Apple Takes U.K. to Court Over Demand To Weaken Encryption
If enacted, the order would weaken digital security for Apple users throughout the U.K.

Last month, Reason reported on the United Kingdom's demand for access to any Apple user's digital information stored in its cloud storage service, iCloud. Since those data are end-to-end encrypted by default, this would require the tech giant to create an intentional vulnerability in its security protocols—the likes of which could be exploited by sophisticated criminals or hostile governments.
"If the U.K.'s order stands, Apple will either have to weaken every user's security worldwide or cease operating in Europe altogether," I wrote at the time. "Either move would be disastrous, either to the company's bottom line or to its users' data privacy."
As it turns out, Apple tried to split the difference, but the company is also reportedly taking the U.K. to court over the order.
"Apple can no longer offer Advanced Data Protection in the United Kingdom to new users," the company announced last week. "We are deeply disappointed that our customers in the UK will no longer have the option to enable Advanced Data Protection (ADP), especially given the continuing rise of data breaches and other threats to customer privacy."
As The Washington Post first reported, the U.K.'s Home Office issued an order that Apple must "create a back door allowing them to retrieve all the content any Apple user worldwide has uploaded to the cloud."
"As we have said many times before," Apple pledged, "we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will."
By default, Apple provides end-to-end encryption on 14 of its products, like saved passwords; first introduced in December 2022, ADP adds encryption protection to nine more, including Photos, Voice Memos, and iCloud data and backups.
In its announcement, Apple advised that the original 14 products would remain end-to-end encrypted, but users in the U.K. could no longer enable ADP if they had not done so already. It also advised that while "Apple cannot disable ADP automatically," these users "will be given a period of time to disable the feature themselves to keep using their iCloud account."
This week, Apple is apparently fighting back: The BBC reports that Apple "has appealed to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal." Under U.K. law, the tribunal is "an independent public body exercising judicial functions" regarding "complaints about the use of intrusive powers such as phone-tapping by intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and public authorities."
Indeed, Apple is right to resist: As I noted last month, it would be impossible to design a vulnerability to encryption that can only be exploited by police, or with a court order, or any other exception you can imagine. By definition, any encryption "back door" open to law enforcement could also be exploited by hackers.
European authorities have long pushed for an exception to end-to-end encryption, and tech firms have resisted. A provision in the U.K.'s Online Safety Act 2023 could require tech companies to scan all users' messages for forbidden content before they were encrypted; Meredith Whittaker, president of the secure messaging app Signal, told the BBC in 2023 her company "would absolutely, 100% walk" if forced to comply.
The U.K. government later said it would not enforce this provision of the law, admitting the technology to securely do what it was asking did not exist.
When news first broke of the U.K.'s order to Apple, many free speech advocates spoke out in opposition. "The United Kingdom government's order to Apple to allow security authorities access to encrypted cloud data severely harms the privacy rights of users in the UK and worldwide," Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said in a joint statement.
Academics, scientists, and civil society organizations including TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and the R Street Institute jointly signed letters asking U.K. officials to "withdraw" the order and U.S. officials to "act swiftly to protect Americans, and Internet users everywhere, from having their stored communications exposed to access by malicious governments and non-state actors."
In a letter of their own, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R–Ariz.) asked Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to "giv[e] the U.K. an ultimatum: back down from this dangerous attack on U.S. cybersecurity, or face serious consequences."
"I share your grave concern about the serious implications of the United Kingdom, or any foreign country, requiring Apple or any company to create a 'backdoor' that would allow access to Americans personal encrypted data," Gabbard wrote in reply. "Any information sharing between a government—any government—and private companies must be done in a manner that respects and protects the U.S. law and the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens."
President Donald Trump told The Spectator that during a meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, "We told them you can't do this….That's something, you know, that you hear about with China."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I was hoping Apple would add an annoying pop up warning every time it would have encrypted locally, providing the PM's phone number and explaining why it would not encrypt. Thousands of phone calls a day might have had more effect than a lawsuit which will take years to wind through the courts.
Perhaps sending an email to the PM every time automatically
Apple will capitulate.
I not so sure that Apple will capitulate to the corrupt UK government. Standing firm against the tyrannical government demand is in Apple's interest.
If they add a master key, then there isn't any advantage to encryption as the highly inefficient governments will lose track of the master key and instead of a simple leak of SSN's, it will be a leak of everything.
Sure some corporations can be corrupt, but all governments are corrupt. Corporations are at least accountable to shareholders, customers, and to some degree the public. However governments are largely unaccountable and often disregard the wishes of the citizens that put them into power in the first place.
I would like the UK to suffer a huge loss and the people of the world and Apple to win to prevent the tyrannical UK government to run roughshod over the people of the world.
Are we still allowed to use tin cans and a string?
Yes, but there will be extra strings attached.
Take any seizable money out of the UK and just ignore them.
This. Though Apple does deal in a lot of hardware.
Hardware's akin to a loss leader for Apple. They make their profits off their middleman status in the App Store and in advertising.
The United Kingdom has fallen.
They have laws that you can be imprisoned if you hurt someone’s feelings on the Internet.
They have laws against praying in public, and people have already been in prison for this.
And now they are not going to allow their citizens to have encryption.
It’s time to reevaluate our friendship with this sort of society