UK government extends cellphone ban during Cabinet meetings to Apple Watch
U.K. cabinet members have been prohibited from wearing Apple Watch during Cabinet meetings, over misplaced concern that they may be penetrated by Russian spies, and used for covert surveillance and recordings of sensitive government business.
The change in policy is directly linked to new U.K. Prime Minister and"Snooper's Charter" proponent Theresa May. First reported by The Telegraph, one source close to the decision claims that "the Russians are trying to hack everything," which led to the ban.
It is not clear if the ban extends to other smartwatches from other manufacturers, but it does appear to be an extension of the smartphone ban already in place while cabinet business is being conducted.
Under the previous Cameron administration, several cabinet members were spotted wearing the Apple Watch while performing official business, including the former justice secretary Michael Gove.
While a rogue Apple Watch app hosted on the App Store is a remote possibility, the user would have to both install it on the "host" phone, and then migrate it to the Apple Watch.
For the user to be completely unaware of the installation, the host iPhone would have to be remotely jailbroken, or stolen and returned, with the same Apple Watch app installation process taking place. In this case, however, the Apple Watch would likely need some sort of jailbreak as well to allow for the surreptitious installation and use of a monitoring app.
Jailbreaks of the Apple Watch are in their infancy, with the effort only seeing limited success in running non-Apple approved software.
Complicating the hack, recordings would have to be stored locally on the watch until the user returns to the vicinity of the phone, as smartphones have previously been barred from cabinet meetings. Additionally, a monitoring app constantly running on the Apple Watch would also be an enormous drain on the battery, noticeable by users.
While technically possible, it appears that May's opinion that the Apple Watch could be used as a covert listening device by foreign powers is off base at this time.
The change in policy is directly linked to new U.K. Prime Minister and"Snooper's Charter" proponent Theresa May. First reported by The Telegraph, one source close to the decision claims that "the Russians are trying to hack everything," which led to the ban.
It is not clear if the ban extends to other smartwatches from other manufacturers, but it does appear to be an extension of the smartphone ban already in place while cabinet business is being conducted.
Under the previous Cameron administration, several cabinet members were spotted wearing the Apple Watch while performing official business, including the former justice secretary Michael Gove.
Is covert monitoring through an Apple Watch possible?
While a rogue Apple Watch app hosted on the App Store is a remote possibility, the user would have to both install it on the "host" phone, and then migrate it to the Apple Watch.
For the user to be completely unaware of the installation, the host iPhone would have to be remotely jailbroken, or stolen and returned, with the same Apple Watch app installation process taking place. In this case, however, the Apple Watch would likely need some sort of jailbreak as well to allow for the surreptitious installation and use of a monitoring app.
Jailbreaks of the Apple Watch are in their infancy, with the effort only seeing limited success in running non-Apple approved software.
Complicating the hack, recordings would have to be stored locally on the watch until the user returns to the vicinity of the phone, as smartphones have previously been barred from cabinet meetings. Additionally, a monitoring app constantly running on the Apple Watch would also be an enormous drain on the battery, noticeable by users.
While technically possible, it appears that May's opinion that the Apple Watch could be used as a covert listening device by foreign powers is off base at this time.
Comments
They are different countries, you know...
.
Any wise security person knows that it is impossible to keep hackers out of something they are determined to get into. The goal is to make it hard enough that they go elsewhere...
They are also broadcast and recorded in the publication Hansard.
Where phones and watched etc are banned is in Cabinet meetings where all sorts of top secret and non policy things are discussed.
These are two very different arenas and I can fully understand the reason for the ban in Cabinet meetings. After all, you don't want Putin listening in on every discussion that goes on in the Oval Office now do you?
{Pehaps he already does....????}
This is not a criticism of Apple, or any other manufacturer, just a prudent control. The devices would attract the attention of the best-resourced attackers (excepting, of course, NSA <cough>) and present a top grade information theft threat to the UK. Even without recent events around sophisticated, and successful, attacks from state-supported (presumably) actors on iOS and macOS (Trident), this would be sensible.
You also have to assume ignorance and naivety from the users about security (that's no a dig at the politicians, it's just reality for most non-techies); the rules must address that reality. To indicate the naivety, several years ago we had a senior counter-terrorism officer carry a sensitive paper document into Downing Street in full view. He clearly didn't understand the technology in the press photographers' cameras: once they viewed the photos at full resolution, they could read the whole page include the classification of 'Secret' at the top of the page! See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/09/bob-quick-terror-raids-leak
What guarantee do any of us have that there isn't a back door into the iPhone or Watch apart from Apple's public statement and some angry and very public complaints from the NSA?
Similarly, how long was the 'goto fail' flaw known about by security experts and covert agencies before it went public? It wouldn't have been hard to find in the published source code by a motivated team of experts.
I'd be horrified if any government or military organisation allowed any such device into any sensitive meeting.
I work in content protection where we take any possibility of a security breach very seriously and that's just to protect a few films and cartoons...
Not really British-ish, just the affected accent of a Sydney Grammar boy with pretentions. The locals probably thought he sounded like Dick Van Dyke when he was at Oxford.
I'm surprised he didn't spring for an Edition, though.
Really? I heard that he didn't. At least I think that was what they meant. It might have just been his policies that had the putrid odour of fermented shit about them.