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

• thurstylark@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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 ⁨day⁩ ago

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

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        What does your behavior have to do with whether or not the encryption is broken?

        source

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

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I always see that one and think “goddamn they’d kill me because I’d never remember the password after the drugs hit, and the more they hit me the less I’ll be able to focus and remember”

        source
    • Hawke@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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 ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s not what breaking means…

      source