Apple has blocked updates to Telegram since April

[Armgame]

I literally updated Telegram today on iOS, so don't know how valid this is anymore.

EDIT: Just saw the other post about it like 2-3 posts above mine -.-

 

[backstreetboy]

Shame. Apple users can't even use the PWA app aswell.

 

[Bryn]

The situation was a bit different, from what I remember. The FBI wanted something from Apple that doesn't (or didn't) currently exist. Russia wants from Telegram something they have access to.

Legally that makes a big difference.

There was a court order issued against Apple, but it became irrelevant when the FBI dropped their request.

It isn't really different though. Telegram has said many times that their cloud storage system is designed for maximum user privacy. User data is distributed across multiple regions so that no single jurisdiction contains a meaningful amount of data. They cannot give only Russian access - it's either the whole world or nothing.

The FBI dropped their request because they accepted how unreasonable it was. Despite being equally unreasonable, the Russian government doesn't care. It's an extremely safe bet that none of Telegram, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. would ever provide cryptographic keys, a custom government portal with a pervasive access level or any other such tool of invading user privacy at will. Doing so would be the beginning of the end for any platform. Again, the legality is irrelevant. These companies would sooner pull out of a region than destroy themselves.

More importantly though is the horror of anyone promoting that Telegram or any other messaging organisation give a violently oppressive government wholesale access to user data. It's unconscionable.

 

[crackersa]

It isn't really different though. Telegram has said many times that their cloud storage system is designed for maximum user privacy. User data is distributed across multiple regions so that no single jurisdiction contains a meaningful amount of data. They cannot give only Russian access - it's either the whole world or nothing.

The FBI dropped their request because they accepted how unreasonable it was. Despite being equally unreasonable, the Russian government doesn't care. It's an extremely safe bet that none of Telegram, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. would ever provide cryptographic keys, a custom government portal with a pervasive access level or any other such tool of invading user privacy at will. Doing so would be the beginning of the end for any platform. Again, the legality is irrelevant. These companies would sooner pull out of a region than destroy themselves.

More importantly though is the horror of anyone promoting that Telegram or any other messaging organisation give a violently oppressive government wholesale access to user data. It's unconscionable.

I thought the fbi dropped their request cause they hacked the San Berdino terrorist phone and they didn’t need the court order any more?

 

[Bryn]

I thought the fbi dropped their request cause they hacked the San Berdino terrorist phone and they didn’t need the court order any more?

No, it wasn't as elegant as that. They may have eventually claimed that as the reason though to save face, but I distinctly recall the timeline of the story supporting a mere fizzling out of their unreasonable request. Regardless of when they hacked the device, people on Youtube were shown demonstrating how to easily hack an iPhone days after the story broke. For an entity like the FBI, it was disgraceful that they lacked the skills of some Youtube teenagers. More likely they didn't lack such skills and were much more interested in the opportunity for backdoor access to Apple's systems though.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

It isn't really different though. Telegram has said many times that their cloud storage system is designed for maximum user privacy. User data is distributed across multiple regions so that no single jurisdiction contains a meaningful amount of data. They cannot give only Russian access - it's either the whole world or nothing.

The FBI dropped their request because they accepted how unreasonable it was. Despite being equally unreasonable, the Russian government doesn't care. It's an extremely safe bet that none of Telegram, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. would ever provide cryptographic keys, a custom government portal with a pervasive access level or any other such tool of invading user privacy at will. Doing so would be the beginning of the end for any platform. Again, the legality is irrelevant. These companies would sooner pull out of a region than destroy themselves.

More importantly though is the horror of anyone promoting that Telegram or any other messaging organisation give a violently oppressive government wholesale access to user data. It's unconscionable.

No, it is very different. From a legal perspective it's a very different thing for law enforcement authorities to get legal authority to request something from Apple that they physically are able to provide and for legal authorities to order Apple to create something that doesn't exist at present. Apple made this distinction, too. They've provided things to law enforcement before as they're legally obligated to. This case was diferent.

And no, the FBI didn't drop it because they realised it's unreasonable (lol) They dropped it because Some Israeli firm got into the phone. That's what they say anyway.

 

[crackersa]

No, it is very different. From a legal perspective it's a very different thing for law enforcement authorities to get legal authority to request something from Apple that they physically are able to provide and for legal authorities to order Apple to create something that doesn't exist at present.

And no, the FBI didn't drop it because they realised it's unreasonable (lol) They dropped it because Some Israeli firm got into the phone. That's what they say anyway.

That Israeli firm probably referenced you tube

 

[Bryn]

No, it is very different. From a legal perspective it's a very different thing for law enforcement authorities to get legal authority to request something from Apple that they physically are able to provide and for legal authorities to order Apple to create something that doesn't exist at present. Apple made this distinction, too. They've provided things to law enforcement before as they're legally obligated to. This case was diferent.

And no, the FBI didn't drop it because they realised it's unreasonable (lol) They dropped it because Some Israeli firm got into the phone. That's what they say anyway.

Apple was able to comply with the request though. Tim Cook's statement at the time:

"The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake."

Also from a related news article:
"The February 16, 2016 order issued by Magistrate Judge Pym gave Apple five days to apply for relief if Apple believed the order was "unreasonably burdensome". Apple announced its intent to oppose the order, citing the security risks that the creation of a backdoor would pose towards customers."

There's no lol about the FBI yielding to reason - that's exactly what they did. Their reason for the order not being needed anymore is obviously bs. They had already met an Apple team on a few occasions to discuss methods for unlocking the phone and eventually resorted to paying hackers, weeks after countless noobs on Youtube had shown exactly how to hack the device. They clearly ran out of rope for their preferred outcome of being given a snazzy backdoor into iDevices.

The fact that the back door didn't exist at the time isn't the marker of reasonableness - it's whether creating it is an unreasonable burden on Apple. Apple didn't even cite that as the reason. Their concern was purely the disastrous implication for user privacy.

You keep returning to 'legal perspective'. I'm saying that legal or illegal, no company is going to give up the security of their entire system. Telegram would be dead in an instant if Russia could access the world's Telegram user data. Apple would also haemorrhage users at a phenomenal rate under the same circumstance. Only over their dead bodies would such information be handed over.

You seem to have a worrying lack of concern for the legal vs. ethical balance. The legalities of such extreme privacy cases are almost irrelevant. Nothing justifies stripping back all privacy for any messaging platform. Politicians and law enforcement are frequently misguided about these matters and are in no way some moral authority.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

There's no lol about the FBI yielding to reason - that's exactly what they did. Their reason for the order not being needed anymore is obviously bs. They had already met an Apple team on a few occasions to discuss methods for unlocking the phone and eventually resorted to paying hackers, weeks after countless noobs on Youtube had shown exactly how to hack the device. They clearly ran out of rope for their preferred outcome of being given a snazzy backdoor into iDevices.

There's no evidence that they "yielded to reason" on it. And your suspicions about government intentions regarding these issues is exactly why the "yield to reason" part is so unlikely.

This is what we know about their withdrawal of the case.

On March 21, the government requested and was granted a delay, saying a third party had demonstrated a possible way to unlock the iPhone in question and the FBI needed more time to determine if it will work.[49][50][51] On March 28, the FBI said it had unlocked the iPhone with the third party's help, and an anonymous official said that the hack's applications were limited; the Department of Justice withdrew the case.[52][53] The lawyer for the FBI has stated that they are using the extracted information to further investigate the case.

The fact that the back door didn't exist at the time isn't the marker of reasonableness - it's whether creating it is an unreasonable burden on Apple. Apple didn't even cite that as the reason. Their concern was purely the disastrous implication for user privacy.

Yes, I didn't say anything about merely that being the marker for reasonableness. I said it's an important distinction legally speaking, because the All Writs Act that the government cited specifically states "use all existing capabilities", and the implication of them being forced to write the requested software would be so far reaching.

And they did cite that as a reason.

Apple also asserts that being compelled to write new software "amounts to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. ... What is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone's user?"

You keep returning to 'legal perspective'. I'm saying that legal or illegal, no company is going to give up the security of their entire system. Telegram would be dead in an instant if Russia could access the world's Telegram user data. Apple would also haemorrhage users at a phenomenal rate under the same circumstance. Only over their dead bodies would such information be handed over.

You seem to have a worrying lack of concern for the legal vs. ethical balance. The legalities of such extreme privacy cases are almost irrelevant. Nothing justifies stripping back all privacy for any messaging platform. Politicians and law enforcement are frequently misguided about these matters and are in no way some moral authority.

None of this is relevant to the point I was making, though. I agree with you completely about this.

 

[Bryn]

There's no evidence that they "yielded to reason" on it. And your suspicions about government intentions regarding these issues is exactly why the "yield to reason" part is so unlikely.

This is what we know about their withdrawal of the case.

Yes, I didn't say anything about merely that being the marker for reasonableness. I said it's an important distinction legally speaking, because the All Writs Act that the government cited specifically states "use all existing capabilities", and the implication of them being forced to write the requested software would be so far reaching.

And they did cite that as a reason.

Finding hard evidence in determining the FBI's true motives is obviously not going to happen. My argument was that it's very naive to think that an entity like the FBI lacks the skills of Youtube script kiddies when it comes to accessing an iPhone. They obviously knew how to. Heck, even if they somehow didn't, some Googling would have put them on the right track. I don't see how it wasn't a ploy to gain more permanent access to iDevices. When they no longer had a leg to stand on, considering their original reason pertained to a specific device, then the opportunity was over.

Whatever defence Apple could use regarding the non-existence of certain access controls, Telegram could use too. Since its inception, the company has claimed that the entire system is designed to be distributed across the globe and be inaccessible to anyone but individual users as far as one-on-one and private group chats are concerned. The anti-terrorism and other proactive detection mechanisms only scan public groups, and Telegram staff can only view such public chats. All they can do for private chats is delete them and the users concerned. So to ask Telegram for wholesale access to their system is to ask for fundamental changes to its functionality, much like what was asked of Apple.

None of the Apple statements you included contradicts my argumen that their situation was very similar to Telegram's. As for the FBI, I mentioned above that they must think the public is stupid for such a statement to be accepted as the truth of the matter.