Apple Users Get Update on How Their Private Data is Being Used
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Apple will no longer be required to provide international law enforcement access to private data after the U.K. agreed to rescind an investigatory power mandate.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that the U.K. would drop its mandate for Apple to provide an encrypted data "back door," after the policy came under criticism from the tech industry.
Newsweek contacted Apple for more information on the agreement via email.
Why It Matters
The reported withdrawal touches on core questions about cross-border law enforcement powers, the security of encrypted personal data stored in cloud backups, and the potential for government access to private communications and photos of U.S. citizens.
Apple has publicly framed its approach to user privacy around on-device processing and end-to-end encryption for many services, which the company said limited its ability to access the contents of messages and certain stored data.
What To Know
In a statement on Tuesday, Gabbard said that the White House had negotiated an agreement with the U.K. that means the "back door" would no longer be necessary.
"Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the U.K, alongside @POTUS and @VP, to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected," Gabbard wrote on X.
"As a result, the U.K. has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties."
Stock Image: The Apple logo.
Stock Image: The Apple logo.
Getty Images
The U.K. government's order sought a technical capability that would have allowed access to encrypted iPhone backups, potentially including photos and messages that users stored in cloud services.
Apple said it built privacy controls into its devices, including on-device processing, App Tracking Transparency, App Privacy Report, and end-to-end encryption for Messages, and described Advanced Data Protection as a user-enabled setting that expanded encryption for iCloud data.
Apple also provided guidance about App Store privacy details and the Privacy Nutrition Labels that developers must disclose on app product pages to show what data apps may collect and whether it is linked to users.
What People Are Saying
Apple said in a February statement: "ADP protects iCloud data with end-to-end encryption, which means the data can only be decrypted by the user who owns it, and only on their trusted devices. We are gravely disappointed that the protections provided by ADP will not be available to our customers in the U.K. given the continuing rise of data breaches and other threats to customer privacy. Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before.
"Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the future in the United Kingdom. As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will."
What Happens Next
The White House will continue to work with international partners and tech companies to resolve disputes of this nature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
25 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Californians Say AI Is Moving 'Too Fast'
Hello and welcome to the Tuesday edition of In the Loop. I'm writing to you while looking out over the sunny city of San Francisco, where I'm spending the week on a reporting trip. If you're working on something cool here and want to say hi, feel free to shoot me an email at What to Know: Californians are fearful of AI Californians are more concerned than excited about the future of AI, by a margin of 55% to 33%, according to new polling shared exclusively with TIME ahead of its publication this Tuesday. Of the 1,400 adults polled, 48% said the technology was progressing 'too fast,' compared to 32% who said the pace was 'about right' and just 4% who said it was 'too slow.' And 59% of respondents said they believed AI would benefit the wealthiest corporations and households most, compared to 20% who said it would most benefit working people and the middle class. The poll was funded by TechEquity, a progressive non-profit. Support for regulation — The new data shows that 70% of Californians believe in the need for 'strong laws to make AI fair.' But the data also reveals high levels of skepticism that those laws will ever be enacted. 59% of those surveyed say they don't trust the California state government to control AI. Even more — 64% — said they do not trust the federal government. A picture emerges — The poll adds to a growing collection of data from around the world suggesting that ordinary people are worried about the impact of AI on their lives. In January, I wrote about a U.K. poll that showed 60% of Brits favoring a ban on the development of 'smarter-than-human' AI models. And in April, the Pew Research Center found that 43% of U.S. adults believed AI was more likely to harm than benefit them, compared to 24% who expected the benefits to outweigh the harms. Ground zero — California is emerging as a key battleground for efforts to legislate on AI, as the state where most top American AI companies are based. Last year a bill that aimed to regulate so-called 'frontier' models cleared the state legislature, only to be vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. That hasn't stopped other efforts to regulate AI in the state, however. California 'is a place where you can still legislate and govern with a semi-functioning legislative process, which is not something you can say about D.C., particularly on this topic,' says Catherine Bracy, the CEO of TechEquity. 'The federal government has made it clear that they are going to be completely hands-off, if not creating rules that unleash the industry even more,' Bracy says. '[So] it is incumbent on the states to pick up the slack and make sure that real people who are going to be impacted by these tools are protected.' Who to Know: Dean Ball, former White House advisor on AI For a stint in office, it was an unusually impactful one. Dean Ball joined the Trump Administration in April—headhunted based on an essay he had written titled 'Here is what I think we should do' about AI policy. What followed was a whirlwind five months in government, in which he played a key role contributing to the AI Action Plan, Trump's AI policy, which was announced in July. Earlier this month, Ball announced he was leaving the government to focus on his own research. Action planning — Trump's Action Plan won praise for its emphasis on bolstering U.S. energy grid capacity, plus onshoring datacenters and the production of the chips that power them. The document also urged U.S. companies to focus more on developing open-weight AI models, to prevent the world from coming to rely on Chinese models (which are currently the best in class). The document framed these recommendations, and more, in terms of the escalating AI race with China. Exit interview — In an interview with TIME, Ball emphasized the importance of AI to the Trump administration. 'AI is the President's number one technology policy priority, by a significant margin,' he said. At the same time, Ball says, there is a lot of skepticism inside the Administration toward AI industry projections that superintelligent machines are some two to five years away. 'The diffusion of AI is going to take a really long time,' Ball says. 'I've lived through technology revolutions before, where I was young and bright-eyed and thought it was all going to happen in two or three years. And it turns out a lot of it did happen, but it took 15.' AI in Action: Should you delete your old emails to save water? An official U.K. government document, published last week, has caught a lot of heat online for suggesting that users should 'delete old emails and pictures' to save water during a drought, because data centers 'require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.' It is true that many data centers use water for cooling, but let's get a sense of perspective here. Andy Masley, a blogger who has written several illuminating pieces about the energy and water expenditure of AI systems, ran the numbers. Fixing a leaking toilet, he wrote, can save 200-400 liters of water per day. 'To save as much water in data centers as fixing your toilet would save, you would need to delete 1.5 billion photos, or 200 billion emails. If it took you 0.1 seconds to delete each email, and you deleted them nonstop for 16 hours a day, it would take you 723 years to delete enough emails to save the same amount of water in data centers as you could if you fixed your toilet. Maybe you should fix your toilet.' As always, if you have an interesting story of AI in Action, we'd love to hear it. Email us at: intheloop@ What We're Reading 'Meta's flirty AI chatbot invited a retiree to New York. He never made it home' by Jeff Horwitz in Reuters A relentlessly bleak story from Jeff Horwitz, the best Meta reporter in the business. 'Bue's story, told here for the first time, illustrates a darker side of the artificial intelligence revolution now sweeping tech and the broader business world. His family shared with Reuters the events surrounding his death, including transcripts of his chats with the Meta avatar, saying they hope to warn the public about the dangers of exposing vulnerable people to manipulative, AI-generated companions.'
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Latino civil rights group pushes Home Depot to limit ICE presence
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is urging Home Depot to limit the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials (ICE) at its stores amid the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. LULAC, in a Tuesday press release, said that its national president, Roman Palomares, asked Home Depot CEO Ted Decker 'to establish a nationwide corporate policy denying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal enforcement agencies access to Home Depot properties unless presented with a valid court-issued warrant and proper advance notice.' 'Day laborers and families must not be subjected to the fear of being hunted down in parking lots while pursuing honest work,' Palomares said in the release. He also noted that the Fortune 500 company benefits from labor from the communities that have been targeted by an uptick in deportation orders. 'With its size, reach, and influence, the company cannot claim neutrality — it has both the authority and the obligation to act decisively,' Palomares continued. 'To allow ICE to operate unchecked on its properties is not passive; it is complicity.' Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times reported that an immigration raid in Los Angeles involved a Penske truck driver at a Home Depot saying he was seeking workers, according to a day laborer. Multiple Border Patrol agents leaped from the back of the truck while workers surrounded it and more than a dozen were arrested, according to the L.A. Times. 'This week, Border Patrol conducted a targeted raid, dubbed Trojan Horse, in Los Angeles at a Home Depot that resulted in the arrest of 16 illegal aliens from Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, and Nicaragua,' a DHS spokesperson told The Hill in an emailed statement earlier this month. 'Federal law enforcement will continue utilizing all resources to arrest criminal illegal aliens and keep Americans safe.' The Hill has reached out to ICE for comment. Home Depot spokesperson Sarah McDonald said in a statement that the company is notified ahead of time when ICE activities 'are going to happen.' In many cases, she added, 'we don't know that arrests have taken place until after they're over.' 'We're required to follow all federal and local rules and regulations in every market where we operate,' she added.
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
If Democrats succeed in midterms, they're coming for Kristi Noem
Hakeem Jeffries promised that the Homeland Security secretary would be among the first "hauled up" to Capitol Hill for oversight hearings if House Democrats win a majority in 2026. If the Democrats take back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026, one member of the Trump administration is going to be spending a lot of time on Capitol Hill. Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will be among the first Cabinet officials to be "hauled up" to Congress to face hearings, according to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Speaking on a recent episode of "The Bulwark Podcast," Jeffries promised "aggressive oversight activity" would center around Noem if the balance of power changes after the midterms. 'It's my expectation that Kristi Noem will be one of the first people hauled up to Congress shortly after the gavels change hands," he said. Read more: Kristi Noem slams 'South Park' for 'petty' and 'lazy' spoof of her: 'Only the liberals' The intent of the investigations, he said, would be "to get a real understanding for the American people" of what Jeffries called "the lack of respect for due process, for the rule of law, the unleashing of masked agents on law-abiding immigrant communities, and the disappearing of people in some instances, to other countries without any real evidence that criminal behavior took place." As the head of DHS, Noem, the former Republican governor of South Dakota, spearheads the White House's immigration enforcement agenda, which has drawn intense criticism from advocates and progressive lawmakers. Though congressional Republicans ultimately approved her to her post, she struggled during her confirmation hearings. In one instance, she couldn't identify a basic constitutional right that requires law enforcement officers to justify prisoners' continued confinement. Read more: Kristi Noem botches definition of 'habeas corpus' at Senate hearing On the podcast, Jeffries suggested two notable House Democrats would spearhead the efforts investigating DHS. One would be Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, who helped lead the bipartisan Jan. 6 select committee and would serve as head of the House's Homeland Security Committee. The other would be Jamie Raskin D-Maryland, who would be in charge of the House Oversight Committee. "We'll figure out what the formulation looks like," Jeffries said.
