Apple: UK’s Proposed Law Poses a Grave and Immediate Risk to Security and Privacy

Apple: UK’s Proposed Law Poses a Grave and Immediate Risk to Security and Privacy

New⁤ UK‍ government surveillance ‌laws ⁤are so over-reaching​ that tech companies⁢ can’t‌ possibly ⁤meet ⁤all of ⁣their requirements,‌ according⁤ to Apple, which⁣ argues the⁤ measures will ⁤make‌ the online world far⁣ less safe.

Apple, WhatsApp,​ Meta all⁤ threaten​ to ⁤quit ⁣UK⁤ messaging

The ​UK ‌Home⁢ Office is pushing ⁤proposals to extend the Investigatory ‌Powers​ Act ⁢(IPA) with‍ a​ range ‌of⁢ proposals‍ that ⁣effectively require messaging ‍providers such as ‍Apple, WhatsApp, ​or ‍Meta to‌ install ‍backdoors into their ​services.‍ All three services⁢ are now ⁢threatening ‌to ‌withdraw messaging ⁤apps⁤ from⁣ the⁣ UK ​market‌ if the changes move forward.

They’re making ⁢those ⁤threats for⁤ a very good⁢ reason:⁢ you ⁢cannot⁣ create ⁣a⁤ backdoor ​into⁢ software that will ⁣only be used ⁤by‍ so-called “good guys.” Any flaws will⁣ be⁤ identified and exploited in a ⁤range of ⁣attacks.

It ​is noteworthy that⁣ Apple sees‍ these​ laws⁢ as so⁤ repressive to​ free⁤ speech ⁣and ‌so ‍invasive, ​while⁢ also‍ being ‌impossible to maintain, that it⁢ would ⁢have​ to cease ⁣offering messaging⁣ services ⁣in the​ UK‍ — ‍even though‍ it continues to ‍offer ‌these in allegedly⁢ censorious‍ China.

A threat ‌to security

Further, ‌the ⁢regulation⁣ the UK‍ is ‌attempting to pass is so draconian that ⁣it‍ even​ lacks ⁣a⁤ review system ⁤and ⁤insists‌ that⁤ tech ‍firms‌ share⁢ any security updates ‍with ⁤the ⁤government ⁣before​ they’re ​released. That puts‍ a big ⁢block ⁤on ‍fast security⁤ responses to all kinds of⁣ attacks,⁢ and ⁢means‍ global audiences⁣ are left ​vulnerable while​ the‌ Home ‌Office ⁤decides what to‍ do.

There are⁣ many arguments ‌against ‌the⁤ foolish​ proposals in ⁣the⁣ bill‍ in ‌Apple’s⁣ lengthy‌ response, which points⁢ out that ⁣the⁢ UK already has⁣ a broad⁢ set ​of rules ⁤to govern this. (The⁣ new‌ rules also suggest⁤ the Home⁣ Office​ will ​seize power ⁢to ⁤monitor‌ messages ‌of​ users located⁤ in other​ countries.)

“Together,‌ these ⁤provisions⁣ could be ⁤used ⁤to ​force⁤ a company like ⁣Apple, that would never​ build ‌a ⁤backdoor,​ to publicly⁤ withdraw critical ‍security ‌features from⁢ the ​UK⁢ market,⁣ depriving UK users of these ⁢protections,” the ⁣company warned.

The extended powers could dramatically disrupt ‍the global​ market⁤ for security ‍technologies, Apple⁣ also warns, ‌“putting users in⁤ the ⁢UK and around the world ​at⁣ greater ⁣risk.”

Impossible⁤ to ⁤follow law under ‍international obligations

I ⁣won’t go⁤ into all ⁢the ⁤arguments ⁣here —‍ you⁣ should ⁤read them ⁤in⁢ their ⁢complete⁤ form ⁣— ⁣but ⁣one⁣ set⁤ of criticisms is ⁣particularly‍ important: ‌even if ‌Apple⁣ could​ follow the ​UK law, ⁢it⁣ would be unable to do ‌so⁢ under ⁢also existing international ​legal precedents.

In other words, ⁢the‍ UK ‌proposals are not ​in⁣ line with regulations‌ already‍ in‌ place ⁤across its ⁣allied ‍nations, including the⁤ US and‍ European‌ Union ⁢(EU). Apple argues ‍the UK ⁤law​ would, “impinge on the right of other governments ⁣to‍ determine ‌for⁤ themselves the balance‌ of data security ⁢and government⁣ access” in⁤ their own‍ countries. In‌ plain English,⁤ it ​means ⁤the UK⁣ is‍ deliberately putting itself in⁣ conflict⁢ with laws ⁤like ‌the ‌EU’s…

2023-07-21 ⁣14:48:02
Link ​from ⁢www.computerworld.com

Exit mobile version