Snoopgate: Apple’s privacy fight with the UK needs to play out in public

The real problem is bad privacy legislation in the UK, and the best way to solve it isn’t through political meddling, but in court. Gabbard’s pronouncement on X seems good on its face. It followed extensive negotiations with British officials, but it may make a much-needed change to the law less likely. 

Also Read: Apple’s UK run-in: Privacy may matter less to its customers than it thinks

The UK issued the order in early 2025, arguing that snooping on citizens’ private data was a price worth paying to catch criminals. It is not. Such backdoors threaten the privacy of citizens and treat them like automatic suspects. Mass surveillance does not necessarily prevent serious crime either. Apple launched a legal challenge in March, saying the demands went too far and that it needed to maintain strong encryption to protect user privacy. The company has its own financial reasons, of course, with security being a cornerstone of Apple’s marketing strategy.

But addressing the confidential order in court could have led to a change in how the law was applied across the board. “We have a duty to challenge this type of secret power," says Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International.

Tech giants are often on the wrong side of the ethical line when fighting against government regulation, like Britain’s much-more sensible Online Safety Act. But, in this particular case, Apple is right. The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, dubbed the Snooper’s Charter, has helped make its citizens some of the world’s most spied-upon people. It not only lets the government demand that companies give them special access points to user data; it recently added that firms must notify the government of any big security changes, so the UK can determine whether or not to demand a backdoor. 

Also Read: Apple sceptics have had to eat their words—at least for the time being

The Home Office, a sprawling government department in London that handles immigration and policing, is at the heart of this heavy-handed approach to surveillance. So too is a long history of state control over communications like the once-nationalized British Telecom, along with a national-security mindset that sees constant observation as critical to maintaining public order. London is one of the most heavily surveilled cities in the world, with nearly one million CCTV cameras. 

Britain’s backdoor demands are especially egregious because they come with a gag order for companies who get them. Neither Apple nor the UK government will say if such demands exist if you ask. That gives the government unhealthy leverage over its citizens, making it nearly impossible to hold officials accountable or know when privacy rights are at threat. A Home Office spokeswoman refused to disclose if the order on Apple had been dropped. “We do not comment on operational matters, including confirming or denying the existence of such notices," she said.

So why do we know about the Apple order? Because the company found subtle ways of making it public, stopping all end-to-end encryption for British customers of iCloud and by challenging the order in court. Apple’s case was due to be heard in early 2026, and admittedly, winning was a risky bet. British courts rarely rule against the government on issues of national security. But there was a chance that if Apple prevailed, the UK’s Supreme Court could overturn the government’s secret backdoor notices for good.

Also Read: Big Tech in the dock: The EU could force Meta and Apple to change their coercive ways

The UK could do with that sort of improvement, as its clandestine demands make it an ugly anomaly in the democratic world. American tech firms aren’t legally compelled to add backdoors to their products, and past attempts—like the ‘Clipper Chip’ in the 1990s and FBI-Apple dispute over encryption in 2016—were blocked or abandoned after a public backlash. 

In the EU, strict privacy laws and court rulings have stopped governments from forcing companies to build in backdoors, typically citing risks to human rights and cybersecurity. 

The UK’s Home Office will likely drop its order under US pressure, but we will not know for sure until Apple uses its next appearance before a judge to say its case is invalid. That would be an unfortunate outcome for a fight that should have played out publicly in court and could have put an end to such intrusive surveillance powers for everyone else.  ©Bloomberg

The author is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology.