Latest news with #InvestigatoryPowersAct
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
UK government may have ‘good news' for Apple in the case that Donald Trump said, "something you hear about with China"
The UK government is preparing to retreat from its controversial order forcing Apple to provide backdoor access to encrypted user data, following intense pressure from the Trump administration that threatens vital technology partnerships between the two nations. Senior British officials told the Financial Times that the Home Office will likely abandon its January demand for Apple to break end-to-end encryption on iCloud storage , with US Vice President JD Vance leading opposition to the UK's stance. "The Home Office is basically going to have to back down," one technology department official said, noting Vance's strong objections to the encryption order. The standoff has created significant diplomatic friction, with multiple US officials including President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard all raising concerns about the UK's approach. Trump previously compared the British demand to "something you hear about with China" and reportedly told Prime Minister Keir Starmer directly: "You can't do this." UK-US tech partnerships at risk over privacy battle by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo The encryption dispute threatens to derail broader technology cooperation between the allies, particularly around artificial intelligence and data sharing agreements central to Starmer's digital trade strategy. "One of the challenges for the tech partnerships we're working on is the encryption issue," a senior UK official explained. "It's a big red line in the US — they don't want us messing with their tech companies." US officials have warned that the UK order could violate Americans' privacy rights and potentially breach existing data agreements between the countries, with Gabbard calling it an "egregious violation." Apple withdraws secure storage service from UK market In response to the secret government order issued under the Investigatory Powers Act , Apple withdrew its most secure cloud storage service, Advanced Data Protection , from the UK market in February. The tech giant is now challenging the Home Office demand at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with WhatsApp joining the legal battle in a rare collaboration between Silicon Valley rivals. British officials acknowledge the Home Office has handled the encryption issue "very badly" and now has "its back against the wall" as it seeks an exit strategy from the high-profile privacy confrontation. AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Daily Mirror
13-06-2025
- Daily Mirror
Everything you need to know when reporting a missing person case to police
It can be difficult to know what to do when a loved one goes missing. Here, we answer some of the most asked questions on the topic. Every year around 17,000 people go missing in the UK. Some get significant media attention but others go unnoticed. The Mirror has launched its Missed campaign in partnership with charity, Missing People, in a bid to raise awareness of every publicly-listed missing person in the UK. Part of that campaign is to publicise advice on what people should do when a loved one disappears. There are many questions that people may not know the answer to when it comes to this difficult process, including how it works from the moment you decide to contact the police. Some of the most common questions on the subject are answered below. How to report a missing person? The website instructs people to first contact people who may know the location of the missing person. If you are still concerned, you should then contact police - you do not have to wait 24 hours before doing so. Can police track a missing person's phone? Police request a missing person's mobile phone number and service provider as any information can be a possible lead. Dependent on the case, police have authority to track mobile devices for missing persons but that authority is governed by strict legal procedures. Normally requiring a warrant or authorisation under the Investigatory Powers Act, an exception can be made when a person is suspected to be in immediate danger. DEMAND ACTION FOR MISSING PEOPLE Can police search for a missing person? Missing People say that the extent of police action is dependant on the level of risk or danger they believe the person to be in. It is required of the police to make contact with the person reported missing to check their safety. The charity says police don't want to force people to go home, simply determine whether they are at risk. If the authorities suspect suspicious/unexplained circumstances, or are worried about the person's safety, their search may be broad and include trying to make direct contact with the person; asking Missing Persons to contact the person; carrying out a detailed search of the last place a person was seen; checking their home address and speaking to their loved ones, colleagues or health professionals the person has contacted; and posting a public appeal on socials and publications. Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you! Why would a missing person search be suspended? Whilst a case is never closed, after 12 months a review of the probe will take place to consider whether it should become a "Long Term Missing" case. After four reviews in the first year, reviews then become annual, only triggered immediately "If significant information comes to light," states the police guidance. If an adult person is found and they wish not to be considered missing, they would then need to speak to the police to close the case. It is not often the case that investigations close without police seeing the missing person in question. How to find a missing person without police? If you do try to investigate solo: Do not search alone Inform someone of your location, your destination and your expected time of return Fully charge your mobile phone Dress weather-appropriate, wearing sensible footwear and take provisions You should also determine whether your search will be in a remote area, considering the terrain, or an urban one The charity Missing People insists you do not follow up leads or sightings as you could be putting yourself at risk. Any suspicions should be reported to the police. Why file a missing person report? If you cannot locate the person in question, it is right to contact the police as soon as possible. In case of any signs of risk or safety concerns. The police can then send out a public lookout notice and contact Missing Persons, carrying out a search. In the case of small children, this could make a life-or-death difference. You can contact Missing People confidentially and for free between 9am and 11pm, everyday. Call or text 116 000 for their helpline, email: 116000@ or access their chat here. • The Mirror is using its platform to launch Missed – a campaign to shine a light on underrepresented public-facing missing persons in the UK via a live interactive map, in collaboration with Missing People Charity. Because every missing person, no matter their background or circumstances, is someone's loved one. And they are always Missed.
Forbes
08-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Court Rejects UK Attempt To Have Apple Encryption Case Held In Secret
Photo by Josh Edelson / AFP) (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images A U.K. court has ruled that the Home Office can't, as it had hoped, keep a hearing on backdoor access to Apple's encrypted cloud data under wraps. Earlier this year, the government used provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act to order the firm to give the security services blanket access to all users' end-to-end encrypted files, rather than just those for specific accounts. Via a Technical Capability Notice, it wants access to iPhone backups secured by Apple's Advanced Data Protection system - not just those of U.K. customers, but of international users too. Apple removed the opt-in Advanced Data Protection feature in the U.K. in February, but responded by launching legal proceedings against the government soon after, with the case to be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. But the government said the proceedings should be kept secret, with not even the "bare details" made public, thanks to national security concerns. However, in a ruling, the tribunal has now rejected the government's request. "It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," the judges wrote. "For the reasons that are set out in our private judgement, we do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security." They said it might be possible for some or all future hearings to incorporate a public element, but that it wasn't possible to make a ruling on this at the current stage. Campaign groups Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship made a submission to the court, arguing against the proceedings taking in place in secret, and they've now welcomed the court's decision. "This judgment is a very welcome step in the right direction, effectively chipping away at the pervasive climate of secrecy surrounding the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's consideration of the Apple case," said Rebecca Vincent, interim director of Big Brother Watch. "The Home Office's order to break encryption represents a massive attack on the privacy rights of millions of British Apple users, which is a matter of significant public interest and must not be considered behind closed doors." The case even led to transatlantic tensions, with U.S. director of national intelligence Tulsi Gababrd expressing "grave concern" about the creation of a backdoor. It would, she said, be a "clear and egregious" violation of Americans' privacy and civil rights, as well as opening up a serious security vulnerability. "This is bigger than the UK and Apple. The court's judgment will have implications for the privacy and security of millions of people around the world," said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group. "Such an important decision cannot be made behind closed doors, and we welcome the IPT's decision to bring parts of the hearing into the open so that there can be some public scrutiny of the UK government's decisions to attack technologies that keep us safe online."
The Guardian
07-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK Home Office loses attempt to keep legal battle with Apple secret
The UK has lost an attempt to keep details of a legal battle with Apple away from the public. The investigatory powers tribunal, which investigates whether the domestic intelligence services have acted unlawfully, on Monday rejected a bid by the Home Office to withhold from the public the 'bare details' of the case. A judgment from Lord Justice Singh, president of the investigatory powers tribunal, and Mr Justice Johnson, on Monday confirmed some details of the case for the first time. They confirmed that the case relates to a legal challenge brought against the Home Office by Apple over the power to make technical capability notices under the Investigatory Powers Act. According to the judgment, the Home Office argued that revealing the existence of the claim, as well as the names of the parties involved, would be damaging to national security. 'We do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security,' said the judges. The Guardian and other media organisations have reported that the Home Office has served Apple with a technical capability notice (TCN), in which the government demanded access to Apple's Advanced Data Protection service, which heavily encrypts personal data stored remotely in its servers. Apple has pulled ADP from the UK rather than comply with the notice, saying it would never build a 'backdoor' to its products or services. Singh and Johnson said that neither Apple or the Home Office had confirmed or denied the accuracy of reports around the TCN and its contents. 'This judgment should not be taken as an indication that the media reporting is or is not accurate,' the judges added. The details of the TCN remain unknown. Journalists were not allowed into a hearing last month related to the case. Multiple media organisations, including the Guardian, the Financial Times, the BBC and the PA news agency, asked the tribunal to confirm who was taking part in the hearing on 14 March and for it to sit in public. Neither journalists nor legal representatives on behalf of the media were allowed into the hearing, and the identities of the parties involved were not disclosed head of the hearing. The judges added that it could be possible for 'some or all future hearings to incorporate a public element, with or without reporting restrictions' but that could not be ruled on at this stage in the process. Recipients of a TCN cannot reveal the existence of an order unless they are given permission from the home secretary. The tribunal's website states that hearings should be closed to the public only when 'strictly necessary', but its rules declare there must be no disclosure of information that is 'prejudicial to national security'. Ross McKenzie, a data protection partner at the law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said despite the ruling it was 'highly unlikely' there would be any in-depth revelations of the Home Office's case for accessing Apple user data. 'We may get a skeletal decision similar to what has been shared so far, which summarises the rationale without any meaningful detail,' said McKenzie.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple-UK data privacy row should not be secret, court rules
The Home Office has failed in its bid to keep all the details of its data privacy legal row with Apple out of the public domain. The UK government wants the right to be able access information secured by Apple's Advanced Data Protection (ADP) system, citing powers given to it under the Investigatory Powers Act. At the moment Apple has no such capability - such data can only be accessed by the user - and says it does not want to create what it calls a "backdoor" into ADP because of concerns it could be used for criminal purposes. The government's request prompted fierce criticism from privacy campaigners and some US politicians. In February, Apple pulled ADP from the UK and in March launched legal proceedings against the government, in a case which is being heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The government argued it would damage national security if the nature of the legal action - and the parties to it - were made public, what are known as the "bare details of the case". In a ruling published on Monday morning, the tribunal judges rejected that request - pointing to the extensive media reporting of the row and highlighting the legal principle of open justice. "It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," it states. "For the reasons that are set out in our private judgement, we do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security," it later adds. The Home Office have been asked to comment but have yet to respond. What Apple pulling Advanced Data Protection means for you Pressure grows to hold secret Apple data privacy hearing in public Apple takes legal action in UK data privacy row
