UK court declines government’s bid for secrecy in Apple encryption case

Apple has won a tribunal ruling on the feasability of keeping a legal hearing over the future of its ADP service in the UK public. (Photo: Cristian Dina/Shutterstock)

A UK tribunal has ruled that a legal dispute between the UK government and Apple regarding data privacy will not be held in secrecy. The case centres on the government’s request for access to data protected by Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) system, which the Home Office seeks under the Investigatory Powers Act.

Apple maintains that it does not have the capability to grant such access, as only the user can access this encrypted information. The company has expressed concerns that creating a “backdoor” into its security measures could expose users’ data to potential exploitation by malicious entities, including hackers and criminals.

The UK government’s request has faced significant backlash from privacy advocates, civil rights organisations, and some US lawmakers. Earlier in the year, Apple removed ADP from the UK market and subsequently initiated legal proceedings against the government, with hearings taking place at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The government argued that public knowledge of the case could harm national security, stating that revealing certain details would compromise its operations in combating serious crime. As part of its argument, it requested to keep certain aspects of the case confidential.

Open justice emphasised by tribunal

However, in a ruling issued on Monday, the tribunal rejected this proposal, citing extensive media coverage of the issue and underscoring the 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,” the tribunal stated. It further added that it did not believe revealing basic details of the case would harm public interest or national security.

In response to the tribunal’s decision, the Home Office declined to comment specifically on ongoing legal matters but reiterated its commitment to public safety. The department emphasised its use of established investigatory powers designed to combat serious crime while respecting privacy safeguards. It noted that any requests for access to individual accounts protected by ADP would require judicial approval before being granted.

Apple’s decision to remove ADP has sparked criticism from privacy advocates, while the UK government maintains that law enforcement access is only required in exceptional circumstances involving serious crimes such as terrorism and child exploitation. A Home Office spokesperson declined to comment on the specific order issued to Apple but stated that privacy protections are in place to ensure any requests are proportionate and justified.

“This is bigger than the UK and Apple,” said Open Rights Group executive director Jim Killock. “The Court’s judgment will have implications for the privacy and security of millions of people around the world. 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 UK’s actions have also drawn international scrutiny, with US President Trump comparing the demand to Chinese surveillance practices. US intelligence officials are assessing whether the UK’s approach breaches the CLOUD Act. Tulsi Gabbard, US Director of National Intelligence, raised concerns about potential violations of US citizens’ privacy rights.

Read more: Apple challenges UK order to provide access to encrypted cloud data