Apple Vs. The Home Office: How the Investigatory Powers Act Threatens Global Privacy

Welcome to the sixth edition of The Eye—our weekly guide to the shifting relationship between Big Tech and the state. We dig beneath the headlines, connect the dots, and follow the power to reveal how technology is reshaping our public institutions.

This week: Apple’s fight with the Home Office, state surveillance and the future of online privacy under Burnham.

Apple is mounting a legal challenge against the UK Home Office over renewed demands for “backdoor” access to encrypted user data first reported by the Financial Times. The move follows the controversial issue of a Technical Capability Notice under the Investigatory Powers Act - prompting Apple to strip British users of its Advanced Data Protection encryption features.

During his time in opposition, Burnham was a vocal critic of the Conservative government’s plans to introduce the Investigatory Powers Act, arguing that if it became law - which it did in 2016 - “the UK will be the only country in the world to have a policy of capturing and recording every citizen’s internet use”, and that “we will be the envy of states such as North Korea, China and Iran”.

The recently re-appointed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood - under whose department the current challenge to Apple is coming - has had little to say on encryption. However she previously intimated, in an interview with former Prime Minister Tony Blair, that she wants to “achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his panopticon” - a proposed 18th century prison designed with a layout allowing guards to observe and monitor every prisoner at all times.

In the interview, she seemed to suggest that this concept could be used to extend to society at large, and “that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times”.

She also talked about plans to integrate AI into policing - extending the use of live facial recognition technology, which under the current government is being expanded into a vast national rollout to all regional police forces in England and Wales.

While plans for other initiatives, like the introduction of a mandatory digital ID, have been halted for now, age verification provisions of the Online Safety Act and continued efforts to break encryption are very much on the table.

To break down what’s at stake and what shape the future of online privacy under Burnham may take - we sat down with Rebecca Vincent - our Deputy Director at the Citizens. Rebecca is a former diplomat and veteran human rights campaigner, previously working with organisations like Big Brother Watch and Reporters Without Borders.

Following the initial order from the Home Office last year, Apple withdrew elements of end-to-end encryption from UK users. What further protections would we be losing if the UK Government gets its way?

From both a consumer rights and privacy rights perspective, it’s shameful that British users have been stripped of the ability to use Apple’s most enhanced encryption tool, Advanced Data Protection. It’s worrying that this move has not satiated the Home Office, which has continued to relentlessly pursue its case against Apple despite widespread pushback from the public and policymakers alike.

If the Home Office gets its way in forcing an encryption backdoor, this will not only impact Apple’s millions of UK users, but the wider British and international public, as once encryption technologies have been breached, these tools will be permanently weakened. Encroaching encryption for anyone removes privacy protections for everyone, and that can never be undone.

There has been an ongoing battle between campaigners and the government surrounding encryption and online safety. How much privacy would you say the UK public has currently, and what do you think is the direction of travel under Labour?

We are in the midst of an unprecedented crossroads for privacy rights in the UK, with converging threats stemming from fallout of the Investigatory Powers Act such as this case, the most damaging provisions of the Online Safety Act now taking effect, and proliferation of the use of live facial recognition technology by the state and the private sector alike. These measures have all been enacted in the name of security with little regard for the permanent damage it causes to our most basic rights. As a result, we are now one of the most surveilled populations on the planet, which is nothing short of shocking for a democracy.

One of the most alarming aspects of this situation is that we frankly don’t know whether other tech companies have received or are already complying with similar notices from the Home Office. The Apple case only came to light through a leak to the Washington Post that would have been harshly prosecuted in the UK, with these types of notices issued in total secrecy per the Investigatory Powers Act. This draconian legislation is unfit for purpose and should be urgently reviewed with an eye to introducing rights-based safeguards.

The Government claims it just wants to be able to read criminals’ text messages to solve crime. Wouldn’t creating a backdoor for one create a backdoor for all?

It is simply not possible to crack encryption only to catch “the bad guys”, or to ensure that backdoors could only be accessed by legitimate authorities. Creating an encryption backdoor for anyone creates an encryption backdoor for everyone, which in turn could easily be exploited by criminals or malign foreign actors. Few people would be comfortable leaving the doors to their house unlocked for anyone who cares to take their chances, but the government is effectively marching us towards doing precisely that with our data. Police and security services have other means of accessing data or even physical devices.

Apple has reportedly made extraordinary efforts to give the Chinese Government access to its Chinese iPhone user’s data. Leaked documents also suggest the CIA has been surveilling US citizens’ iPhones for years. Why do you think Apple is so reluctant to give a back-door to the UK Government?

It is good to see Apple taking a stand in challenging this particular order, which has implications far beyond Apple’s own products. The UK government should give serious thought to why it is demanding measures akin to the compromises we have seen tech companies forced to make in China, which are unprecedented in like-minded democracies. Along with the increased use of other mass surveillance tools such as live facial recognition technology, this sets the UK apart in the worst possible way.

The Government has said that end-to-end encryption “overrides current controls in place that help to keep children safe and potentially poses a huge risk”. In prior years, counter-terrorism and counter-extremism were more often cited to justify incursions of privacy rights.

Do you think there is a degree of cynicism in the use of “child safety” as justification for similar restrictions?

While the Home Secretary and other officials have often attempted to justify privacy incursions by referring to the need to protect children online, it can also be argued that weakening encryption doesn’t make anyone safer. Rather, compromising data protection for the entire population serves to erode everyone’s most basic rights. It is imperative that laws, policies and practices aimed at ensuring public safety are designed with human rights protections at the very core, and that these rights are consistently safeguarded in practice.

From Rebecca Vincent, Deputy Director at the Citizens

The UK finds itself at a crossroads between public safety arguments and human rights. While the Home Office frames backdoor access as an essential tool to fight crime, civil liberties advocates argue that the long-term cost - a permanently monitored and therefore vulnerable population - is a price democracy can not afford. Whether Apple’s legal challenge succeeds or fails, the outcome will set a standard for privacy rights for years to come, with implications extending far beyond Britain’s borders.

Until next week,
Max & Charlie

About The Eye: In an era where Silicon Valley is rewriting the rules of governance and unaccountable tech companies are capturing our public services from the inside out, The Eye exists to follow the power, connect the dots and reveal how technology is reshaping our state.