarantees and enforcement?
I'd welcome it. And a huge number of people that you would describe as American leftists would welcome it.
But we're absolutely going to fucking bitch about it if Trump comes up with some kind of unilateral appeasement that he pretends is a 'peace treaty', and we'd be fucking right about it. And you should be bitching too if you actually want peace in Ukraine.
If Trump was really interested in
Re: (Score:1)
> Trump could sign a peace treaty with Russia tomorrow and /.ers and other American leftists would still bitch about it. "Ooh, of course Agent Krasnov would broker a peace deal with Putin!!
You say that as if the terms of the treaty wouldn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, the US and Russia are not at war. The Russo-Ukrainian war is being fought between Russia (+North Korea) and Ukraine. The military and economic aid Ukraine is receiving from its Western allies is merely reducing the amount of Ukraine which Russian forces are able to capture so that fewer Ukrainians become subject to Russian genocide. It is not making the war happen, it's a war between Russian imperialism and Ukrainian wish not to be genocided. Recall that before the war started, when everyone was expect