U.K. Loses Bid to Keep Apple Encryption Fight Secret

The United Kingdom's Investigatory Powers Tribunal has ruled that "the bare details" of a legal challenge brought by Apple over the government's order to create a global backdoor into encrypted iCloud data cannot be kept secret. The decision, delivered on April 7, 2025, by Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Johnson, rejected the Home Secretary's push to keep the case hidden, emphasizing the principle of open justice. As the tribunal stated, "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."Apple's claim, filed under case number IPT/25/68/CH, challenges the Secretary of State's powers to issue Technical Capability Notices under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, argued that disclosing "the fact or details of the claim, or the identities of the parties" could harm national security, citing "the longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of individual notices." Apple, backed by Daniel Beard KC and Fieldfisher, countered that transparency was vital, a stance the tribunal largely upheld after a private hearing on March 14, 2025.Media reports, starting with a Washington Post story on February 7, 2025, claimed the U.K. had ordered Apple "to let it spy on users' encrypted accounts." Those reports were seemly corroborated when Apple pulled Advanced Data Protection from users in the U.K. The tribunal noted "extensive media reporting" globally, including by the BBC and The Financial Times, though it clarified, "This judgment should not be taken as an indication that the media reporting is or is not accurate." The Home Office leaned on a witness statement from Lucy Montgomery-Pott, Head of the Investigatory Powers Unit, who warned of "damage to national security" if details were public. Yet, the judges found her concerns lacked sufficient grounding, stating, "We are bound to accept the conclusion of the Secretary of State… unless we conclude that conclusion is irrational or otherwise vitiated by a public law error."Continue ReadingShare Article:Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, EmailFollow iClarified:Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube

Apr 7, 2025 - 17:36

U.K. Loses Bid to Keep Apple Encryption Fight Secret

The United Kingdom's Investigatory Powers Tribunal has ruled that "the bare details" of a legal challenge brought by Apple over the government's order to create a global backdoor into encrypted iCloud data cannot be kept secret. The decision, delivered on April 7, 2025, by Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Johnson, rejected the Home Secretary's push to keep the case hidden, emphasizing the principle of open justice. As the tribunal stated, "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."

Apple's claim, filed under case number IPT/25/68/CH, challenges the Secretary of State's powers to issue Technical Capability Notices under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, argued that disclosing "the fact or details of the claim, or the identities of the parties" could harm national security, citing "the longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of individual notices." Apple, backed by Daniel Beard KC and Fieldfisher, countered that transparency was vital, a stance the tribunal largely upheld after a private hearing on March 14, 2025.

Media reports, starting with a Washington Post story on February 7, 2025, claimed the U.K. had ordered Apple "to let it spy on users' encrypted accounts." Those reports were seemly corroborated when Apple pulled Advanced Data Protection from users in the U.K. The tribunal noted "extensive media reporting" globally, including by the BBC and The Financial Times, though it clarified, "This judgment should not be taken as an indication that the media reporting is or is not accurate." The Home Office leaned on a witness statement from Lucy Montgomery-Pott, Head of the Investigatory Powers Unit, who warned of "damage to national security" if details were public. Yet, the judges found her concerns lacked sufficient grounding, stating, "We are bound to accept the conclusion of the Secretary of State… unless we conclude that conclusion is irrational or otherwise vitiated by a public law error."

Continue Reading

Share Article:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Email

Follow iClarified:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube