HN Reader

We've fallen quite far from the tradition of policing by consent as developed by Sir Robert Peel:

- Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.

- An effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, "The police are the public and the public are the police."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Edit: another choice quote from that article, from the Home Office itself in 2012:

"The Home Office defined the legitimacy of policing, in the eyes of the public, as based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

shortened judgement available here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/apple-inc-v-secretary-of-...

What a horrible headline. The Guardian's headline reads "UK Home Office loses attempt to keep legal battle with Apple secret".

As I’ve gotten older and more moderate in my political leanings I’ve unsurprisingly revisited some of my earlier absolute positions (usually but not always very liberal) in light of real world considerations.

Encryption and communications privacy is a position I’ve actually gotten more “extreme” on. No, I don’t think the government should get to see anyone’s communication if they don’t want it to. Yes, I know that will allow criminals of the worst kinds to communicate secretly. I’m okay with that. The alternatives are all worse.

I love that judges are saving society. They’re keeping the government here honest. Let’s hope it continues.

Parent link seemingly doesn’t have the article when viewed on mobile. This was useful https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/07/uk-home-off...

Users want their secrets to be secret.

Apple wants its users' secrets to be secret.

The UK wants the fact it wants Apple to reveal anyone's secrets to be secret.

Text-only:

https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1CsokD

NB. It wasn't Apple who moved to block the secrecy of the hearing. Apple seems content to let UK Apple computer owners mistakenly believe they can trust the company's promises of "privacy". Meanwhile the company was participating in secret hearings with the government concerning computer owners' data.

"The ADP service is opt-in, meaning people have to sign up to get the protection it provides."

Defaults matter. They are intentional. They are chosen by so-called "tech" companies like Apple that interlope as alleged "necessary" intermediaries: "Send us your data and we will store it in our data centres."

Apple's default is "no end-to-end encryption". ADP off.

The judgment referenced in the submission is only the "public" one, a summary. Apple will not publish the "private" one.

The data at issue is not Apple's. But the data owners are absent from these hearings. Their only knowledge of how the "data custodian" Apple advocates, negotiates and capitulates on their behalf comes from vague publicity and the custodian itself.

I don't understand people who want to defend Apple in this case. UK is a functioning democracy, and why would you want to put a (foreign) company above that? If you want change, you know the route ...