Apple urges UK to rethink anti-encryption Online Safety Bill
Apple has denounced the UK's Online Safety Bill's kneecapping of end-to-end encryption as a "serious threat" to citizens, and is trying to make the UK government think twice about the changes.
UK Houses of Parliament
The Online Safety Bill is being considered by the UK parliament as a potential law that could force online messaging services that use encryption to scan for potential images of child abuse. As part of a wider criticism of the bill's intentions, Apple has publicly objected to the law's implementation.
The bill reasons that law enforcement is not capable of identifying child sexual abuse material being shared across online messaging services like iMessage, due to the implementation of end-to-end encryption. Therefore, the law would empower regulator Ofcom to order such platforms to scan the contents of messages.
However, to accomplish that, there has to be a weakening of end-to-end encryption itself, making it less secure and eliminating the whole point of using the technique for privacy in the first place.
"End-to-end encryption is a critical capability that protects the privacy of journalists, human rights activists, and diplomats," an Apple statement received by the BBC on Tuesday reads. "It also helps everyday citizens defend themselves from surveillance, identity theft, fraud, and data breaches."
The statement continues "The Online Safety Bill poses a serious threat to this protection, and could put UK citizens at greater risk. Apple urges the government to amend the bill to protect strong end-to-end encryption for the benefit of all."
Apple's statement occurs at the same time as the Open Rights Group sends an open letter to minister Chloe Smith, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation, and Technology.
Signed by over 80 civil society organizations and academics, the group believes "The UK could become the first liberal democracy to require the routine scanning of people's private chat messages, including chats that are secured by end-to-end encryption" if the bill becomes law.
"As over 40 million UK citizens and 2 billion people worldwide rely on these services, this poses a significant risk to the security of digital communication services not only in the UK, but also internationally," the letter warns.
Apple's statement against the Online Safety Bill means it joins other messaging services who are against the bill. The Meta-owned WhatsApp told the BBC it refuses to weaken its encrypted systems, while Signal said in February that it would "walk" from the UK if ordered to do the scanning.
While Apple is against the bill, it has previously attempted to perform actions that would be somewhat in the ballpark of what the bill would require it to do. Its 2021 attempt to introduce on-device scanning of images as a child protection measure was praised by the UK government, but was ultimately killed off by Apple in December 2022.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Those that pretend not to understand are the ones that wish to do great harm to society.
Society is not easy and Governments should not be allowed to infringe upon any citizens or even a non-citizen's, right to privacy.
SO GLAD we left UK in 1648.
!!! NOBODY !!! SHOULD HAVE ALL THE KEYS TO ALL THE CASTLES !!!! - nobody.
Absolute power brings absolute corruption!
People are weird. Apple had the better solution all along.
I'm not sure why this would cause confusion.
Ironically, victims of child sex abuse are being exploited by lawmakers who want to end privacy.
The quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," is popularly understood as a declaration about the importance of civil liberties and as a warning against giving up freedom in exchange for security.
However, the historical context of the quote is a bit more nuanced. It comes from a 1755 letter that Franklin, then serving as a Pennsylvania assemblyman, wrote on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during a time of frontier war. The letter was a response to the governor's refusal to allow the Assembly to tax the lands of the Penn family, who ruled Pennsylvania from afar, for war expenses. Instead, the governor proposed that the Assembly give up its power to tax in exchange for funds to ensure frontier security. In this context, "essential liberty" refers to the Assembly's power to levy taxes, and "a little temporary safety" pertains to the financial aid for frontier defense.
Thus, Franklin's quote was a criticism of the governor's proposal and a defense of the Assembly's political power. Over time, the quote has been abstracted from its specific historical context and widely used in discussions about civil liberties, privacy, and security.
I highly suggest you read Edward Snowdon's book before casting criticism of other country's alleged lack of "freedom".
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You're just typing BS from your emotional response to this bill, which again, is NOT aimed at encryption.
Damn you're so confused, aren't you? Well I guess maybe not so much confused as completely lacking any actual knowledge of this topic whatsoever.
Also, calm down.
No, anonymouse is exactly correct. Of course the law isn't explicitly purposed to end encryption, that would expose their agenda. But whatever the stated purpose, the intended effect is to eliminate end-to-end encryption, or weaken it unto uselessness, so that governments can have access to citizens' private communication, "just in case", and "for their own protection". CSAM is just the excuse they're using to justify it.
See how calling out fallacies can be a slippery slope of its own?
But just for you guys who are claiming there is nothing to see here, from the article,
Apple's plan to detect CSAM was limited to images uploaded to iCloud, and had absolutely nothing to do with images transmitted via iMessage that were not uploaded to iCloud. Anyone arguing that this is not a poorly disguised attack on end-to-end encryption generally is either engaged in wishful thinking or simply hasn't been paying attention to the attacks on end-to-end encryption engaged in by multiple governments, including that of the UK.
And, we see how effective it is to cite child sex abuse as the target of such laws; it's such an emotional subject that some of you have already suspended all rational thinking.
I think the majority of our disagreement stems from the fact that you are taking this particular AppleInsider article as 100% factual and accurate. We both know AI gets all sorts of stuff wrong almost on a daily basis. The quote you pulled here from the article is pure opinion and speculation. Again, perhaps actually reading the proposed law, or a writeup from an actual expert on the matter could provided clarity. If done correctly, this law allows an implementation that would not weaken end-to-end encryption.