Lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic are demanding transparency as Apple fights a secret government order to weaken encryption.
DIDI RANKOVIC
UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal is facing more pressure to lift the secrecy provisions around the Home Office’s order to build an encryption backdoor into Apple’s iCloud Advanced Data Protection.
The key demand is to make the secret order (Technical Capability Notice, TNC), as well as the hearings stemming from it public – considering the extent of the public interest regarding this instance of government-forced encryption weakening.
A hearing on the issue took place today, with no details being shared with the public.
A group of Democrat and Republican members of the US Senate and the House have penned a letter asking for an end to “secrecy” surrounding the huge controversy.
Although the order itself prohibits Apple from even confirming that the company received the TNC, it has become public knowledge that this happened, that encryption protections for UK users have already been removed, and that the tech giant is attempting to reverse this in closed-door proceedings before the Tribunal.
Members of Congress want to see transparency around this Friday’s hearing and all subsequent hearings in the UK, in Apple’s case or that affecting any other US company.
“Secret court hearings featuring intelligence agencies and a handful of individuals approved by them do not enable robust challenges on highly technical matters,” the letter states.
This is negatively impacting the ability of Congress to carry out oversight, and threatens Americans’ security and privacy, the US lawmakers say.
In the UK itself, privacy and free speech campaigners, as well as some politicians and parties have spoken out against the government’s actions.
“If the Home Office wants to have effectively unfettered access to the private data of the general public, they should explain their case in front of the public,” Conservative MP Sir David Davis said.
Similar sentiments are being voiced by representatives of Liberal Democrats and Reform UK. Meanwhile, Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, and Open Rights Group also wrote to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and its president, Lord Justice Rabinder Singh, asking for the case involving Apple to be made public.
According to the letter, it “implicates the privacy rights of millions of British citizens who use Apple’s technology, as well as Apple’s international users” – meaning that an issue of such significant public interest must not be dealt with in secret.
Privacy International has gone a step further and filed a complaint against the use of the secret TNC orders, described by the group as “dangerous, disproportionate and intrusive surveillance powers” that “undermine the privacy and security of people all over the world.”
This article (The Fight to Expose the UK’s Secret War on Privacy) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Didi Rankovic
See Related Article Below
Yvette Cooper accused of undermining UK-US special relationship in Apple spying row
Critics attack ‘cloak of secrecy’ surrounding order that Apple install iPhone back door
JAMES TITCOMB
US politicians have said the special relationship is being undermined by a “cloak of secrecy” around Yvette Cooper’s order that Apple install an iPhone back door.
Five members of Congress have written to Lord Justice Singh, the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), urging British officials to lift a gagging order ahead of Apple challenging the order.
On Friday, Apple will appeal against a technical capability notice issued by the Home Secretary demanding the company break the advanced data protection (ADP) feature that encrypts iPhone backups.
The IPT hearing is scheduled to be held in secret, and the tribunal has not acknowledged that it relates to Apple.
Disclosing back-door orders is illegal under UK surveillance laws. The existence of the Home Office order and Apple’s appeal has only emerged through media reports and the company’s own decision to remove ADP for British users.
The letter, signed by Democrat senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla along with House of Representatives members Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, and Republicans Andy Biggs and Warren Davidson, urges the judge to “apply the principles of open justice” to Friday’s hearing.
‘Infringes on free speech’
“We write to request the IPT remove the cloak of secrecy related to notices given to American technology companies by the United Kingdom, which infringes on free speech and privacy, undermines important United States Congress and UK parliamentary oversight, harms national security, and ultimately, undermines the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom,” it reads.
“The existence of the technical capabilities notice has been widely reported and commented on, making any argument for a closed hearing on this very existence unsustainable.”
The letter said Britain was “violating the free speech rights of US companies” by preventing them from disclosing the existence of back-door orders.
“The UK’s attempted gag has already restricted US companies from engaging in speech that is constitutionally protected under US law,” it said.
“We urge you to permit US companies to discuss the technical demands they have received from the UK under the Investigatory Powers Act with Congress”
Ms Cooper’s order, issued in January, has led to escalating criticism from US politicians. Donald Trump has compared the order to “something that you hear about with China”. His national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard has called the order “egregious” and vowed to investigate whether it is legal under US-UK data treaties.
‘Gravely disappointed’
Apple’s ADP feature, introduced in 2022, allows users to protect iPhone backups such as messages and photos with end-to-end encryption, meaning the company and security services are unable to access it. Users must opt in to the feature.
The tech giant blocked users from activating the feature last month, saying it was “gravely disappointed” at the situation. However, this does not free the company from the order, which can apply to overseas users.
The Home Office has refused to comment on the existence of the order, but Dan Jarvis, the security minister, has told MPs that it can only use surveillance powers on an “exceptional basis, and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so”.
The Telegraph: continue reading
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply