I‘ve done such a thorough job of de-Googling that I forgot to show up for a meeting with someone, because I hadn’t checked my Google calendar in ages. (No, they were not amused.) In my defense, I…
I‘ve done such a thorough job of de-Googling that I forgot to show up for a meeting with someone, because I hadn’t checked my Google calendar in ages. (No, they were not amused.) In my defense, I proceeded to explain to them that having de-Googled, I was also in the process of de-Appling, which is a special bonus level that those of us in the UK have unlocked.
If you’re reading this in the sunlit uplands, you need to start that too.
You need to start that because, as we recently learned, at some point in the very near future Apple is withdrawing its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature from the UK altogether as a result of the Home Office TCN through the Investigatory Powers Act.
Users who already had ADP enabled when the first TCN became public in February will be required to manually switch it off or lose their iCloud account.
I am not going to explain the chapter and verse of the legal saga today, because I prefer to do that for people who pay me to explain them the chapter and verse.
But I will say that the shutdown of ADP is Apple being on the right side of the geopolitical fight, as inconvenient as that may be to you and me.
When the whole debacle blew up in February, Apple announced that ADP would no longer be available for new users, but would remain unaffected for those of us who already had it activated. That assurance was nothing to sleep on, and so we have been waiting for the inevitable. Apple’s September update confirmed that its days are numbered:
So what does that mean for you? Again, from their September update:
Users in the UK who have not already enabled Advanced Data Protection will no longer have the option to do so. That means the 10 iCloud data categories covered by ADP will be protected by Standard Data Protection, and UK users will not have a choice to benefit from end-to-end encryption for these categories: iCloud Backup; iCloud Drive; Photos; Notes; Reminders; Safari Bookmarks; Siri Shortcuts; Voice Memos; Wallet Passes; and Freeform.
This means that if you already had ADP activated, and e2ee is critical to your personal or operational security, you need to get everything in that list – iCloud Backup, iCloud Drive, Photos, Notes, Reminders, Safari Bookmarks, Siri Shortcuts, Voice Memos, Wallet Passes, and Freeform – off of iCloud sooner rather than later.
Once you’ve done that, go into your iCloud settings, click on Manage, then click on each thing individually to purge it off iCloud.
I’m not going to tell you where to move your stuff other than to say that if you’re moving it from one big tech company to another, you’re just being daft. Likewise, if you’re moving your stuff to a non-e2ee service, don’t bother. If you need an e2ee service try Proton. They have a Black Friday sale on.
If you have a lot of Notes, first download the Exporter app from the app store. It does what it says on the tin. You’ll end up with a folder full of markdown files which you can upload elsewhere. E2EE being the dealbreaker, I chose Standard Notes. I know a lot of folk who prefer Obsidian or Joplin. Whatever you choose, do not use a non-E2EE note service.*
You know as well as I do that you need to be moving everything you can out of the American stack anyway so just stick this task on your to-do list, which should not be Reminders, and get it done.
What about the non-e2ee stuff in iCloud?
The full list of what lives in iCloud and how it is or is not encrypted is here.
We know from the tiny bits of the TCN saga which have been publicly disclosed, thanks to the only two media outlets that are bothering to cover it, that the first TCN was not just for the end-to-end encrypted data protected by ADP. It was for anything on iCloud, full stop, worldwide:
…however, the new IPT filing states the TCN “is not limited to” data stored under ADP, suggesting the UK government sought bulk interception access to Apple’s standard iCloud service, which is much more widely used by the company’s customers. The TCN also included “obligations to provide and maintain a capability to disclose categories of data stored within a cloud-based backup service”, the filing states, which suggests the government sought to tap messages or passwords that were backed up in the cloud as well. “The obligations included in the TCN are not limited to the UK or users of the service in the UK; they apply globally in respect of the relevant data categories of all iCloud users,” the IPT filing adds. Tim Bradshaw and Anna Gross at the Financial Times (£)
This means that you have some serious thinking to do about what you intend to trust to the Apple stack altogether going forward, even things like passwords.
I can’t tell you what to do but once again, you have options. Educate yourself. Consider the opsec and persec needs not just of yourself, but for the people around you who could be adversely affected by insecure data going walkies out of your account.
What if I’m not in the UK?
This impacts the UK only: as their September update noted, Advanced Data Protection continues to be available everywhere else in the world.
It does mean that if you have someone in the UK on your team, you need to factor them in as part of your threat model. We are all liabilities to our own opsec now.
If you’re not in the UK, and you don’t have ADP activated, take 10 seconds to do it right now, you lucky sod.
Settings > Your name Apple Account > iCloud > Advanced Data Protection
What about that second TCN?
On the 1st of October, the Home Office issued a second TCN against Apple for the same as before, but only for British citizens’ data. World-leading!
Those who follow my work know that this phrase made me spew a double barrel of Glaswegian swearing. British citizens’ data, as opposed to British users’ data? The dividing line here is not e.g. being located in the UK or having registered an account here, but what it says on your passport? How is Apple going to know that, much less roll it out? (/s)
Did Apple just publicly state that they’re going to be removing a security layer and adding a nationality check layer?
We don’t know.
We don’t know because as with the first TCN, that information only became available in the public domain due to someone leaking it to the media. That’s all there is to know. Everything else is confidential and NCND. There is nothing else to say because nothing else is known. If someone who did know something was sitting across from me right now, and they told me, they would be committing a crime.
Those of us who care about these things enough to show up in difficult places are keeping tabs on both TCNs, and the wider legal and technical implications of both, as best we possibly can. Don’t expect to hear anything more until January, when the Liberty/PI challenge on the first TCN goes to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. In the interim, if you want me to bore you about ECHR case law and how the UK’s review into Article 8 seems a little too coincidentally timed, pick a pub.
Otherwise, please make sure you de-Apple, de-Google, and de-American Stack yourself when you have time, clarity, and focus to do it. Start today.
In the meantime please follow and support the only media coverage being produced about the second TCN, which comes from Bill Goodwin at Computer Weekly and Tim Bradshaw and Anna Gross at the Financial Times (£).
Above all, please remember that this is the sunlit uplands. That’s the thing about Brexit Britain having decided to go it alone where tech regulation is concerned. It did not become the vanguard of a “world-leading” third way.
It became a small and inconsequential thing easily thrown under a bus.
Header image by me: Alan Turing memorial, Manchester, where he reminds you why keeping data private can be a matter of life and death.
*For the love of the wee man do not use a non-e2ee notetaking app which has been abandoned by an owner who has a track record of personally snooping through user data when he’s in a mood, i.e. if he’s breathing.
Read the original article
Comments
I know this is a tangent but honestly, this is why the Google decision to de-openify Android is insane even from Google's point of view. Who would want to be an iron clad gate keeper when the world is descending into authoritarianism? You just paint a giant target on your back for the authoritarians to come after.
If Apple had supported open iCloud alternatives for backup and other services from day one, it woudn't even be a discussion now. The UK probably wouldn't have thought of the idea of mandating against E2E encryption because it would be self evident it would actually just churn people to alternatives where they have less leverage and visibility. But Apple couldn't resist bricking up the walled garden and now it's hostile to both them and their users, and to be honest, everyone on the planet since it is obvious that once this happens in the UK it will be silly for every government everywhere not to follow suit.
Who would want to be an iron clad gate keeper when the world is descending into authoritarianism?
Powerful people don't think this way. They think they can leverage the authoritarian regime to their own advantage. They're biased to ignore risks and seek out opportunities. That's what got them to their position of success!
They ARE the authoritarian regime.
This myth that capitalist perpetuate that the rich are not the government is the best lie out there.
The rich are the government. They are the national interests, countries' industries' is their property.
Yeah there was this great cartoon many years back where a guy is on his computer and the FBI is looking over his shoulder at his screen. A character named 'Facebook' is pushing him aside and says "Let me show you how to do it". When you look at the cartoon for a minute or so you see in the shadow in the back of the room this robot labeled 'Google' and he's just quietly observing.
By nrhrjrjrjtntbt 2025-11-1111:551 reply Is this from Edward Snowden times
By couscouspie 2025-11-1317:34 wdym? We are in Edward Snowden times. The timeline where Edward Snowden gave up on an awesome life to inform us, the global public, of the greatest scandal of all times and nothing happened, to be precise.
By potato3732842 2025-11-1117:241 reply Both opinions are so lacking in nuance as to be effectively useless. The rich and their interests are in some contexts the the government, in other contexts they're competing with it.
Look at how Bill Gates relationship with government changes by the year and by the subject for a great example.
The only difference is that the government cant cater totally to Bill Gates, they got a couple thousand other capitalists to take care of in order to keep the country afloat.
The government is the ORGANIZED rich. It's not "everything Bill says goes".
You and me tho, the rest of us millions? We trust strangers that market themselves well, vote and then, just hope they do good by us.
Not all rich guys are part of the ORGANIZED RICH.
Some are, many/most aren't.
For some rich guys whole point of being rich is to be maximally independent.
Some billionaires are all kinds of weird flavor of Anarcho Capitalist (completely anti government), libertarian (small government), objectivist (suspicious of government and against overbearing regulations and mob control).
Not all, but many. I think there is an important distinction between independent minded successful people and crapitalists, the ones who collude with the government and enforce their fortunes via regulatory capture.
Not every rich person is obsessed with controlling the world and other people.
Many just want to live their own lives, and want as little as possible interaction with the government.
By Atlas667 2025-11-1216:27 I'm not talking about a small capitalist with a nice house and a nice car.
I'm talking about the super rich.
Thr super rich have to be the government to be super rich and the little capitalists just ride the wakes made by the big guys.
These ideologies you mention are just political stances made by the rich in order to promote their measures amongst the poor.
Objectivism was made by Ayn Rand and it was promoted so much because it defended capitalism. They disseminate these ideas in order to promote their stances.
Libertarianism and ancapism are inconsistent because it pretends that large capitalists wouldnt immediately organize themselves into another large state power. A state is necessary to not have all out war between the powerful.
Ask any political science major and they dont take these ideas at face value because these ideologies cant exist as such.
They are more like life style politics than real political frameworks.
I suspect the reason they are even espoused is because they represent an immediate weakening of government regulation that can increase profits. The capitalists want people to think it can exist so they can have more power.
But a true libertarian or ancap reality is a pipe dream. Its true purpose is to create less oversight and thus more profits. Your average Joe, like you or me, has about 0 benefit from this.
By chongli 2025-11-1111:07 They are until they aren’t. Look at the Russian regime. Even billionaires could find themselves on the outs. All that money and to live in fear of open windows.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Can we have an “AI” post a reminder of this every time someone mentions secret world governments?
By Atlas667 2025-11-1410:03 Well its not a secret world government. A lot of it is done out in the open.
Do you really think you control the government? That it is democratic?
By Wolfenstein98k 2025-11-116:395 reply [flagged]
By amake 2025-11-117:51 Your analogy is infinitely more baffling to me than OP's comment.
It’s merely a perspective you’re not used to seeing. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
By Wolfenstein98k 2025-11-150:14 Yeah, I didn't say it was wrong.
But it's not new to me, I've seen hundreds of comments just like it.
It just stood out to me because it doesn't appeal to any facts, or anything you would expect in this commentariat - just a bunch of pretty low resolution, low-brow opinions.
By teiferer 2025-11-117:56 Though illustrative of the difference between arguments and mere statements of opinion.
So in your mind megacorps and their owner billionnaires have how much of a say in government? If you had to rate their influence in government policy from zero to a hundred what would that be?
By Wolfenstein98k 2025-11-150:15 As I clearly stated in the comment you read, it's not "in my mind" and it's not my opinion.
It was an intentionally bananas statement. As I clearly stated.
By komali2 2025-11-118:26 Governments should represent the needs and desires of humans. Corporations are algorithms designed to make their value go up - if not restricted by governments, they will crab-bucket eachother by any means necessary, including slavery. See: factory towns.
Therefore, corporations should have exactly 0 influence in governments, and billionaires should have the same influence as any citizen: one vote, and whatever influence they can peddle from a soapbox in a park.
This is obviously impossible because billionaires can buy TV spots. This is why governments under capitalism almost inevitably become extensions of corporations, which is what the OP comment means. In a system where capital = power, then, accumulation of capital means accumulation of power. You accumulate power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power... and so on.
I'm skeptical there's any solution to this within capitalism - I don't think highly socialized capitalism will work long term since the profit generating algorithms (corporations) will play within the rules to accumulate just enough of an edge to wedge their foot into government enough to get a smidge of influence, which they will leverage to weaken restrictions on corporations, which will allow them to get more influence, which will lead to them weakening restrictions further, and so on.
So long as capital can be converted into any power at all, I think the system will inevitably trend towards late stage capitalism / corpotocracy / plutocracy.
Do you believe billionaires should have more say in government policy than you do? Why? Why wouldn't a billionaire use more say to help themselves even more at your expense? They clearly love hoarding wealth and power, so, would it not be fair to say they'd like to do more of that?
I fail to see the point you're trying to make or the argumentative process by which you're trying to make it.
Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly.
> absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head.
I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business.
I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.
By jimmydorry 2025-11-119:161 reply I don't particularly subscribe to any ideology that puts companies above people, but it isn't hard to see things from GP's point of view. Before shooting the messenger, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
>Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs
Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied: this current administration (aka. Trump) or the businesses that grew large enough to buy a seat at the table or can afford to steer policy via "gifts"?
>Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper.
Is a person sitting in congress fully cognizant of what is happening in all facets of the economy and have an understanding of what needs to be implemented today to pave the way for the next 10 years and beyond? Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?
>The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer
Yet this is a golden age by every measure. Zoom out on your timescale and there has never been a more prosperous and peaceful time to be alive. Quality of life has tremendously improved and the possibility of striking out on your own and making it big has never been more attainable. Yes, there will always be people sitting at the top with massive power and wealth, but the average person isn't doing too bad.
By rootlocus 2025-11-1110:08 > Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied
Should be applied for what purpose? What's the purpose of the government and what's the purpose of a corporation? When the latter is strongly influencing the former, why is it difficult to entertain the idea that their purpose and interests align?
> Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?
There's a difference between seeking and weighing input, and simply passing along legislature proposals without even looking at it. This is a strawman.
> Yet this is a golden age by every measure.
This isn't guaranteed to improve or even remain forever. And it really depends where you look. Plenty of war, misery and suffering to go around. And even in safe countries the lack of education, healthcare, financial stability is causing enough stress that people start favoring authoritarian options. That's not a great sign for the future. Just because most of us are doing better than our ancestors, doesn't mean we're going in the right direction or that we're doing the best we can. No progress is achieved by being content with the status quo, and the present is pretty miserable for a lot of people. Should we wait until a terrible war wipes out half the planet before we consider maybe changing things?
But I think that's beside the point. The argument being discussed is whether corporate entities parabolically "are" the government.
Maybe I'm too sleepy for rhetoric.
But a country needs material resources to exist, right? Some of these are food, shelter, energy, health, entertainment and security.
These are all private enterprises in a capitalist state. For example, the energy sector is a group of capitalist enterprises. The energy sector is also at the same time something the population needs.
Therefore it is also crucial to the nation, its a national security.
They country would go to war in order to secure resources for the energy industry because it is a part of national security.
Another: walmart is americas veins and its a group of peoples property. Walmart is national security.
The fact that some of these are publicly traded does not change their relationship to ownership.
By AnthonyMouse 2025-11-118:17 The mistake is in regarding different organizations as fundamentally different creatures when they're not.
The theory of markets is that anyone can compete. That keeps people from abusing customers because they would go to someone else. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules inhibiting rather than facilitating competition, and the market consolidates and that stops working.
The theory of the government is that everyone gets a vote. That keeps people from abusing citizens because they would vote the bums out. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules that create a two party system so people have fewer choices, centralize rule-making power in the areas that were supposed to have local control so people can't vote with their feet and then that stops working.
It's not fundamentally different problems, it's the same one. Consolidation of power, also known as centralization. People find ways to corrupt the system to take away your alternatives.
One of the ways they've found is to put half the people on Team Government and the other half on Team Markets and get them to fight each other when they should both instead be working together to fight the autocrats and create systems more resistant to them.
By phyzix5761 2025-11-1115:53 People unknowingly help big corporations destroy smaller competitors by demanding more regulations. In reality, those same corporations often fund the very laws and "anti-corporate" movements that claim to restrain them using lobbying and fake grassroots[1][2] campaigns to shape rules that raise costs for smaller rivals and secure more market share.
This shouldn’t be surprising. Political competitive advantage is even taught in business schools, as Michael E. Porter explains in Competitive Strategy.
The only way to counter it is through competition: support companies that offer substitute services and stop playing into Google’s and Apple’s hands by calling for more regulations.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/30/how-google-and-amazon-bankro...
[2] https://www.iccr.org/resolutions/lobbying-expenditures-discl...
I think the fact that Apple is having to fight this fight is evidence of why they were right to make a secure walled garden. I don’t know of any other service I would recommend my mother use for securely backing up her phone.
I think the UK is ultimately going to roll back this law. I don’t think this means that iCloud E2E is hostile to Apple or its users. I think Apple is going to win.
The war isn’t won by telling people to use GPG https://moxie.org/2015/02/24/gpg-and-me.html
> The war isn’t won by telling people to use GPG
Tangent, a friend and I started using Delta Chat with a chatmail relay and it's incredibly friendly to get started, and hides the fact GPG tech is being used from the user; one can export a bundle of the key data as needed and easily copy the key profile to a second device over local wifi (I was impressed at how smooth it was).
Not that I've kept track, but Delta Chat's UX is probably the first easy, no-nonsense implementation of using GPG tech as a foundation but keeping it away from the user experience I've encountered (and liked). It has it's pain points but I mean it just works and my buddy and I chat all day over it using a public relay.
By Flere-Imsaho 2025-11-127:39 Doesn't Protonmail do this as well? Proton to Proton accounts will use gpg under the hood?
By teiferer 2025-11-117:59 > I think the fact that Apple is having to fight this fight is evidence of why they were right to make a secure walled garden
Would you mind explaining? I don't see how that's evidence.
By mistercheph 2025-11-119:372 reply yeah guys, we don’t win by using free and open technologies, we win if we all buy {NAMECORP} devices, that’s true victory right there, backed by a real warranty, that’s what grandma wants
I've had files in Apple's iCloud for 14 years now (had to look that up) and they're still there. I have no reason to believe that they won't still be there after I am dead. Apple is a big company with a big reputation to protect.
I can't say the same for the smaller services.
I don't have any grandmothers still alive but would certainly suggest iCloud for all family members.
(But, FWIW, I copy down everything from iCloud annually and store on a portable 1TB drive to have my own cloud-backup.)
By Fischgericht 2025-11-1117:101 reply I don't know in which part of this planet you are living in, but: 14 years ago you might have lived a free society where your ideas and thoughts could not cause you to get arrested, deported or killed.
Yeah, back then Apples iCloud might have been the best suggestion.
If you are trying to extrapolate from the past - which is a good thing in general - do not go back ONLY 14 years from now, but try a bigger time span, too.
I was born in Germany. When I extrapolate from the past on ANYTHING, I at least always start in the year 1933.
No, not a good idea if you expect that within your lifespan some entity might be able to be forced to tell a regime where you are hiding right now.
Taking control of your own data is shitloads of work, I and understand people do not have time it, and have other priorities.
I am just making my point here on how to better extrapolate and project from the past towards the future.
By couscouspie 2025-11-1317:51 Taking control of your own data is shitloads of work, I and understand people do not have time it, and have other priorities.
That's not a physical law, but just the result of the current technological landscape.
By swiftcoder 2025-11-1111:117 reply If you have a free and open technology that is sufficiently user-friendly that grandma isn't going to lose all her photos, I'm all ears
By qn9n 2025-11-1111:40 This is the major issue, most free and open technology is not marketed as well; isn't anywhere near as user friendly and often times takes a lot more time and effort to setup. Most people don't care enough for that.
Okay, secure E2EE backups we've more or less perfected for a while. There's good F/LOSS solutions for that. And if you're willing to pay a bit, thinks like Backblaze come to mind. In other areas it's true that open-source stuff is less polished, but not backups. I mean, a few months back Apple had a regression where they were un-deleting people's photos, that's pretty nasty.
You haven't actually listed one yet. I can't think of one myself that Grandma could use safely.
By port11 2025-11-1315:10 Duplicati was easy enough to convince the family. And for our home server, I set up Restic. I agree that this later one is tricky to set up properly and grandma would definitely struggle.
By dTal 2025-11-1211:46 SyncThing. It's set-and-forget. All you need is two networked computers. Grandma and Grandpa can back up to each other's phones.
By swiftcoder 2025-11-1113:00 > a few months back Apple had a regression where they were un-deleting people's photos, that's pretty nasty
As failure modes go, not great, but I'd say strictly less bad for the average user than losing photos you didn't plan to delete
By nrhrjrjrjtntbt 2025-11-1112:021 reply The 35mm film camera, developed by a photo lab, with pictures stored in a show e box
By nrhrjrjrjtntbt 2025-11-121:03 Shoe!
By realusername 2025-11-1111:43 Modern devices are so locked down that you couldn't build such software even if you wanted to.
Those corporations are part of the problem, not the solution.
Plug in a phone, run adb pull /storage/emulated/self/DCIM or wherever that Android garbage OS stores photos these days.
Local, doesn't need encryption since there's no middle in E2E that you need protection against, and simple.
Grandma can setup ~/.zshrc `alias bak=cd ~/phonephotos && adb pull ...` to make it even simpler.
By swiftcoder 2025-11-1117:281 reply When I'm done teaching grandma shell scripting, I'll let you know
By megous 2025-11-190:20 You're way too slow at teaching...
By sambeau 2025-11-1114:01 I turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.
> If Apple had supported open iCloud alternatives for backup and other services from day one, it woudn't even be a discussion now.
You think the OS vendor is unable to snoop on data written to 3rd party clouds from their devices?
By Someone 2025-11-118:38 Chances are the UK government would require them to create that backdoor for them, and Apple would publicize that (implicitly, if the UK government would also forbid them to tell it explicitly)
By whywhywhywhy 2025-11-1111:56 Didn't Apple already open up all their services to a backdoor in China? Was it ever really about privacy or is privacy just a convenient excuse to have a selection of elevated Apple solutions with privileges above 3rd parties.
By VerifiedReports 2025-11-116:233 reply Android has been a fraud for a long time now. Let's not pretend that the "open-source" mobile OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny ever approached that promise.
Did they even really try?
As far as iCloud "alternatives" go... Android doesn't offer ANY legitimate syncing infrastructure to compete with iCloud, open or not.
By VerifiedReports 2025-11-125:23 Thanks for the info.
If you have to install it, though, developers can't count on it being available to all or even most users.
You're comparing on-demand-cloud with setup-your-own-server-and-configure-everything-yourself-cloud
Those are two different markets
By prmoustache 2025-11-1114:45 Only a small fraction of nextcloud users setup their own servers.
By syncbehind 2025-11-1112:44 Nextcloud has on-demand (if by that you mean a SaaS product)
By VerifiedReports 2025-11-125:201 reply A backup is not all a replacement for iCloud.
The point is to sync application data between native apps running on different (and even different kinds of) devices. PIM-style data (calendar, contacts, notes, bookmarks, and so forth) probably comes first for most people. Apple has also added useful stuff like Wi-Fi passwords and E-mail account configurations.
And then developers can create their own entries in the iCloud data store for their own apps. This is hugely useful.
I'm not aware of any similar facility that comes with Android, but I'd be happy to hear about it if there is.
You can use nextcloud for all pf that, not that I’d recommend it. There are solutions, even hosted ones.
By VerifiedReports 2025-11-127:35 Is there something else you'd recommend?
Regardless, though, if it's not built into the OS, developers can't rely on it being present on a majority of users' phones.
By flanked-evergl 2025-11-119:081 reply I switched to Android from iPhone because the sync options for iPhone are garbage.
By VerifiedReports 2025-11-125:21 But you neglected to state what built-in Android facility you find to be superior to iCloud for syncing data between applications.
I mean, I think the answer to this is the very simple: they think it will lead to more money.
I'm sure someone in a board meeting saw something about GrapheneOS and LineageOS and Cyanogen and feels like if they de-open Android, some (or most) of those users will move to vanilla Android, and that will lead to profits.
I'm not saying that they're right about this; I think ultimately very few (if any) people actually know how to run businesses and it's all about giving an appearance of maximizing profitability, and as long as it leads to a potential short term stock boost then these executives get their huge bonuses and they can just blame the next guy when things break.
This isn't really theoretical; look at how Jack Welch took one of the most respected companies in the world, more or less integrated ponzinomics to temporarily bump the stock prices, and 20+ years later GE is kind of a joke and isn't even on the S&P500 anymore.
I don't have exact numbers, but I'm sure Graphene, Lineage, and all of the mods combined are much less than 1% of all android users; as well as these customers being less profitable than average as a marketing target.
Posting this from my lineage phone.
By AtlasBarfed 2025-11-113:471 reply Yes. They have 99.9% of the mobile phones.
The phone was the end of open computing, the tech companies obtained an iron grip on the platform, this time with fully accepted total monitoring and data collection down to everything you say, hear, everywhere you go, and with smartwatch biosensors, everything you feel. The only thing left is to get smart glasses and they will know everything you see. Smell they can probably interpolate.
It happened over a decade ago, and that might as well be 100 years ago in modern attention spans. All the governments have to do is pay the companies money, or simply force-legislate, or threaten under the table for all that info, and for permanent forever access to active tracking and monitoring.
AI provides all the analysis they need to watch the firehose. It's all there.
At this point it doesn't matter if an alternative comes. It'll be such the minority, that the social graph will fill all the holes. And they can simply track your IMEI regardless from the towers, listen in with other nearby microphones/phones. There is no escape.
All that remains is for the key to be turned for worse-than-1984 authoritarianism. It's right there, ready for the AI-empowered 50% of consumption controlled, 90% of stocks owned oligarchy to use.
By harshreality 2025-11-119:03 Open computing still exists. It's just overshadowed by the prevalence of locked mobile devices because those are convenient and good enough for the vast majority, who would rather use those than a less convenient desktop, laptop, or even raspberrypi.
Surveillance on the internet is challenging to avoid, but internet surveillance and tracking doesn't extend to (outside-of-browser) local compute.
By tombert 2025-11-112:54 I don't dispute that at all. I don't think it matters, it just needs to look like they're doing something to avoid forks and the like.
That said, there might be stuff that's actually using open source Android for profit. For example, the Nook Glowlight Plus, which runs a modded version of Android, doesn't appear to have any direct or even indirect references to Android anywhere (and I had to contribute a bit to the discourse to even get the rooting to work [1]). I have no ideas about the inner dealings of Barnes and Noble, but it wouldn't surprise me if they're running a completely forked version of FOSS Android and aren't paying a dime to Google for it.
I suspect these are the things that Google is trying to crack down on.
[1] https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=360563&pa...
By methuselah_in 2025-11-116:53 simply i will be starting using Linux distributions on the devices which support them. Usually the gsm wcda etc are too much buried in patents and mostly closed source, but eventually how android bloomed initially as it was open source. I believe one day Linux will be there and again google and apple can have something to worry about and they will again open. One major thing is why google allowing people to use Linux apps on their android 16-17 by default i guess is because of this.
By re-thc 2025-11-1111:47 > If Apple had supported open iCloud alternatives for backup and other services from day one, it woudn't even be a discussion now
Why does Apple need to do extra work and increase support? The average user really doesn't care and choices just make it more complicated.
> The UK probably wouldn't have thought of the idea of
The UK has lost the plot long ago. It's been drama after drama.
By egorfine 2025-11-1110:42 > Who would want to be an iron clad gate keeper when the world is descending into authoritarianism
The gatekeepers.
This whole idea of conflating a closed system like Apple has created with authoritarianism is silly. If anything authoritarianism is the UK trying to force Apple to open up (so they exploit it to monitor their citizens).
Apple created a product, not just the iPhone but a whole ecosystem that’s supposed to help the user feel secure. There’s isn’t the only product out there and as long as they’re not preventing new competitors, everyone needs to back off.
By ulrikrasmussen 2025-11-1114:131 reply They're not conflating them, they are pointing out that the closedness of the system and the control it gives Apple will be a useful tool to authoritarians who can force Apple to exert their power in certain ways.
Everyone who is not a public service is just "making a product", but when your product is actually half of all endpoints for digital services and communication and you insist on not handing control to the users, then you effectively control half the infrastructure.
By Gagarin1917 2025-11-1115:15 >They're not conflating them, they are pointing out that the closedness of the system and the control it gives Apple will be a useful tool to authoritarians who can force Apple to exert their power in certain ways.
Oh well that’s not new. Apple has operated in China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
So the idea that they would be hesitant to dip their feet into complying with less savory governments is… laughable.
The current political landscape really isn’t new whatsoever. It might even be less authoritarianism overall than when Apple started in the 80’s.
By Steve16384 2025-11-1113:291 reply Apple do everything in their power to prevent competition: forcing Safari, forcing payments to go through Apple so they can take their cut etc...
By NetMageSCW 2025-11-1115:31 Apple does everything in their power (as allowed by governments who want to have that power) to protect their customers: forcing Safari, forcing payments through Apple, etc…
The tech bros are of the opinion that they can ride the rising authoritarianism like a Fremen riding a sandworm.
By DSingularity 2025-11-114:072 reply lol
Tech bros helped Israel genocide Gaza. Tech bros are pro-authoritarianism.
By tekbruh9000 2025-11-117:00 [dead]
By abc123abc123 2025-11-1110:29 [flagged]
Taking inspiration from the East India Company, Apple should colonize the UK and take over the government - the iGovernment, if you will.
Citizens will regain their right to e2ee privacy, they will not have to deal with voting for mediocre politicians to lead them. Instead, Tim Cook will be their new leader, and every morning over the mandatory installation of HomePods in each home, citizens will be greeted with an ecstatic "Good morning!" to get them energized for the day ahead.
Voting will be done via iPhones, where FaceID will verify the eligibility of the voter before the vote has been submitted.
By b00ty4breakfast 2025-11-113:431 reply Wanted to go shopping but iPass wouldn't open the gate on account of insufficient prostrations before the Steve Jobs iShrine.
By deafpolygon 2025-11-119:331 reply Should have gotten a multi-pass.
By ThePowerOfFuet 2025-11-1110:59 Leeloo, is that you?
By dan-robertson 2025-11-1019:391 reply Either way we’re totally cooked
By rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2025-11-1021:45 Tim Cook'd
I have wondered why the likes of McKinsey, KPMG, and PWC do not put up candidates (don't even sponsor them, just say you're electing _well known consultancy_).
By dan-robertson 2025-11-1022:00 1. Why would McKinsey etc be interested in a well-functioning government? Best argument I have is that if the economy grows then government (and private) spending on consulting may grow.
2. Note that the consulting firms already managed to get the legislation they most cared about – creation of the LLP as a kind of entity – despite not having any candidates
3. If the government is too associated with a big consultancy then (a) they may be pressured out of giving them contracts (not good for McKinsey!) and (b) failures by that consultancy will be highlighted more than usual in the news (also not good!)
4. I mean plenty of people would go through the consultancy meat-grinder before becoming politicians. If you are training juniors to think similarly then that may carry over after they leave.
* 2007-2010 3 years at McKinsey
* 2009-2017 8 years in US Navy, including deployment to Afghanistan
Not that much McKinsey imo
Mitt Romney had a lot more years at BCG (22 years), including being VP + co-founder of Bain Capital.
By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-11-125:031 reply Failing to elect Romney was arguably a big mistake. Imagine what the GOP would look like today in that world.
By andruby 2025-11-1410:39 I do agree with that. He seems so reasonable and intelligent, especially in today's world.
By subscribed 2025-11-1112:51 They do. Look at the US Democrats specifically.
By dontlaugh 2025-11-116:55 They all absolutely do. All capitalist parties are heavily funded by industry of some sort.
By pjc50 2025-11-119:44 That was basically Rishi Sunak, but going beyond that voters really hate it when you make the corporate control obvious.
However, they don't ask questions, so one layer of money laundering is completely fine. Nobody asks where the funding for Farage's various projects comes from, for example.
By weq 2025-11-114:48 Because they can milk either side. Gov needs private partnerships as much as the privates need their money.
By blitzar 2025-11-118:58 and that is how we got the "theys tells its likes it is" candidates.
By al_borland 2025-11-110:55 That sounds like a nightmare.
By NooneAtAll3 2025-11-114:16 maybe they do?
you just don't hear about which candidates are theirs
By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-11-1113:05 Thinking different, I see.
By lenkite 2025-11-1119:15 > Voting will be done via iPhones, where FaceID will verify the eligibility of the voter before the vote has been submitted.
Only Apple shareholders will be eligible for voting. Citizen services like Medical Insurance, etc will be subject to performance review. A poor score will have you relinquished and deported.
By ctrust 2025-11-115:02 What's the catch?
By luxuryballs 2025-11-1023:181 reply “Introducing, Apple Governance, a truly magical experience, and the best government Apple has ever made!”
By CobrastanJorji 2025-11-113:47 Our plan is to install our government under the tyrannical rule of a dictator, then fire that dictator, slowly collapse for a dozen years, and then rehire the dictator. Then we just sit back and let him cook.
By mproud 2025-11-116:39 Could be a good short story.
By sota_pop 2025-11-114:11 “This year, we’ve completely redesigned your governmental doctrines from the ground up - increasing governmental synergies by 700% compared to the M1 chip…”
By screenoridesagb 2025-11-1021:09 [dead]
Very clever image and caption (right at the bottom of the page)
> Header image by me: Alan Turing memorial, Manchester, where he reminds you why keeping data private can be a matter of life and death.
The image shows a close up of a statue of Alan Turing, his hand holding an apple.
By LeoPanthera 2025-11-1021:365 reply The very Wikipedia page you link explains in great detail why, although we can never know for sure, it's actually unlikely that he committed suicide, and more likely that his death was an accident.
The suicide story will probably never go away, because it's too good a story. It fits so neatly into popular culture.
By raincole 2025-11-1022:04 I read that section word by word and I honestly don't think it "explains that it's actually unlikely that he committed suicide." The opinions are diverse at best.
By fireflash38 2025-11-1112:48 The government chemically castrated him. Is that not bad enough?
By tombert 2025-11-111:24 Even if he didn't kill himself and even if it was an accident, he still was very much fucked over by the British government. They stripped his security clearance and made him a felon and made him take female hormones. This guy cracked the uncrackable code and basically (co)invented Computer Science, but all they cared about who he had sex with.
From the wikipedia article: > Turing may have inhaled cyanide fumes from an electroplating experiment in his spare room
How would he have put himself quietly to bed if he had gotten a fatal dose of cyanide in the spare room where the electroplating was taking place? Wouldn't there be very fast respiratory distress?
A highly acute dose could kill in seconds, but a lower dose can cause confusion, headaches, dizziness and more prior to inducing a coma and death.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that he became confused and in pain, decided to lie down to sleep it off, then died in his sleep. My own father in law suffered a significant blow to the head and, despite knowing all the signs of a concussion and what to do about them, got up and slept it off- the very last thing one should do. He was simply too confused to do anything else.
His story had a happier ending than Alan's, but it goes to show that the accidental death theory isn't implausible.
> While it is common advice that someone who is concussed should not be allowed to fall asleep in case they go into a coma, for general cases this is not supported by current evidence.
By zdragnar 2025-11-1113:18 I don't know about the coma bit, but there's a comedian whose early career was largely defined by having slept off a concussion and waking up with a stutter.
It may or may not lead to a coma, but I surely wouldn't let someone sleep one off immediately following the injury if I can help it.
By AlexCoventry 2025-11-114:25 I recommend reading his nephew's biography, Prof. He makes a strong case for why it was probably suicide.
