Investigatory Powers Tribunal rejects Home Office arguments that identifying the ‘bare details’ of legal action by Apple would damage national security, leaving open possibility of future open court hearings
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has rejected government demands for complete secrecy over Apple’s legal challenge against a Home Office order requiring it to give UK law enforcement “backdoor” access to encrypted data stored by users of its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service.
The tribunal today rejected arguments from the Home Office that public disclosure of even the “bare details” of the involvement of Apple or the Home Office would be damaging to national security.
Following weeks of government officials refusing to confirm or deny the court action, the IPT confirmed that Apple has filed a complaint challenging the secretary of state’s powers to issue technical capability notices (TCNs) under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
The existence of the order, which was first reported by the , has raised tensions between the UK and the US, attracting criticism from Donald Trump and US lawmakers that the order will allow UK law enforcement access to the encrypted data of US citizens using Apple’s ADP service in the US and other countries.
The tribunal’s decision follows legal submissions from Computer Weekly jointly with nine media organisations, the Press Association, members of US Congress, and civil society groups Big Brother Watch, Privacy International and Liberty, “strongly arguing in favour of open justice” and against the case being heard in secret.
“There has been extensive media reporting to the effect that the United Kingdon government has signed a technical capability notice requiring the claimant to be able to maintain access to its users’ data in decrypted form, so that such data is available to be passed to the intelligence agencies,” the tribunal said.
In the ruling issued today, tribunal chairman Lord Justice Singh and Justice Johnson rejected Home Office arguments that disclosing the “bare details of the case” – including publicly acknowledging the identity of Apple and the Home Office – would damage national security or prejudice the public interest.
They did not rule on whether future hearings in the case would be held in open court but left open the possibility that it “may well be possible” for some or all future hearings into the case to incorporate a public element with or without reporting restriction.
Apple brought the case against the Home Office after it received a technical capability notice from the Home Office requiring it to extend existing UK law enforcement powers to access encrypted data stored by users on Apple’s iCloud to users of its Advanced Data Protection service.
Apple responded to the order in February by withdrawing ADP from users in the UK, in a move that was criticised as exposing UK citizens to greater cyber threats. “As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services, and we never will,” Apple said in a statement at the time.
