Snoopgate: Apple's Privacy Fight with the UK must play in public

Copyright © HT Digital Streams Limit all rights reserved. Parmy Olson 4 min Read 24 Aug 2025, 03:30 pm that Tulsi Gabbard said the UK is not securing users. (Bloomberg) Summary Everyone should hear about London’s absurd ‘Snooper’s Charter’ Backdoor claims intended to keep under casing. A court fight would have assured it, even if Apple had lost. That US spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard, said London had backed up, users did not ensure. You can’t blame Tulsi Gabbard for trying. The US Director of National Intelligence announced last week that Britain finally demands the outrageous that Apple gives it a back door to user data. It looks like a win for US technical giants and advocates for privacy, but it’s not that simple. Even if the British government dropped its request, it could still issue other “technical capabilities” notifications that demand that technical firms share information about their users, who may not say they have received. The real problem is bad privacy legislation in the UK, and the best way to solve it is not through political interference, but in court. Gabbard’s verdict on X looks good on his face. This followed extensive negotiations with British officials, but this can make a much -needed change to the law less likely. Also read: Apple’s UK Run: Privacy can matter less to its clients than he thinks that the UK issued the order in early 2025, arguing that the private data of the citizens was a price worth paying criminals. It is not. Such back doors threaten the privacy of citizens and treat them like automatic suspects. Supper also does not necessarily prevent serious crime. Apple launched a legal challenge in March, saying the claims have gone too far and that it should maintain a strong coding to protect the privacy of users. The company, of course, has its own financial reasons, because security is a cornerstone of Apple’s marketing strategy. But addressing the confidential order in court could have led to a change in the way the law was generally applied. “We are obliged to challenge these kinds of secrets,” says Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International. Technical giants are often on the wrong side of the ethical line when fighting against government regulation, such as Britain’s much more meaningful online safety law. But in this particular case, Apple is right. The UK’s 2016 investigation forces, called the Snooper’s Bill, helped make its citizens of the world’s most spotting people. Not only does the government demand that companies give special access points for user data; It has recently been added that firms should inform the government of major security changes, so that the UK can determine whether or not to claim a back door. Also read: Apple-skeptics had to eat their words at least the home office, an outstretched government department in London that handles immigration and policing, is at the heart of this heavy-handed approach to supervision. It is also a long history of state control over communications such as the once nationalized British telecommunications, along with a mindset on national security that considers constant observation as critical for maintaining public order. London is one of the most investigative cities in the world, with nearly one million CCTV cameras. Britain’s requirements for back door are particularly ominous because they have a gag order for companies they get. Neither Apple nor the British government will say whether such demands exist if you ask for it. This gives the government unhealthy leverage over its citizens, making it almost impossible to hold officials accountable or know when privacy rights are threatened. A spokesman for the office of the office refused to disclose whether the order was dropped on Apple. “We do not comment on operational matters, including the confirmation or denial of the existence of such notices,” she said. Why then do we know about the Apple Order? Because the company has found subtle ways to make it public, all end-to-end coding for British clients of iCloud and by challenging the order in court. Apple’s case was heard in early 2026, and admittedly, to win was a risky bet. British courts certainly rarely against the government on national security issues. But there was a chance that if Apple prevailed, the UK’s Supreme Court could reverse the government’s secret rear -fork notifications. Also read: Big Tech in the Dock: The EU can force Meta and Apple to change their compulsion that the UK can do with the kind of improvement, as the clandestine demands make it an ugly disorder in the democratic world. US technical firms are not legally obliged to add back doors to their products, and efforts in the past-like the ‘clipper chip’ in the 1990s and the FBI apple dispute over coding in 2016 is blocked or abandoned after a public setback. In the EU, strict privacy laws and court rulings prevented the government from forcing businesses to incorporate back doors, which usually call the risks to human rights and cyber security. The UK’s home office is likely to drop its order under the US pressure, but we won’t know for sure until Apple uses the next appearance before a judge to say that the case is invalid. It would be an unfortunate result for a fight that should have played in court in court and ended such invasive supervision forces for everyone else. © Bloomberg The author is a Bloomberg -Opinion columnist who covers technology. Catch all the business news, market news, news reports and latest news updates on Live Mint. Download the Mint News app to get daily market updates. More Topics #Apple Inc #Technology Read Next Story