A clandestine court session focusing on iCloud encryption commenced on Friday, inciting demands in both the UK and the US for public disclosure of the proceedings.
The UK government is insisting that Apple establish backdoor access, not only for the personal information of British citizens but for all iCloud users globally …
The UK Government’s Global Assault on ADP
By default, certain iCloud data is safeguarded with weak encryption, wherein Apple retains a copy of the key and can be obligated to share data with governments upon receiving a court directive. In contrast, some data is fortified with strong encryption, where only the iCloud user and their devices possess the key.
Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) is a privacy feature enabling Apple users to activate end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for nearly all their iCloud data. When ADP is turned on, Apple loses access to the data and cannot fulfill any governmental requests.
The demand from the UK government would necessitate Apple to dismantle ADP. Rather than capitulating, Apple discontinued the service for users in the UK while appealing the directive.
The Covert Hearing About the Covert Order
A particularly troubling element of the British legislation at play is that the directives issued to tech giants remain confidential, and any appeals against them are likewise concealed.
As previously mentioned, Apple ingeniously found a way to shed light on the matter.
It would have been unlawful for Apple to inform the public that it was ordered to develop backdoor access to ADP. Instead, the company discreetly declared that it was withdrawing ADP from the UK, without clarifying the rationale behind this decision.
This message was unequivocal. Essentially, “we are unable to disclose that the British government instructed us to create a backdoor into ADP, nor that we declined to do so.”
Apple was also prohibited from disclosing its appeal against the order, yet that information somehow emerged publicly as well.
Journalists from the UK were present outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday, but they were barred from entering the courtroom.
Objections Raised in the UK and the US
Engadget reports numerous complaints have been lodged on both sides of the Atlantic.
British news outlets (including the BBC, Reuters, Financial Times, The Guardian, and others) have also expressed grievances to the IPT, asserting that the case should be discussed in a public forum. Similarly, advocacy groups such as Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, and the Open Rights Group have echoed these concerns.
The Financial Times indicates that Privacy International and Liberty have submitted a joint complaint as well.
“The UK’s deployment of a secret directive to compromise the security of individuals worldwide is unacceptable and disproportionate,” stated Caroline Wilson Palow, legal director at Privacy International, to The FT. “People globally rely on end-to-end encryption to shield themselves from harassment and oppression. No nation should possess the authority to weaken that protection for all.”
In the US, five Congressional members have made a bipartisan request for the hearing to be opened to public inquiry.
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., have today called for transparency from the UK’s highest surveillance court regarding the UK government’s alleged order for Apple to develop a backdoor to encrypted iCloud backups to facilitate governmental surveillance of messages, photos, and other files […]
This bipartisan coalition urged the court to “lift the veil of secrecy” surrounding the directive and to render this hearing and any subsequent proceedings in the case public. They emphasized that concealing details in this instance is redundant, given that the order has already been widely circulated and discussed, and that Apple withdrew its encryption service for UK users last month.
DMN’s Perspective
As stated in the open letter, this hearing has become one of the most widely known “secrets” in the tech industry. It is both unreasonable and futile to conduct such a significant privacy hearing behind closed doors.
Photo by Saif71.com on Unsplash
