UK's attempt to keep details of Apple 'backdoor' case secret… denied
- Reference: 1744030868
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/04/07/home_office_apple_backdoor/
- Source link:
The confirmation comes after the Investigatory Powers Tribunal held a closed-door hearing on March 14, which was presumed to be related to Apple's appeal itself, rather than about whether the appeal itself would be heard in public, the details of which were released today.
Lawyers representing the Secretary of State, Yvette Cooper, applied to the tribunal to ensure the "bare details" of the case involving a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) being issued to Apple be kept secret. They argued that airing these was not in the public interest and would be prejudicial to national security.
[1]
TCNs are issued under the UK's Investigatory Power Act 2016 – aka the Snooper's Charter – and entities that receive one are forbidden from either confirming or denying its existence.
[2]
[3]
Thus far, the case of [4]Apple vs the Home Office has been shrouded in secrecy, despite privacy campaigners and US politicians [5]vehemently arguing for the details to be made public, honoring the principle of open justice.
However, there must be a careful balancing act between informing the public and preserving national security, and the tribunal said that despite its decision, it had to give considerable weight to the position of the Home Office.
[6]
Pablo Sandro, associate professor of public law and legal theory at the University of Leeds, said the tribunal's deference toward the Secretary of State included "some worrying remarks."
"There's no point to have a specialized tribunal (with special rules) if the issue of disclosure will be pre-emptively determined by a standard set up by the government itself: The tribunal must be able to properly assess the merits of the claim that disclosure would damage national security," he [7]said .
[8]Apple drags UK government to court over 'backdoor' order
[9]Signal will withdraw from Sweden if encryption-busting laws take effect
[10]The software UK techies need to protect themselves now Apple's ADP won't
[11]Rather than add a backdoor, Apple decides to kill iCloud encryption for UK peeps
The tribunal additionally said that it would ordinarily be inclined to side with Cooper unless it deemed her arguments irrational or legally erroneous. It cannot rule solely on the basis of its opinion and should only interject where there is a serious error.
However, its view is that the bare details don't pose a serious enough threat to national security to warrant anonymity.
The judgment, a shortened version of which was [12]made public today , considered not only arguments from Cooper and Apple, but also submissions from other interested groups.
[13]
Privacy activists Liberty and Privacy International filed written submissions to the tribunal arguing that they should be allowed to attend the March 14 hearing and for the details to be publicized.
Global media groups also joined US lawmakers in pushing for open justice.
A day before the secret hearing, the privacy campaign groups jointly filed a complaint against the Home Office's power to issue TCNs and there is a likelihood the two cases may have some overlap. How that plays out remains to be seen. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/cso&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z_P2iaSgyqAaltn_yHlgRAAAANY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/cso&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z_P2iaSgyqAaltn_yHlgRAAAANY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/cso&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z_P2iaSgyqAaltn_yHlgRAAAANY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/apple_reportedly_ipt_complaint/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/14/apple_uk_encryption_hearing/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/cso&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z_P2iaSgyqAaltn_yHlgRAAAANY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://bsky.app/profile/paolosandro.bsky.social/post/3lm7qjrluvs2o
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/apple_reportedly_ipt_complaint/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/signal_will_withdraw_from_sweden/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/apple_adp_replacements_e2ee/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/rather_than_add_a_backdoor/
[12] https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/apple-inc-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/cso&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z_P2iaSgyqAaltn_yHlgRAAAANY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Technical Capability Notice (TCN)
Is just the UK's modern version of that other famous UK invention, Bills of Attainder.
Re: FTFY
Or demonstrate their flagrant willingness to abuse power.
Basic point here
The issue is whether the TCN refers to particular individual(s) who are subject to law enforcement action or whether it is a general requirement.
If it refers to individual(s) then I believe the law says that it should all be kept secret as the ongoing case may be a matter of "national security".
However, if the TCN refers to Apple and it's service in general, with no targeted law enforcement case, then there is no issue of national security *at this time* to address apart from "we can't break it, we might want to break it at some point".
That second scenario is simply untenable - it would open the door to a who plethora of issues where the government demands (and obtains) authoritarian rights over communications, goods, services or individual rights "just because there may be a criminal in the future, think of the children!"
Re: Basic point here
The second scenario has been playing out for several years, for anyone who didn't notice.
Re: Basic point here
Courts have traditionally deferred to the government on issues of national security on the grounds that only the government have access to all the intelligence. That's a harder argument to make when you're talking about a secret court expressly created to review security matters: they ought to have access to the information they need to make reasonable judgments.
Yvette loves to do things behind closed doors...
...as does her odious hubby, Ed Balls, the three time Bilderberg attendee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#United_Kingdom_2
Why would such a non-entity be invited so often to these ultra secret, undemocratic conferences? Makes you wonder.
"it had to give considerable weight to the position of the Home Office."
That's exactly what it shouldn't do.
The UK Home Office (seemingly at every level) has an ethos that no UK citizens should have any privacy whatsoever (be it online privacy, their cheerleading for mandayory ID cards etc.)
The Home Office should be treated as an extremely partisan organisation & its position treated as suspect & anti citizen privacy rights by default.
1984
We have always been at war with Eurasia
Didn't anybody tell the UK regime that that book was a fiction, not some political manual ? Icon, obviously
yeh right
what stupid comment
However, there must be a careful balancing act between informing the public and preserving national security
who owns this sight?
But if they have nothing to hide they shouldn't have anything to fear about it all being in the open. That's what they keep telling us.
It pains me to be on the same side as Apple, but the insistence of multiple Governments and agencies that there is a safe way to backdoor encryption despite all the evidence and outcry from anyone who knows anything about security needs to be challenged until they get the message. It's all very well for MPs, they gave themselves an exemption to RIPA but the culture of "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" from the Home Office needs to end.
FTFY
They argued that airing these was not in the public interest and would be prejudicial to national security embarrassing for the government because it would show how technically clueless they are.