In a major U-turn, the UK shelves its demand to access Apple users' data globally!

 

The US director of national intelligence has revealed that the UK has withdrawn its controversial request for a "back door" to access encrypted data of Apple users worldwide. This abrupt reversal followed concerns that the move could infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens.

 

Tulsi Gabbard stated that the UK agreed to drop its demand, which would have compromised the security of encrypted data, provoking outrage among privacy advocates. Despite this development, Apple has not received any official communication from the UK or US governments.

 

A spokesperson from the UK government avoided discussing operational specifics but highlighted ongoing security collaborations with the US to tackle threats such as terrorism and child exploitation facilitated by advancing technology.

Last December, the UK had formally demanded Apple to allow access to encrypted data globally, a requirement that clashed with Apple's commitment to user privacy. Apple cannot access customer data when users activate Advanced Data Protection (ADP).

 

Firm in its stance, Apple declared, "We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services, and we never will." In defiance, Apple withdrew ADP from the UK and initiated a legal challenge, scheduled for hearing in 2026.

The continuation of this tribunal remains uncertain, leaving many questions unanswered. Due to the secrecy surrounding the government order, it is unknown if other tech firms received similar demands. WhatsApp has confirmed that it hasn't been approached.

 

The news has incited cautious optimism among privacy campaigners who decried the UK’s initial demand. Sam Grant from the civil rights group Liberty called the potential backdoor "reckless," warning it endangered both personal and national security, particularly putting politicians and minority groups at risk.

 

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, expressed worries about the UK's enduring powers to attack encryption, which remain a significant threat to user security.

 

The existing US-UK Data Access Agreement allows data sharing for law enforcement purposes but highlights the delicate balance between security and privacy. The privacy community continues to watch closely, wary of any future attempts to infringe on encrypted communication services.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-08-19

 

 

Good.

 

The UK putting it's citizens at risk in order to "Big Brother" them into submission was a disgusting development.

 

People need to stand up to Stalin, sorry I mean Starmer and his authoritarian fantasy utopia. 1984 was a warning Keir, not an instruction manual.  

 

 

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Good.

 

The UK putting it's citizens at risk in order to "Big Brother" them into submission was a disgusting development.

 

People need to stand up to Stalin, sorry I mean Starmer and his authoritarian fantasy utopia. 1984 was a warning Keir, not an instruction manual.  

 

 

People who wish to put British citizens at real risk will be glad to hear the US Government and Apple have their backs. 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

People who wish to put British citizens at real risk will be glad to hear the US Government and Apple have their backs. 

 

By refusing to allow a "back door" to access their encrypted data?

 

I guess cyber security is not your forte. 😃

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

By refusing to allow a "back door" to access their encrypted data?

 

I guess cyber security is not your forte. 😃

Using encryption to commit crimes isn’t.

 

Mind at least the law includes prison penalties for those refusing to open lawful requests to provide passwords to police, customs and security services.

 

As I believe one of your mentors has found out to his cost.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Mind at least the law includes prison penalties for those refusing to open lawful requests to provide passwords to police, customs and security services.

 

You mean empowering the state to spy on and invade the privacy of it's citizens, a power which will naturally be used on a 2 tier basis like everything else under Labour.

 

I'm not the least bit surprised you would encourage and support such totalitarianism.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Using encryption to commit crimes isn’t.

 

Mind at least the law includes prison penalties for those refusing to open lawful requests to provide passwords to police, customs and security services.

 

As I believe one of your mentors has found out to his cost.

 

 

In the UK, police cannot force you to provide your phone passcode without a court order. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Section 49, police can request a passcode during an investigation (e.g., for serious crimes like sexual offenses or terrorism.

Police must present evidence that a crime has been committed or is under investigation (e.g., serious offenses like terrorism, drug trafficking, or child indecency). The judge must be satisfied there’s reasonable suspicion and that accessing the device is necessary for the investigation. Without such evidence, a notice won’t be issued.

 

The UK reportedly backed down from demanding Apple provide a "back door" to access encrypted user data under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, following pushback from Apple and US officials, including Tulsi Gabbard, who cited civil liberties concerns (BBC, August 19, 2025).

34 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

In the UK, police cannot force you to provide your phone passcode without a court order. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Section 49, police can request a passcode during an investigation (e.g., for serious crimes like sexual offenses or terrorism.

Police must present evidence that a crime has been committed or is under investigation (e.g., serious offenses like terrorism, drug trafficking, or child indecency). The judge must be satisfied there’s reasonable suspicion and that accessing the device is necessary for the investigation. Without such evidence, a notice won’t be issued.

 

The UK reportedly backed down from demanding Apple provide a "back door" to access encrypted user data under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, following pushback from Apple and US officials, including Tulsi Gabbard, who cited civil liberties concerns (BBC, August 19, 2025).

As in ‘lawful requests’?

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Mind at least the law includes prison penalties for those refusing to open lawful requests to provide passwords to police, customs and security services.

 

 

So the NSA definitely does not have backdoor access? 

Seeing as US immigration sometimes asks visitors to the USA to unlock their phones for a check seems a little suspicious.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As in ‘lawful requests’?

 

 

Correct, the point is the cops need a court order, to get that, the Police must present evidence that a crime has been committed or is under investigation (e.g., serious offenses like terrorism, drug trafficking, or child indecency).

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

You mean empowering the state to spy on and invade the privacy of it's citizens, a power which will naturally be used on a 2 tier basis like everything else under Labour.

 

I'm not the least bit surprised you would encourage and support such totalitarianism.

 

 

 

I don't support this demand but neither do I think that it would have only targeted the indigenous, white, working-class males of the UK as you probably do.

 

As I said yesterday, your sense of grievance knows no bounds.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I don't support this demand but neither do I think that it would have only targeted the indigenous, white, working-class males of the UK as you probably do.

 

As I said yesterday, your sense of grievance knows no bounds.

 

I suppose you deny the existence of the 2 tier sentencing guidelines which stipulated a PSR for pretty much every group except white males as well?

 

Even though they were published on the government's own website? 😄

 

I know you love an argument Ray, but denying things that are there in black and white just makes you look a bit silly. 

  

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I suppose you deny the existence of the 2 tier sentencing guidelines which stipulated a PSR for pretty much every group except white males as well?

 

Even though they were published on the government's own website? 😄

 

The 'Sentencing Guidelines' were proposed by an independent body, The Sentencing Council. They are, as the name suggests, guidelines not laws. 

 

This Labour government has voiced its' opposition to the guidelines and asked the Sentencing Council to reconsider. What more do you want them to do? Legislate against the Council? No doubt  you'd be then be complaining about political inference and the restriction on the freedom of expression.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

I know you love an argument Ray, but denying things that are there in black and white just makes you look a bit silly. 

  

 

I'm not the one who sets the tone for these exchanges, Jonny. You (almost) inevitably couch your posts in inflammatory language from the word go.

 

I'm also not the one looking foolish here by not knowing the facts.

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The 'Sentencing Guidelines' were proposed by an independent body, The Sentencing Council. They are, as the name suggests, guidelines not laws. 

 

This Labour government has voiced its' opposition to the guidelines and asked the Sentencing Council to reconsider. What more do you want them to do? Legislate against the Council? No doubt  you'd be then be complaining about political inference and the restriction on the freedom of expression.

 

 

I'm not the one who sets the tone for these exchanges, Jonny. You (almost) inevitably couch your posts in inflammatory language from the word go.

 

I'm also not the one looking foolishly here by not knowing the facts.

 

Here's one you can hold against me, @JonnyF. 

 

I'm left with egg on my face. The government did legislate against the sentencing guidelines.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-legislation-to-block-new-sentencing-guidelines

 

Cue rant about political interference, infringement of civil liberties, etc.

57 minutes ago, RayC said:

This Labour government has voiced its' opposition to the guidelines and asked the Sentencing Council to reconsider.

 

Strange, when it was DEI Lammy's and his racist recommendations all over this debacle.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14471355/Two-tier-justice-minorities-softer-sentences-David-Lammy.html

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/softer-sentencing-minority-uk-prisoners-david-lammy-6h2s6djgn

 

On 8/20/2025 at 11:11 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Strange, when it was DEI Lammy's and his racist recommendations all over this debacle.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14471355/Two-tier-justice-minorities-softer-sentences-David-Lammy.html

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/softer-sentencing-minority-uk-prisoners-david-lammy-6h2s6djgn

 

 

(Apologies for the delay in replying).

 

What's strange? As you are no doubt aware, we have a system of cabinet government in the UK. Lammy is only one member of the cabinet. Obviously in this case, the cabinet as a whole took a different view to him, hence why legislation was introduced.

 

Who knows, it is also possible that Lammy may have changed his mind? To quote one of your favourite politicians, "I've changed my mind. It is allowed you know"