Search results for: “global”

The British government has quietly asked Apple to give it full access to every user’s encrypted data stored in the cloud, according to The Washington Post. This secret directive reportedly came last month, compelling Apple to design a backdoor allowing UK security agencies to access encrypted user data around the world. This is a demand that has never been made in any other democratic nation.

The order was delivered via a “technical capability notice” under the UK’s 2016 Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), which critics call the “Snooper’s Charter.” This law allows law enforcement to force companies to assist in gathering evidence.

Apple has not commented on this issue. The law makes it illegal for Apple to even acknowledge such a demand from the government. Similarly, the Home Office declined to confirm or deny the existence of such notices, stating it does not discuss operational details.

A consultant who advises the US on encryption issues said Apple would not be able to inform users that their encryption is no longer secure. A former White House security advisor verified the UK’s order.

Apple Might Stop UK iCloud Services Over Privacy Concerns

There’s talk that Apple might pull its encrypted storage service from the UK rather than weaken the privacy promises it made to its users. However, this wouldn’t stop the UK from accessing the service in other countries. Apple has hinted before that it might withdraw services like FaceTime and iMessage from the UK if privacy is compromised. Apple’s Advanced Data Protection, introduced in 2022, allows users to encrypt additional data categories like Photos and Notes, keeping them private even from Apple.

Google, on the other hand, has made encryption standard for Android backups since 2018. When asked if any government had asked for a backdoor, Google responded that they can’t access encrypted backup data, even with a legal order.

How to Secure Your iCloud Data

The IPA was revised in 2023 to let the Home Office potentially ban certain encrypted services. Apple criticized these changes as excessive government control, suggesting they could prevent new security features from being offered globally.

Apple CEO Tim Cook has always argued against providing backdoors, stating it would invite criminals to access user data. Cybersecurity experts agree, warning that any backdoor could be exploited. Apple’s resistance was notable in 2016 when they fought and won against a US order to unlock an iPhone.

With increasing cyber threats from state actors, like those from China, US officials are now more focused on cybersecurity than ever, promoting encryption to protect communications. Privacy advocates, like Big Brother Watch, argue that such measures won’t make the UK safer and will instead undermine basic rights and freedoms.

Source

The idea of creating an iPhone entirely in the U.S. seems appealing, but remains impractical, despite continuous discussions around it. Even though Apple has explained multiple times why it’s not feasible, the dream of a made-in-USA iPhone refuses to fade.

The Financial Times recently addressed why this idea isn’t realistic. They emphasized the 2,700 individual components in each iPhone, with many parts involving separate smaller pieces that aren’t easily seen. Apple’s iPhone parts are produced across 700 different production sites, but only 30 suppliers are based outside China. This is a huge issue. The Chinese suppliers are located close together and collaborate closely, a system that took decades to build. Recreating such a complex network in the U.S. would take just as long, if not longer.

While some iPhone parts, like display glass and Face ID lasers, are made in the U.S., much of the rest, including touchscreen elements, comes from South Korea and is assembled in China. The process is too intricate and spread out globally to be moved to a single location without serious complications.

Additionally, moving production to the U.S. makes little political sense, particularly with changing administrations. As Andy Tsay, a professor at Santa Clara University, points out, investing in long-term changes is difficult when policies shift every four years. Even if Apple considered such a move, it wouldn’t happen before the current presidency ends, making it an impractical decision.