US Legislators Complain About Secretive British Court and Apple Encryption (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0185609972
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/09/11/1955213/us-legislators-complain-about-secretive-british-court-and-apple-encryption
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/11/congress-uk-court-apple-encrypted-data-case
> A bipartisan pair of American politicians is telling Britain's most secretive court to [2]stop hiding its handling of Apple's legal fight against a government demand to break into its customers' encrypted data , warning that Whitehall's taste for secrecy is 'needlessly' straining relations between the two allies. The [3]letter (PDF), shared with the Guardian ahead of being sent to the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) on Friday, is signed by the Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and the Republican congressman Warren Davidson of Ohio.
>
> The row dates back to January 2025, when the Home Office served Apple with a technical capability notice under the Investigatory Powers Act, which requires companies to assist law enforcement in providing evidence. The UK government [4]demanded that Apple provide a mechanism to access encrypted iCloud backups worldwide, a call the company met by withdrawing its Advanced Data Protection encryption feature from UK users the following month. Apple's challenge to that order at the IPT was later thrown out after the Home Office withdrew the original notice and issued a narrower one targeting only British users' data.
"It is wholly inappropriate for a foreign executive body to attempt to dictate the distribution of powers within the US government, nor should it be permitted to use secrecy directives under the Investigatory Powers Act to frustrate Article I powers under the US Constitution," the pair wrote.
Wyden and Davidson write that Congress "is not only a co-equal branch of government, it is the First Branch," and argue that no government can be allowed to place "its demands beyond the reach of legislative inquiry."
"The UK government," they write, "cannot champion legislative oversight at home while using administrative gag orders to kneecap the constitutional authority of the US Congress."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Bruce66423
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/11/congress-uk-court-apple-encrypted-data-case
[3] https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2026/09/11/wyden-davidson-apple-uk-letter-2026.pdf
[4] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/02/07/1150200/uk-orders-apple-to-let-it-spy-on-users-encrypted-accounts
Golly that kettle is dark! (Score:4, Insightful)
> It is wholly inappropriate for a foreign executive body to attempt to dictate the distribution of powers within the US government, nor should it be permitted to use secrecy directives under the Investigatory Powers Act to frustrate Article I powers under the US Constitution
1) The UK is not subject to Article I of the US constitution.
2) How's Nicolas Maduro doing these days?
3) Whence derives our right to unilaterally impose economic sanctions against foreign companies, banks, and even governments?
Re: (Score:2)
Its like an evil version of the "heads I win, tails you lose" game, spun instead as "Do as I say, not as you do".
Re:Golly that kettle is dark! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll bite:
> 1) The UK is not subject to Article I of the US constitution.
1. The colonies fought a war to ensure that the USA is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK may not regulate US entities without the consent of the US government, and the US politicians object to some of the terms of the regulations the UK is applying.
> 2) How's Nicolas Maduro doing these days?
2. He is doing OK, for a political prisoner. His capture was a smokescreen for the theft of Venezuelan oil production.
> 3) Whence derives our right to unilaterally impose economic sanctions against foreign companies, banks, and even governments?
3. WWII. The USA emerged from WWII as the strongest and most stable power remaining in the world. The other allied governments chose to back the USA as the central banking power of the world as no one else was stable enough to handle the job. The various governments could chose to change that, but the transition is not easy and thus far has not been worth the pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are pretty great answers, can't deny!
But we both know you're intentionally sidestepping the common thread to those three points. Well, that, or I'm being naive in not just assuming the answer is "might makes right".
Re: (Score:3)
> The colonies fought a war to ensure that the USA is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK may not regulate US entities without the consent of the US government
That's a non-sequitur. The USA is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UK, but US citizens physically in the UK are, and companies based in the US but doing business in the UK have to comply with UK law as it affects their operations in the UK or accept the corresponding penalties as the cost of doing business there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a non-sequitur, but the actual point of the complaint:
-The complaint by the US congressmembers was that the UK ordered Apple explicitly not to disclose the details to the US Congress .
-As Apple is a US company the US Congress has original jurisdiction. It is improper to order Apple not to respect that jurisdiction.
Someone posted more details farther downthread, with links to the actual text of the complaint letter.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK can certainly regulate US company operations within the UK . It obviously can't regulate them outside the UK.
If the UK does decide to regulate US company operations within the UK, it doesn't have to agree to anything asked by US lawmakers because it's not their jurisdiction.
Once again, for the clueless (Score:3)
There are only two choices, strong security or weak security.
It's impossible to have security that's strong against the bad guys and weak against the good guys.
It's impossible to precisely define who the good guys are and to guarantee that they will always be good.
It's impossible to stop the bad guys from corrupting or threatening the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Any expert and anybody that actually looked at the facts knows that. But these are people that are soo deeply afraid of what other people may think, they are not rational. For a reference, look at the religious fuckups that had to invent a vengeful God that punishes all wrongthink. These people are the same, just without that God but with technology that may even get them there partially. So they go for it and consequences and risks be damned.
Also note that the UK has not had full-blown fascism in newe
Annual Report of the Investigatory Powers Commissi (Score:2)
[1]Annual Report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner 2024 [amazonaws.com]
IPCO .. authorised more than 300,000 applications and warrants during the year.
“Striking the right balance between upholding fundamental rights and the State’s need to deploy investigatory powers to protect national security or to prevent serious crime is difficult and the role IPCO plays is vital to achieving this. There is no system without its flaws or drawbacks and, as the Home Office’s reform of the IPA over the last fe
[1] https://ipco-wpmedia-prod-s3.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/IPCO-Annual-Report-2024.pdf
Secret Orders, Selective Oversight (Score:1, Flamebait)
The letter checks out. Some of the shorthand needs unpacking. The [1]September 11, 2026 letter [guim.co.uk] names Ron Wyden and Warren Davidson and contains the quoted passages. It says Apple told Congress that the UK allowed briefings for the US attorney general, vice president and their staff, while prohibiting further discussion with Congress. That is the lawmakers' account of Apple's communications. Their constitutional objections are arguments in the letter, not a court ruling.
I checked the [2]letter [guim.co.uk], and the quotes are
[1] https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2026/09/11/wyden-davidson-apple-uk-letter-2026.pdf
[2] https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2026/09/11/wyden-davidson-apple-uk-letter-2026.pdf
Fair point (Score:2)
I wonder what the UK's response will be.
Re: (Score:1)
> I wonder what the UK's response will be.
"Wind your neck in."
Re: (Score:2)
As the UK still seems to like to suck up to the US, it will be interesting to see what happens.