Apple's alleged UK encryption battle sparks political and privacy backlash
- Reference: 1741957750
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/03/14/apple_uk_encryption_hearing/
- Source link:
Reports suggest that Apple [1]planned to appeal the demand at a behind-closed-doors High Court hearing of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) this morning.
The entire process is shrouded in secrecy, however. The alleged order, made in the form of a technical capability notice (TCN) issued under the UK's Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), was reportedly [2]issued to Apple last month by the Home Office .
[3]
That TCN is understood to have contained an instruction for Apple to introduce a capability that allowed it to decrypt specific users' iCloud data if requested via the IPA.
[4]
[5]
Apple and other proponents of encryption have repeatedly said there is no possibility of breaking encryption on-demand in the way the UK appears to think it can. Encryption is either enabled or disabled.
Under UK law, organizations that receive a TCN are unable to confirm or deny the existence of any such order, and the Home Office has also [6]refused to do the same .
[7]
However, shortly after the alleged TCN came to light, Apple reluctantly [8]disabled iCloud's Advanced Data Protection (ADP).
Apple is believed to be appealing the TCN today, but like the notice itself, the IPT hearing is being treated with the same hush-hush approach.
A joint [9]letter [PDF] composed by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), along with Representatives Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), opposed the private nature of the hearing.
[10]
The politicians argue that secrecy in this case is "pointless" given the wide reporting on the order.
"Given the significant technical complexity of this issue, as well as the important national security harms that will result from weakening cybersecurity defenses, it is imperative that the UK's technical demands of Apple – and of any other US companies – be subjected to robust, public analysis and debate by cybersecurity experts," the letter states.
"Secret court hearings featuring intelligence agencies and a handful of individuals approved by them do not enable robust challenges on highly technical matters."
The UK generally subscribes to the principle of open justice, where most court hearings are held in public.
There are, however, a number of exceptions where hearings are closed off to the public, such as when the courts try to protect vulnerable witnesses or, in this case, make the national security justification.
Colloquially, the IPA is referred to as the Snooper's Charter since its aims are to legally empower intelligence agencies with greater surveillance powers. Given the national security implications of this law and the impact on security and intelligence services, it is unsurprising that this morning's IPT hearing is private.
Like other UK court restrictions, there are ways of appealing to the courts themselves to overturn such orders. Arguing there is a significant public interest in the case that demands a more open court can sometimes be granted by the judge presiding over the case, and it's the same argument being made by privacy campaigners this week.
[11]Apple drags UK government to court over 'backdoor' order
[12]Apple dares users to fix 'budget' iPhone 16e themselves
[13]The software UK techies need to protect themselves now Apple's ADP won't
[14]Rather than add a backdoor, Apple decides to kill iCloud encryption for UK peeps
An [15]open letter signed by Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch, and Index on Censorship argues that since the case implicates the privacy rights of millions of Brits, details about the conditions under which compliance with a TCN is required are of "significant public interest."
The letter was written to Lord Justice Singh, the president of the IPT. It adds: "There are no good reasons to keep this hearing entirely private, not least for the fact that the existence of the TCN has already been widely reported and that Apple's own actions in removing its ADP feature for UK iCloud users leave no doubt as to what triggered them – despite reports that the government considers this removal does not comply with the TCN."
The groups also highlighted the importance of [16]end-to-end encryption (E2EE) and the fact that IPT hearings can be made in public unless there is a good reason not to, like preserving national security.
They argue in the letter: "A confirmation of the existence of the TCN would threaten the UK's interests to a level or in a form that meets the conditions for derogating from the principles of open justice.
"The principles that have in the past allowed the UK government to maintain a [neither confirm nor deny] policy are only relevant to the targeted interception of communications and covert surveillance. They cannot apply to such a wide and already public piece of information about the UK's attempts to weaken the security of services used by millions of people in and outside the UK."
The Register contacted Apple for a statement. ®
Get our [17]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/apple_reportedly_ipt_complaint/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/07/home_office_apple_backdoor_order/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z9RgswrroCZoV3csRxexIwAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9RgswrroCZoV3csRxexIwAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9RgswrroCZoV3csRxexIwAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/07/home_office_apple_backdoor_order/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9RgswrroCZoV3csRxexIwAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/rather_than_add_a_backdoor/
[9] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_congressional_letter_to_uk_ipt_on_apple_backdoorpdf.pdf
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9RgswrroCZoV3csRxexIwAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/apple_reportedly_ipt_complaint/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/apple_iphone_16e_ifixit/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/apple_adp_replacements_e2ee/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/rather_than_add_a_backdoor/
[15] https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/joint-letter-make-the-investigatory-powers-tribunal-on-apple-encryption-public/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/apple_adp_replacements_e2ee/
[17] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: US trying to push other countries around?
Ordinarily, I'd agree. However, they are bang to rights here. This law, as has been pointed out since its inception, is not only harmful, it is arrogantly foolish and impossible to implement securely. The UK government has been told this many times, but have their heads up their assholes,
Don't you love how its American senators that are actually trying to stick up for privacy, where as ive not yet heard any UK politician speak up against it?
I am far from a legal expert but I believe parliamentary privilege means a UK MP could acknowledge the existence TCN against Apple if they mentioned it in the house of commons and not be subject to any further ramifications for breaching a court order.
Eg when the Ryan Giggs super injunction was mentioned by MP John Hemming.
Don't you love how its American senators that are actually trying to stick up for privacy...
That's only because the US has the keys to everything in the first place.
"That's only because the US has the keys to everything in the first place."
The US of North America has the keys to a lot of things, but not everything.
But the news orgs couldn't then say any more than, "The MP made a statement that we can't report." Followed by a big row about whether Hansard (Parliament's official newspaper) was allowed to do its legal duty.
I don't know if that happened in the Ryan Giggs case, but I recall one super injunction case that went that way.
parliamentary privilege means a UK MP could acknowledge the existence TCN against Apple
Some of the cabinet no doubt have heard better rumours than us plebs but there's no reason more than 2-3 actual MPs know for sure of the existence or have seen the text
The problem I see .....
..... is that the USA would no longer have any Federal cybersecurity personnel left to be able to argue that the TCN is a bad idea!
GAFA may have the upper hand here.
Apple can simply go nuclear and temporarily brick every Apple device and system in the UK to stay within the letter of the law. Next move would be the UKG's. They could stop emulating the Chinese regime and everyone's tech could work again, or face the public backlash. And all buy new phones, because the large wages they pay themselves pretty much ensure that most of them will have an iPhone.
MS and Google can follow suit.
There has been no dissent from UK MPs because the political classes are 'all in it together'. They consider themselves the farmers and UK citizens to be the livestock.
Come July when they start gating the internet with idiot ID requirements 'to protect the children', the Labour government may as well start packing their suitcases anyway. Big backlash, a few hacks and they will be lucky to make it until the next election, when they will be on the wrong end of a straight battle between the Tories and Reform. Some indication of the lack of talent in British politics and the wretched choices we have at elections.
Re: GAFA may have the upper hand here.
In fairness, the Lib Dems did put in a written question regarding TCNs a short while after this all came to light.
turnaround
It's a sad state of affairs when we have the US lecturing us about privacy concerns. That in itself might give an indication of just how stupid the UK government is being.
Not that it'll make them back down, I#m sure they'd rather we all burned in fire than they admit a mistake.
If I remember right
icloud has had several major break ins, which exposed very personal information. Ask them to explain those incidents.
Re: If I remember right
"icloud has had several major break ins,"
If I recall well, mostly were from bribed engineers asked to reset iClouds from stolen iPhones.
I'm just glad we are nothing like China with secretive demands on companies that the company can tell no one about.
"a behind-closed-doors High Court hearing"
You know what they keep saying: "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear."
The UK Govt has a long and ignoble history in this area of 'secrecy', going right back to the 'Star Chamber' and earlier. It is really a paternalistic feudal hang-over; the idea that 'our betters' should be able to 'do what is good for us' without having to explain or justify themselves because: 'national security'.
Occasionally, in specific cases, 'secrecy for the sake of 'national security' really is a thing. But, in this case I would suggest it's utter bollocks (in the technical sense of 'bollocks'). This is people trying to hide their blushes because they know they are pursuing a bit of rank stupidity and haven't got the will, guts, or job security to admit that 'the emperor has no clothes on'.
See also - lets destroy the social security system further by going after the disabled, a group where even the DWP admits that fraud is effectively non existent (and what alleged fraud remains is generally due to DWP incompetence and malfeasance) and trying to take away the support that keeps many in work or at least warm and as well as they can be given their health conditions to coerce them towards a hostile workplace that won't hire them in the first place, that the originally floated number of £3Billion that the Office of Budget Responsibility said WILL make large numbers suffer extreme poverty, suffering, worse ill health and possible death and will result in a tiny number actually entering the workplace. So instead Sturmer and Thieves have decided to double the cuts to £6 Billion and try to claim its a "moral necessity"
The alternative - a minimal wealth tax on unearned income (we are talking rounding error for many) which would raise upwards of £25 Billion - that wont even be entertained, could it be that benefactors like Waheed Ali have made it clear how unacceptable this idea is to them? (Given that apparently the ban on foreign political donations was dropped like a hot potato after Waheed Ali had a word with Sturmer who then ordered the policy immediately dropped - something stinks to high hell of autocratic corruption here....
Funny that the USA a country notorious for secret courts and dodgy silencing laws, should be displeased with another countries attempts to do the same, because it's an American company! You think they would be supportive, as they can ask MI6 to tap an US citizens phone, tell nobody and no laws broken?
US trying to push other countries around?
Well that IS a surprise!