Latest news with #InvestigatoryPowersAct
Forbes
08-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Court Rejects UK Attempt To Have Apple Encryption Case Held In Secret
Photo by Josh Edelson / AFP) (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images A U.K. court has ruled that the Home Office can't, as it had hoped, keep a hearing on backdoor access to Apple's encrypted cloud data under wraps. Earlier this year, the government used provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act to order the firm to give the security services blanket access to all users' end-to-end encrypted files, rather than just those for specific accounts. Via a Technical Capability Notice, it wants access to iPhone backups secured by Apple's Advanced Data Protection system - not just those of U.K. customers, but of international users too. Apple removed the opt-in Advanced Data Protection feature in the U.K. in February, but responded by launching legal proceedings against the government soon after, with the case to be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. But the government said the proceedings should be kept secret, with not even the "bare details" made public, thanks to national security concerns. However, in a ruling, the tribunal has now rejected the government's request. "It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," the judges wrote. "For the reasons that are set out in our private judgement, we do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security." They said it might be possible for some or all future hearings to incorporate a public element, but that it wasn't possible to make a ruling on this at the current stage. Campaign groups Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship made a submission to the court, arguing against the proceedings taking in place in secret, and they've now welcomed the court's decision. "This judgment is a very welcome step in the right direction, effectively chipping away at the pervasive climate of secrecy surrounding the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's consideration of the Apple case," said Rebecca Vincent, interim director of Big Brother Watch. "The Home Office's order to break encryption represents a massive attack on the privacy rights of millions of British Apple users, which is a matter of significant public interest and must not be considered behind closed doors." The case even led to transatlantic tensions, with U.S. director of national intelligence Tulsi Gababrd expressing "grave concern" about the creation of a backdoor. It would, she said, be a "clear and egregious" violation of Americans' privacy and civil rights, as well as opening up a serious security vulnerability. "This is bigger than the UK and Apple. The court's judgment will have implications for the privacy and security of millions of people around the world," said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group. "Such an important decision cannot be made behind closed doors, and we welcome the IPT's decision to bring parts of the hearing into the open so that there can be some public scrutiny of the UK government's decisions to attack technologies that keep us safe online."
The Guardian
07-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK Home Office loses attempt to keep legal battle with Apple secret
The UK has lost an attempt to keep details of a legal battle with Apple away from the public. The investigatory powers tribunal, which investigates whether the domestic intelligence services have acted unlawfully, on Monday rejected a bid by the Home Office to withhold from the public the 'bare details' of the case. A judgment from Lord Justice Singh, president of the investigatory powers tribunal, and Mr Justice Johnson, on Monday confirmed some details of the case for the first time. They confirmed that the case relates to a legal challenge brought against the Home Office by Apple over the power to make technical capability notices under the Investigatory Powers Act. According to the judgment, the Home Office argued that revealing the existence of the claim, as well as the names of the parties involved, would be damaging to national security. 'We do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security,' said the judges. The Guardian and other media organisations have reported that the Home Office has served Apple with a technical capability notice (TCN), in which the government demanded access to Apple's Advanced Data Protection service, which heavily encrypts personal data stored remotely in its servers. Apple has pulled ADP from the UK rather than comply with the notice, saying it would never build a 'backdoor' to its products or services. Singh and Johnson said that neither Apple or the Home Office had confirmed or denied the accuracy of reports around the TCN and its contents. 'This judgment should not be taken as an indication that the media reporting is or is not accurate,' the judges added. The details of the TCN remain unknown. Journalists were not allowed into a hearing last month related to the case. Multiple media organisations, including the Guardian, the Financial Times, the BBC and the PA news agency, asked the tribunal to confirm who was taking part in the hearing on 14 March and for it to sit in public. Neither journalists nor legal representatives on behalf of the media were allowed into the hearing, and the identities of the parties involved were not disclosed head of the hearing. The judges added that it could be possible for 'some or all future hearings to incorporate a public element, with or without reporting restrictions' but that could not be ruled on at this stage in the process. Recipients of a TCN cannot reveal the existence of an order unless they are given permission from the home secretary. The tribunal's website states that hearings should be closed to the public only when 'strictly necessary', but its rules declare there must be no disclosure of information that is 'prejudicial to national security'. Ross McKenzie, a data protection partner at the law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said despite the ruling it was 'highly unlikely' there would be any in-depth revelations of the Home Office's case for accessing Apple user data. 'We may get a skeletal decision similar to what has been shared so far, which summarises the rationale without any meaningful detail,' said McKenzie.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple-UK data privacy row should not be secret, court rules
The Home Office has failed in its bid to keep all the details of its data privacy legal row with Apple out of the public domain. The UK government wants the right to be able access information secured by Apple's Advanced Data Protection (ADP) system, citing powers given to it under the Investigatory Powers Act. At the moment Apple has no such capability - such data can only be accessed by the user - and says it does not want to create what it calls a "backdoor" into ADP because of concerns it could be used for criminal purposes. The government's request prompted fierce criticism from privacy campaigners and some US politicians. In February, Apple pulled ADP from the UK and in March launched legal proceedings against the government, in a case which is being heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The government argued it would damage national security if the nature of the legal action - and the parties to it - were made public, what are known as the "bare details of the case". In a ruling published on Monday morning, the tribunal judges rejected that request - pointing to the extensive media reporting of the row and highlighting the legal principle of open justice. "It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," it states. "For the reasons that are set out in our private judgement, we do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security," it later adds. The Home Office have been asked to comment but have yet to respond. What Apple pulling Advanced Data Protection means for you Pressure grows to hold secret Apple data privacy hearing in public Apple takes legal action in UK data privacy row
The Guardian
14-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Apple's UK encryption legal challenge heard behind closed doors
A hearing in Apple's legal battle with the UK government over access to customer data was held behind closed doors on Friday after the press failed to gain entry to proceedings. The US tech firm has launched an appeal with the investigatory powers tribunal after the Home Office demanded access to encrypted data stored remotely in Apple's cloud servers. UK media organisations including the Guardian, the BBC, the Financial Times and Computer Weekly made a submission to the tribunal asking for press access on public interest grounds but they failed to gain entry. Sir James EadieKC, who represents the government in high-profile cases, was seen entering the courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday. Apple is fighting a technology capability notice issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, which requires companies to assist law enforcement in providing evidence. The notice demanded access to Apple's Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service, which heavily encrypts personal data stored remotely in its servers. Apple refused and has challenged the order at the tribunal, which investigates whether the domestic intelligence services have acted unlawfully. It also withdrew ADP from the UK last month, saying: 'We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will.' ADP uses end-to-end encryption, which means only the account holder can decrypt the files. Messaging services like iMessage and FaceTime remain end-to-end encrypted by default. The government's secret legal demand is officially known as a technical capability notice. Recipients of a TCN cannot reveal the existence of an order unless they are given permission from the home secretary. The tribunal's website states that hearings should be closed to the public only when 'strictly necessary', but its rules declare there must be no disclosure of information that is 'prejudicial to national security'. On Thursday, a group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the US called on the tribunal to 'remove the cloak of secrecy' around the UK government's order and to make Friday's hearing, as well as any further proceedings, public. Bloomberg reported on Thursday that British officials had initiated talks with their US counterparts over the order. The UK has reportedly assured the US that it is not seeking blanket access and would only seek data related to serious crimes such as terrorism and child sexual abuse. The Home Office has been asked for comment.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Human rights groups challenge Apple's privacy fight with the UK government
Two UK human rights groups have challenged the government's attempts to force tech titan Apple to weaken its security systems, saying the process lacks transparency. The UK government had attempted to force Apple to create a 'back door' in its implemented security systems. Liberty and Privacy International have filed a legal complaint against the tech company with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), the Financial Times first reported. It called for Apple's appeal against the order to be heard publicly and claimed the demand violated users' free speech and privacy rights. Caroline Wilson Palow, legal director of Privacy International, argued: 'The UK's use of a secret order to undermine security for people worldwide is unacceptable and disproportionate.' The iPhone maker is also fighting the order issued under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA). The firm withdrew its secure iCloud backup device from its UK market earlier this year after receiving a 'technical capability notice'(TCN) in January. The notice reportedly required the firm to give law enforcement access to encrypted iPhone backups. Yet, the tech giant was legally prohibited from discussing this publicly. 'We have never built a back door or master key to any of our products, and we never will', Apple had argued at the time. The two human rights groups have argued that the secrecy surrounding TCNs prevents accountability and transparency. Several publications have made submissions to the IPT, urging the tribunal to hold the case in open court. The dispute has drawn criticism from the US, where lawmakers have urged British authorities to be more transparent about the IPA. They have warned that the secrecy around UK government demands to leading US big techs has posed a threat to privacy and free speech. The news follows Apple's recent decision to remove its advanced data protection feature from the UK, following a dispute with the government over encryption and access to user data. It also comes as firms like Apple, Google and Meta, have been targeted by mammoth class action lawsuits in the UK in recent years. Security minister Dan Jarvis told MPs in February: 'The suggestion that privacy and security are at odds is not correct; we can and must have both'. The tribunal will hold a closed hearing on Apple's case on Friday. Sign in to access your portfolio
