▲ 1846 ▼ Apple says it will remove services such as FaceTime and iMessage from the UK rather than weaken security if new proposals are made law and acted upon. (www.bbc.com) submitted 3 years ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 345 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ryannathans@lemmy.world 83 points 3 years ago (4 children) God damn bullshit always "for children and terrorists" permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hiire@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago I hate how people turn a blind eye to these things nowadays. They're willing to give away their personal lives at the expense of the shittiest excuses out there. Privacy should be a necessity, ffs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dunestorm@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago Why don't they just actually give their actual reason: to spy on UK citizens. To use children and criminals as a scapegoat for this attrocity is disgusting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) "protect the public from criminals, child sex abusers and terrorists" Aren't two of those just subsets of the first one? What a curious pair of emotionally manipulative examples to choose, when it adds absolutely no extra meaning to the Home Office's statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 years ago i would assume they mean 'criminals, especially...', but classic tHiNk oF tHe ChiLdReN argument permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hiire@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago I hate how people turn a blind eye to these things nowadays. They're willing to give away their personal lives at the expense of the shittiest excuses out there. Privacy should be a necessity, ffs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dunestorm@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago Why don't they just actually give their actual reason: to spy on UK citizens. To use children and criminals as a scapegoat for this attrocity is disgusting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) "protect the public from criminals, child sex abusers and terrorists" Aren't two of those just subsets of the first one? What a curious pair of emotionally manipulative examples to choose, when it adds absolutely no extra meaning to the Home Office's statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 years ago i would assume they mean 'criminals, especially...', but classic tHiNk oF tHe ChiLdReN argument permalink fedilink source parent
[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 years ago i would assume they mean 'criminals, especially...', but classic tHiNk oF tHe ChiLdReN argument permalink fedilink source parent