In mid-March 2025, Apple stepped into a legal battle over an order from the Home Secretary at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in London. Leaked information from the Washington Post revealed that, in late 2024, Yvette Cooper issued a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) to Apple. This notice requires Apple to disable Advanced Data Protection (ADP) for certain iCloud users under investigation by UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Essentially, the UK government is asking Apple to create an encryption “backdoor” for its ADP system. Right now, Apple has made ADP unavailable for UK iCloud users. ADP is an optional feature, giving users complete control over their data’s encryption. Without it, Apple retains keys for standard data protection, allowing easy access to users’ data if they lose their device. However, this also means Apple can be compelled to unlock user data when law enforcement presents a lawful request. With ADP, only the user can unlock their data, so if a warrant targets an ADP user, Apple can claim it lacks the capability to comply.
Let’s break down how a TCN works. Section 253 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 allows the Home Secretary to issue a TCN, but it doesn’t authorize surveillance outright. Instead, it obliges a communications provider to enable access for interception of communications or data collection. The Secretary must demonstrate that the notice is necessary and proportionate, consulting with the operator first. This assessment gets the green light from a Judicial Commissioner.
If Apple doesn’t like the TCN, it can request a review, which involves consulting the Judicial Commission and a Technical Advisory Board. If all goes through, the last option for Apple is to appeal to the IPT.
Now, let’s consider the specifics of the appeal. We’re waiting to see how the IPT will handle it—whether the appeal will be public, partly open, or completely private. On March 10, 2025, an “application in private” was listed for March 14, but no parties were named. This led to speculation, with many believing it’s linked to Apple. The media has been vocal, suggesting that the IPT should allow the case to be public. Their remarks are currently under consideration.
The government might argue against public hearings, citing the need to protect sensitive national security details. They may contend that discussions about the TCN should stay in closed hearings since the matter involves not just legalities but intricate relationships with the U.S. They may also stress that the legislation clearly supports issuing TCNs, asserting that such measures are necessary to ensure state security.
However, there are strong reasons to make the hearings public. For one, if the TCN requires a selective removal of encryption, it raises concerns about vulnerabilities in the ADP system. Enabling the UK to access some encrypted data could endanger everyone’s data security. If this becomes standard, other countries will likely seek similar access, undermining encryption worldwide and compromising user safety.
The crux of the matter is whether the government’s demand to compromise the ADP system is justified for national security or serious crime prevention. The government may argue that the TCN only facilitates lawful warrants, but many believe that everyone, including those who safeguard sensitive information, deserves protection against unauthorized access.
As for the IPT’s options, it has several paths. If Apple wins, the IPT may decide that any encryption backdoor is inherently disproportionate, reinforcing user trust in cybersecurity. If the government wins, it could set a precedent that allows for further erosions of data privacy. There’s also a chance of an ambiguous outcome, where the IPT discusses proportionality in broad strokes without clear resolution. Finally, the IPT could choose complete secrecy, obstructing public understanding of how national security is weighed against privacy.
The outcome will be crucial for public trust in encrypted services. If AI can easily unlock data through backdoors, users may lose faith in such protections, especially as the broader political climate grows increasingly authoritarian. All eyes are on the IPT as this important case unfolds.