The UK government issued a secret Technical Capability Notice demanding Apple create backdoors into its encrypted iCloud services globally. Rather than comply, Apple completely removed its Advanced Data Protection encryption feature from UK users in February 2025. Over 109 civil society organisations condemned the order, while US officials compared the UK’s actions to Chinese surveillance methods. The case represents a landmark battle over encryption rights with global implications.
The Secret Government OrderIn early 2025, the UK Home Office issued a Technical Capability Notice under the Investigatory Powers Act, demanding that Apple provide backdoor access to its Advanced Data Protection system. This encryption system protects users’ iCloud data so thoroughly that even Apple cannot access it, making it a prime target for law enforcement agencies seeking to bypass constitutional protections for digital privacy.
The secret nature of the order meant that Apple was legally prohibited from revealing its existence or discussing the government’s demands publicly. This gag order provision demonstrates how the UK’s surveillance laws operate in shadows, allowing government agencies to make extraordinary demands on technology companies while preventing public scrutiny or democratic oversight of these powers.
Apple’s Unprecedented Response
Rather than compromise the security of its encryption systems, Apple took the dramatic step of completely removing the Advanced Data Protection feature from UK users on February 21, 2025. This marked the first time a major technology company had withdrawn advanced security features from an entire country rather than create government backdoors, setting a precedent for corporate resistance to state surveillance demands.
The removal affects millions of UK users who can no longer enable user-controlled end-to-end encryption for their iCloud Drive, iCloud Backup, Photos, Notes, and other sensitive data stored in Apple’s cloud services. UK users are now uniquely vulnerable compared to users in other countries who retain access to Apple’s strongest encryption protections.
International Condemnation of The Online Safety Act 2025
Over 109 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts published a joint letter condemning the UK’s actions as a threat to global cybersecurity. The letter stated: “This demand jeopardizes the security and privacy of millions, undermines the UK tech sector, and sets a dangerous precedent for global cybersecurity“.
International diplomatic tensions have emerged as the UK’s extraterritorial surveillance demands affect users and companies worldwide. The European Court of Human Rights previously ruled that requiring degraded end-to-end encryption cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society, directly contradicting the UK’s approach.
Trump Compares UK Safety Act To Chinese Surveillance
US President Trump compared the UK’s treatment of Apple to Chinese surveillance methods, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ordered a legal review citing concerns about potential violations of the US-UK Cloud Act Agreement. The comparison to authoritarian surveillance practices represents a devastating diplomatic blow to the UK’s international reputation on digital rights.
US lawmakers have complained that the secrecy surrounding Technical Capability Notices “impedes Congress’s power to conduct oversight, including by barring U.S. companies from disclosing foreign orders that threaten Americans’ privacy and cybersecurity.” This constitutional concern highlights how UK surveillance laws interfere with American democratic processes.
The Legal Challenge
Apple has reportedly challenged the Technical Capability Notice in secret court proceedings, though the company cannot publicly acknowledge the legal action due to the Investigatory Powers Act’s gag order provisions. The Internet Society and other organizations have filed requests to provide expert evidence on the privacy and security implications of government backdoor demands.
The precedent-setting nature of this case extends far beyond Apple, as it will determine whether democratic governments can force technology companies to systematically weaken encryption for all users worldwide. The outcome will influence how other countries approach encryption regulation and corporate resistance to surveillance demands.
Security Backdoors Create Systemic Vulnerabilities That Could Be Exploited
Encryption experts argue that creating selective backdoors for law enforcement is technically impossible without creating systemic vulnerabilities that can be exploited by criminals and foreign adversaries. The mathematical reality of encryption means that any weakness created for government access inherently weakens security for all users, regardless of government promises about limited use.
The global nature of digital services means that encryption backdoors created for UK law enforcement would necessarily affect users worldwide, raising questions about democratic legitimacy when one country’s surveillance demands compromise security for users who have no voice in that country’s political process.
Online Platforms Under Pressure
Meta Platforms has stated that it would rather have its WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger services blocked in the UK than weaken encryption standards. Signal has similarly threatened to withdraw from the UK market rather than compromise its encryption, setting up potential conflicts that could leave UK users cut off from secure communication platforms.
The escalating corporate resistance demonstrates that the UK’s approach may ultimately force users to choose between accessing popular platforms and living under government surveillance, potentially creating a two-tier internet where UK users have access only to compromised, government-monitored services.
Related Resources:
- Global Encryption Coalition – International encryption advocacy
- Apple Privacy Information – Company privacy policies and features
- Internet Society Analysis – Technical analysis of encryption policy
- Privacy International – UK surveillance law criticism
- Investigatory Powers Act Text – Full legislative text