Re: UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying wolrdwide, report says

On 09/02/2025 12:21, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

That it is not really correct - if it is less easy to communicate and store data securely then more people will have no option but to use less secure methods.

>
I don't see the grounds for your protasis. Why is it less easy to communicate and store data securely? Why must people use less secure methods?

 Because they no longer have access to more secure methods, ie Apple encryption.
 [...]

I agree, but trusting a cryptosystem known to have a back door certainly does count as stupid.

 ITYM *would* count as stupid..

I do, yes. Thank you for the correction.

 

You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it would be daft not to superencrypt.

 But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.

It's easy. Instead of:
apple < plain.txt
you:
cat plain.txt | aes_for_example > apple
and Bob pipes through aes_for_example -d at his end.
In other words, instead of sending plaintext through Apple, you send ciphertext.

 [...]
 

Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data on demand.

>
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the crook has already failed.

 Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level policeman.

Having read the relevant legislation, which is not the kind of document I'd like to read for the first time in a panic, I'm not convinced either way. This is a job for an actual lawyer.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within