British officials are engaged in confidential discussions with their US counterparts to address concerns regarding the UK’s requests for access to encrypted data held by Apple Inc., as reported by sources familiar with the situation.
These high-level talks were initiated following Apple’s decision to remove a sophisticated encrypted security feature for its cloud services in the UK. This action was taken in response to a directive from British authorities in January, which requested that the company enable access to encrypted data to assist with certain national security and criminal investigations.
In response to these developments, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for an investigation last month, expressing apprehension over what she described as a “clear and egregious violation of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.” Gabbard raised alarms about the potential implications of providing a backdoor for accessing Apple users’ data, warning that it could create significant vulnerabilities for cybersecurity threats from hostile entities.
Apple’s legal appeal against the UK order will be debated in a private session at London’s High Court this Friday, according to reports from the BBC. The secrecy surrounding the hearing is due to its ties to national security matters.
Neither Apple nor Gabbard’s office provided immediate comments when approached for a response.
Behind the scenes, senior officials from both the UK and the US have been in discussions, with the UK initiating the talks to clarify misunderstandings regarding their intentions. British representatives asserted that the government seeks not unrestricted access to personal data, but instead, would only request data pertaining to severe crimes like terrorism and child sexual abuse. Furthermore, each request would require individual warrants, and would focus exclusively on UK-based criminals, rather than US citizens.
The rights of American citizens are protected under the UK-US Data Access Agreement established in 2019, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.
A spokesperson for the UK Home Office stated that the agency does not comment on operational matters but reiterated that the UK maintains a longstanding commitment to protect its citizens from serious crimes, ensuring that privacy is also upheld.
Meanwhile, Apple’s action to withdraw its encryption feature instead of complying with the government’s request has been interpreted as a strong rebuke. The company has repeatedly affirmed its policy against creating backdoors or master keys for its products and services.
Recently, human rights organizations Liberty and Privacy International have sought to join Apple in contesting the UK order during the upcoming hearing. Caroline Wilson Palow, Privacy International’s legal director, voiced concerns that the UK’s actions would compromise user security and stated that the legal challenge aims to expose this misuse of power.
Palow emphasized that end-to-end encryption safeguards individuals against harassment and oppression, arguing that no country should have the power to weaken those protections globally.
Additionally, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers has called on the presiding UK court to lift a “gag order” that they claim is infringing upon free speech rights of US companies and obstructing Congress’s oversight responsibilities regarding national security issues.
The lawmakers highlighted the intricate technical issues at stake and the potential national security risks associated with compromising cybersecurity defenses. They urged that any UK demands placed on Apple and other US firms undergo thorough public analysis and debate by cybersecurity experts.
The UK’s order requires Apple to grant access to user data under the Investigatory Powers Act, which empowers officials to compel companies to eliminate encryption via a “technical capability notice.” Moreover, this law prohibits companies from disclosing when they have received such government directives.
Apple has consistently defended its encryption practices, asserting that they are essential for protecting individuals from unlawful surveillance, identity theft, and fraud. The technology is also crucial for safeguarding the information of journalists, human rights defenders, and diplomats who may be at risk from malicious actors, the company has stated.
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P.
