Comment on Apple refuses to break encryption, seeks reversal of UK demand for backdoor - Ars Technica

• Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  …they’re removing encryption from iCloud

  source

  • thurstylark@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Providing something that is broken is very different from not providing it at all.

    source

    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Right but…they didn’t provide it. And now they’re not. You wouldn’t call removing that encryption “breaking”?

      source

      • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No, because if you know its not encrypted you behave differently than when you think it is.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • towerful@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No.
        Users that do not decrypt their storage lose their storage permanently.
        Users that decrypt their storage get to continue to use it, but it isn’t decrypted.

        No encryption is broken.
        Users are swapping convenience for privacy. (Or privacy for convenience? Whichever way that is).

        Broken implies it is unusable or useless. As in “Apples encryption is unusable”.
        This is not the case. It’s not broken. Users are given the option to remove the encryption to be able to continue to use the storage.

        Essentially: xkcd.com/538/

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Hawke@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Not as it is conventionally used.

        If you break a lock, that’s different from unlocking it and removing it.

        source
      • kat@orbi.camp ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        That’s not what breaking means…

        source