UK ‘caves to Trump' and drops demand for Apple user data
The UK ordered the tech giant in January to allow it blanket access to encrypted files uploaded by any user worldwide.
Trump raised the issue with Sir Keir Starmer earlier this year and has compared the move to Chinese surveillance. JD Vance, his vice-president, who was on holiday in the Cotswolds this month, is said to have personally pushed for the order to be withdrawn in discussions with senior British officials.
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, said: 'Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside [Trump and Vance] to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected.
'As a result, the UK 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.'
Since December 2022 Apple has offered an optional extra layer of encryption called Advanced Data Protection (ADP), which protects photos or documents from being accessed by anyone other than the account holder.
The Home Office issued the order to Apple demanding access under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which enables the authorities to compel assistance from companies when it needs to collect evidence. Apple launched a legal complaint and withdrew the ADP tool from British customers, adding: 'As we have said many times before, we have never built a back door or master key to any of our products or services and we never will.'
The Times understands that the order will still apply to British users, and therefore the ADP is unlikely to be reintroduced in the UK.
The Financial Times reported that the order, which the Home Office has never confirmed or denied, had not yet been formally withdrawn. But one official said the UK had 'caved' to US pressure on the issue.
A British government spokesman said: 'We do not comment on operational matters, including confirming or denying the existence of such notices.'
He added that Britain had long had joint security and intelligence arrangements with the US to tackle 'the most serious threats, such as terrorism and child sexual abuse, including the role played by fast-moving technology in enabling those threats … Those arrangements have long contained safeguards to protect privacy and sovereignty: for example the Data Access Agreement includes critical safeguards to prevent the UK and US from targeting the data of each other's citizens.
'We will continue to build on those arrangements and we will also continue to maintain a strong security framework to ensure that we can continue to pursue terrorists and serious criminals operating in the UK. We will always take all actions necessary at the domestic level to keep UK citizens safe.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Would a new property tax be electoral disaster for Labour?
For many months, ministers have been curiously coy about whether they would introduce a ' wealth tax '. It was previously flatly denied and was not mentioned in the manifesto. Yet more recently, from Sir Keir Starmer down, there's been a refusal to comment. Now, perhaps, we know why: a conscious leak from the Treasury suggests Rachel Reeves is contemplating reforms to stamp duty and council tax that would amount to a new property tax. Apparently, the chancellor has briefed cabinet colleagues about the project and they are gauging public reaction. If implemented, it would be a politically brave move. What does the chancellor want? There are few details, but Reeves's idea seems to be to levy a new tax on homes worth more than £500,000 with, most likely, some adjustments to council tax and stamp duty at all levels of the property market. This new levy would replace stamp duty on owner-occupied primary residential homes (second and rental homes being treated differently already). A further annual local property tax would be added, based on an updated estimation of relative property values; this would replace council tax. When does she want it? A new national property levy could replace stamp duty in this parliament. A wholesale reform of local government finance, including a transition from council tax to local property tax and a valuation of every single home, would take years. Reportedly, that would be for Labour's hoped-for second term. Why is it being considered? Reeves is desperate for new sources of tax revenue that won't violate the manifesto commitment not to raise rates of income tax, employee national insurance and VAT. That doesn't leave much, even with income tax and NI thresholds frozen. Some researchers estimate the 'black hole' in the government's budget could yawn to about £40bn a year by the end of this parliament – way more than the current level and beyond what fiscal rules and the markets would tolerate. Is a property tax a good idea in any case? Yes, in the sense that the British approach to taxing wealth is completely irrational. Unlike any other asset – rental properties, shares, artworks, businesses – the value of a main home is untaxed, nor are any capital gains derived from moving up the property chain. That badly distorts against investment in productive capital and in favour of consumption, and thus blunts productivity growth and living standards. The resulting concentration of wealth as it cascades down the generations with minimal inheritance tax is driving a steadily more unequal society. Would a new property tax be a wealth tax? Yes, but it might be presented as a fairer and more rational version of the wealth taxes we already have: council tax, stamp duty, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. But it would suffer from the same drawbacks as council tax (and, to a lesser extent, stamp duty) in that it is almost completely unrelated to ability to pay. Someone lucky enough to live in what is now a very valuable home, but who has a small income in retirement, couldn't afford an annual tax bill and would have to borrow against or sell their home (although the tax could be deferred until death and deducted from the estate at probate, making it effectively a hike in inheritance tax). It would also favour the wealthy few whose money is tied up in several properties or businesses because they would only be liable on the first property as a main home; a 'proper' and efficient wealth tax would treat all kinds of assets neutrally. A more sensible approach to local government finance might be a local income tax – a policy idea adopted in Scotland by the SNP government in 2007 but later abandoned – and a more sensitive way of transferring money from richer areas to poorer ones. At the moment, council tax rates vary considerably between different areas, and about a fifth of local government funding comes from the Treasury out of central taxation. How much might it be? Anyone's guess, but most likely unrelated to wages or other income. The centre-right think tank Onward, which last year came up with the original paper that inspired the Treasury, suggested that owners, rather than the residents, of a property worth up to £500,000 would pay various tiered rates of national and local property tax dependent on the value of their home. They would pay a minimum of £800 a year directly to their local authority, but who knows what living in a £2m townhouse would set you back. How would it play politically? Disastrously. Any such reform necessarily creates winners, who are electorally ungrateful, and losers, who are highly resentful. The last time such a change was attempted was when the 'rates' were abolished in the late 1980s to make way for the flat rate per-person poll tax, triggering a riot, mass non-payment, and ultimately contributing to the fall of Margaret Thatcher. Vast accidental disparities in individual liabilities rendered the poll tax impractical and indefensible; it took some years and much cost to the Treasury to move from the poll tax to the current council tax regime with its various reliefs and exemptions. Memories of that painful episode mean no government has dared to touch property taxation besides fiddling around the thresholds. By making the plan part of the next Labour manifesto, but without much detail about who would pay and how much they'd pay, paranoia about the new tax would run rampant. Inheritance tax, which very few estates actually pay, is almost universally hated, and so would be a new 'Labour wealth tax'. It would be regarded as a 'tax on aspiration'. Whisper it, but some of the 'working people' that Labour has solemnly pledged to protect own their own homes, and it is their sole source of wealth. Some imagine they will one day have a £1m house; they may already do if they live in London. Even with her proven record of poor political judgement, it is hard to understand what Reeves is playing at. At best; she is being pushed around – again – by Treasury civil servants who care nothing about politics; at worst, she's become a little too crazed about fiscal rectitude.
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Home Depot becomes the latest company to raise their prices due to Trump's tariffs
Home Depot has become the latest U.S. company to warn customers it may have to raise its prices on the shelves in response to President Donald Trump 's divisive tariff strategy. Until now, the home improvement retailer, which is based in Atlanta, Georgia, has been reticent about commenting on the Republican's aggressive trade tactics and their possible impact on its business. But announcing the company's quarterly results on Tuesday, CFO Richard McPhail admitted it may have to act to mitigate the impact of Trump's tax on imported materials from overseas. 'For some imported goods, tariff rates are significantly higher today than they were at this time last quarter,' McPhail told The Wall Street Journal. 'So as you would expect, there will be modest price movement in some categories, but it won't be broad-based.' Just under half of Home Depot's stock is bought in from retailers outside of the U.S., according to CNN, and the company has previously suggested that it will seek to diversify its supply base so that no one foreign country is responsible for more than 10 percent of its goods to shield itself from overexposure. The health of Home Depot is often seen as a good indicator of the state of the U.S. housing market in general, and its sales for the second quarter proved worse-than-expected, according to its latest earnings call, coming in at 1 percent rather than the 1.5 percent predicted by analysts. Its total customer transactions fell to 0.9 percent for the quarter, its executives said. Still, the average ticket size rose by 1.2 percent, and the company said its full-year forecasts remained on course despite the choppy headwinds likely to be forthcoming. Home Depot came into more direct conflict with the president's MAGA movement on Monday when it was forced to ask the Republican Party of Florida to pull a line of deportation-themed merchandise from its online store that parodied its corporate insignia without authorization. 'We don't allow any organization to use our branding or logo for their commercial purposes,' Sarah McDonald, its director of public affairs, told The Independent. The full impact of Trump's much-changed tariff policy has yet to be felt. However, businesses are beginning to feel the first ripples of the consequences of the administration's policies after eight months in power. Last week, AriZona Iced Tea's Don Vultaggio said he might reluctantly have to crank up the price of his $0.99 Big Can in response to Trump's 50 percent levies on imported steel and aluminum, which his business relies on for its receptacles. 'At some point, the consumer is going to have to pay the price,' Vultaggio said. 'I hate even the thought of it. It would be a hell of a shame after 30-plus years.'
Telegraph
6 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's policies are ‘suicidal' on doorstep, says Labour MP
Sir Keir Starmer's policies have been 'suicidal on the doorstep', a Labour MP has admitted. Ian Byrne said voters had been repelled by the Prime Minister's positions on issues including the winter fuel allowance, the two-child benefit cap and cuts to disability benefits. His remarks came as a YouGov poll showed the Government's approval rating has hit a new low, matching scores recorded by Rishi Sunak's Tory administration just before the last election. Labour lost almost two-thirds of seats it defended at May's local elections and is now trailing Reform UK by an average of nine points in the polls. Mr Byrne, who has represented Liverpool West Derby since 2019, was one of seven MPs temporarily suspended by Sir Keir in July last year after voting to lift the two-child benefit cap. After having the Labour whip restored in February, Mr Byrne went on to vote against even a heavily watered-down version of the Prime Minister's flagship reforms to disability benefits. In an interview with The Big Issue, Mr Byrne said: 'I got suspended for voting against the two-child benefit cap six months out. 'I told them to scrap the winter fuel payment because it was going to be a political disaster. I was ignored, and they've had to do a U-turn on that. You're burning political capital all the time on things that aren't necessary.' He added: 'Obviously we have the cuts to disability benefits and Pip (personal independence payments) and obviously we were extremely strong against them because, again, we could see the damage it was going to do to my community and the damage it was going to do to the city of Liverpool and beyond.' Describing Sir Keir's planned cuts as 'totally unnecessary', Mr Byrne said: 'I think that's where we had to make the Government understand. We just need to stop making political decisions which are suicidal on the doorstep.' In June, Sir Keir was forced to reverse his decision to deny pensioners the winter fuel payment following a Labour rebellion. He previously defended stripping around 11 million retirees of their allowance by claiming it was necessary to fund the NHS, while Lucy Powell, the Leader of the Commons, claimed the policy was needed to prevent a run on the pound. But outcry from the public and his backbenchers restored the benefit to around nine million pensioners, excluding only two million who earn £35,000 or more. A month later, the majority of Sir Keir's welfare reforms – which were designed to save around £5bn a year and get more people back into work – were torn up in the Commons. More than 120 Labour MPs said they could not support the proposals, prompting a major climbdown that will allow all existing disability claimants to keep their benefits. Changes to eligibility for Universal Credit have also been delayed. Mr Byrne also predicted an 'almighty squeeze' on Labour at future elections amid the ongoing rise of Reform to its Right and the creation of a new party to its Left fronted by Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir's predecessor, and Zarah Sultana. Asked about the rise of Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana's party, which has the temporary name Your Party, he said: 'It's such a shame. Zarah's a great, great friend of mine, and it's such a shame that she feels the Labour Party isn't home for her now. 'That's something which I think everybody here from the top of the Labour Party to the union movements has got to reflect on. And Jeremy as well.' Mr Byrne said Labour's reaction to its troubled start in office had been 'to look at Reform and move towards that ground '. He noted that the new Left-wing would offer a 'different vision', adding: 'I think there'll be a squeeze on both sides, from Reform on the Right and then potentially what comes about from Jeremy's party. 'But you have the Greens, I think [Zack] Polanski's potentially going to win that and he's saying some things which charm an awful lot of people. 'Then you'll have the Lib Dems as well. I just think there's going to be an almighty squeeze on the Labour Party vote.' A YouGov poll on Tuesday showed the Government's net approval rating had fallen to minus 56 points, the lowest figure recorded since Sir Keir took office 13 months ago. Only 13 per cent of voters said they approved of the Labour administration's record to date, with 69 per cent saying they disapproved. Mr Sunak's embattled Tory government recorded net scores of minus 56 points on June 2 and June 10 last year as the then prime minister failed to turn the tide of public opinion in the weeks before polling day. That rating would eventually fall to minus 65 points just before polling day in the wake of a number of scandals on the campaign trail. These included Mr Sunak leaving D-Day commemorations in Normandy early to head back to the UK to carry out a general election TV interview. Craig Williams, the then Tory MP for Montgomeryshire and Cardiff North, was then embroiled in a row over bets placed on the dates of the general election. Mr Williams has since been charged and appeared in court in June, among 14 others, over alleged election gambling offences.
