UK's iPhone spying backdoor demand sparks bipartisan US lawmaker anger
US lawmakers want Britain to drop its demand for a backdoor into iOS, and say that if they don't, America should cut down intelligence sharing with the country.
UK Parliament
Both Republican and Democrat committee members claim that Britain's demand for Apple to give it full access to user data imperils Americans. Even if other bad actors were somehow unable to use the backdoor, the UK government would be able to read previously encrypted data from any user, including ones in the US.
According to The Washington Post, bipartisan members of congressional oversight committees have written to Tulsi Gabbard, the new National Intelligence Director about the issue. Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Andy Biggs, a Republican on the House Judiciary committee, have asked her to demand that the UK rescinds its order.
"If Apple is forced to build a backdoor in its products, that backdoor will end up in Americans' phones, tablets, and computers undermining the security of Americans' data, as well as of the countless federal, state and local government agencies that entrust sensitive data to Apple products."
"The US government must not permit what is effectively a foreign cyberattack waged through political means," they said. "If the UK does not immediately reverse this dangerous effort, we urge you to reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK."
The UK has neither confirmed nor denied that it has made this demand of Apple -- and it doesn't have to. Under British law, the UK government is allowed to compel companies to provide what's called technical cooperation, and those firms may not disclose that they have even been asked.
More, Apple can appeal the order -- and doubtlessly is already doing so -- but in theory it still has to implement the demand immediately. There is no delaying a response while an appeal is underway, and Apple would also be legally prohibited from even telling UK users what has happened.
Consequently, Apple has not commented on the UK demand since it was made. But the demand followed a 2024 Parliamentary debate which gave the UK this authority, and Apple did object at the time.
"There is no reason why the UK should have the authority to decide for citizens of the world whether they can avail themselves of the proven security benefits that flow from end-to-end encryption," Apple said in a statement in 2024.
While the current UK government is refusing to comment, a former chief executive of the country's own National Cyber Security Center has spoken out against the order.
"Most experts in the democratic world agree that what the UK is proposing would weaken digital security for everyone," said Ciaran Martin, "not just in the UK, but worldwide."
Director Gabbard has yet to publicly respond to the lawmakers' letter. However, those lawmakers noted that she did agree during her confirmation hearing that such backdoors "can undermine Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and civil liberties."
It's common in the UK for whichever government is in power to speak of what's called its "special relationship" with the US. That term doesn't tend to get used in US, but America did previously see the UK as an ally in the European Union.
The UK is no longer in the European Union. It's not known if Brexit affected the EU's sharing of intelligence data with the UK, but the US stopping or cutting down sharing is a serious threat.
It could mean that the land of James Bond would have intentionally chosen to have its intelligence services crippled. Twice.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
"The US government must not permit what is effectively a foreign cyberattack waged through political means," they said. "If the UK does not immediately reverse this dangerous effort, we urge you to reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK."
The US isn't in a position to permit or not permit anything outside its sovereign territory but seeing its current president wade into the Ukraine problem (negotiating without consultation with allies) and then hearing Hegseth say the US didn't not have Europe as a primary security focus it is crystal clear that 'America First' means everyone else should roll up their collective sleeves for their collective arms to be twisted or broken if they don't follows 'oders'.
Cowboy Diplomacy.
This from the country that promotes 'clean' networks and yet would love to have its own backdoors installed across the board. The same country that created PRISM and was on the Cypto AG train.
Perhaps the UK should just say no to the threats and shut down intelligence sharing. It was always a two-way setup anyway. Let's see how the US does by going it alone. Maybe Canada could do the same. And Australia. Any country suffering threats.
The threats to the UK were the same over Chinese companies and ICT infrastructure.
The UK is wrong in its requirements but the solution is for Apple to appeal and pull out if it isn't happy with the demands.
Threats are the new normal in Washington and I think the allies need to pushback with threats of their own. It's the only language Trump understands and no doubt 'allies' are making their opinions heard behind closed doors at the NATO meeting today and on the sidelines for non-Nato issues.
Public EU commentary (although measured due to diplomatic protocol) makes it clear that no one is happy with Trump's latest moves.
Although tongue-in-cheek, the recent comments floated around Canada applying to join the EU, could actually be used for some short term leverage. At least until Trump has 'left the building'.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Twas ever so with any legislature or government.
Or has the EU protested against the UK demands?
Hypothetically, maybe. That would have to be seen.
Personally, I am against any such moves for backdoor access to encrypted content like the UK is claimed to have introduced.
The EU situation has nothing to do with the UK situation as nothing has actually happened in the EU.
All you point to is a leaked document (which is a survey) of some EU states' ideas on the subject of CSAM and from what I can tell, those documents were drafted by a law enforcement group:
"The leaked document contains the position of members of the police Law Enforcement Working Party, a group of the Council of the European Union that deals with law".
Should we be surprised they think like that?
From a 'survey' drawn up from the results of one group (with a vested interest in some kinds of access to data) to getting a law similar to that of the UK passed there is a huge divide.
Especially as any such law would probably end up at the ECJ.
As the Wired article states, this is a years old debate that won't go away any time soon but is not, in any way, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
'What ifs'? I don't see that as relevant to the case today.
Yeah, I don't trust this current US govt at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they intend to secretly do the exact same thing or worse.
I've always trusted the security of Apple products, but as Tim Cook has said many times, Apple follows the laws in the countries where it operates (and obviously they have to). That means that Apple is only as trustworthy as the government in your country. I recently downloaded Signal for the first time.