Why Brits may not be able to use Apple’s iMessage, FaceTime anymore?

The UK is set to update amendments the Investigatory Powers Act giving the government unbridled snooping powers, and making tech products and their users vulnerable to hacking. Apple has threatened to pull some of its key services out of the UK

Apple has announced that it will remove services like FaceTime and iMessage from the UK rather than compromise on security if new proposals in the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016 become law.

The UK government is seeking to update the IPA and wants messaging services to get approval from the Home Office for their security features before releasing them to the public.

A little too much oversight
Currently, the Home Office can demand security features to be disabled without informing the public, but the proposed update would require immediate action without a review or independent oversight process.

Related Articles

More than 700 firearms seized in UK in Anglo-Spanish operation

UK government must hand over WhatsApp messages to COVID inquiry, court rules

Messaging services, including WhatsApp and Signal, have expressed opposition to a clause in the Online Safety Bill that would allow the communications regulator to mandate the installation of technology to scan for child-abuse material in encrypted messaging apps and other services. They have refused to comply with this provision, with Signal even threatening to leave the UK.

Apple has also voiced its objections to the plan, standing in solidarity with other messaging platforms in prioritizing user privacy and security.

The government has launched an eight-week consultation on the proposed amendments to the IPA, which already allows the storage of internet browsing records for 12 months and permits the bulk collection of personal data. The government claims that the amendments are not about granting new powers but rather updating the act to align with current technology.

Why the Investigatory Powers Act is problematic
Apple has consistently opposed the Investigatory Powers Act, which has been criticized as a “snooper’s charter” by its detractors. In response to the current consultation on proposed amendments to the act, Apple has submitted a nine-page document outlining its objections.

Some aspects of the amendment require tech companies to inform the Home Office about any changes to product security features before their release. Non-UK-based companies need to comply with changes that would impact their products globally, such as providing a backdoor to end-to-end encryption. Tech companies will also need to take immediate action if the Home Office issues a notice to disable or block a feature, without any consultation

Apple’s stance is based on these is issues is as follows:

1. It refuses to make security feature changes that could weaken products for all users to accommodate the demands of one country.
2. Some changes may necessitate issuing a software update, making them impossible to implement secretly.
3. Apple views the proposed amendments as a serious and direct threat to data security and information privacy, not only for individuals in the UK but also for people outside the country.

The company firmly advocates for maintaining strong data security and privacy standards and expresses concerns that complying with the proposed changes could have far-reaching consequences.

Pulling up the national security card
In response to the concerns raised, the Home Office stated that the Investigatory Powers Act’s primary goal is to safeguard the public from criminals, child sex abusers, and terrorists. The government emphasizes that they continuously review all legislation to ensure it remains robust, and the current consultation is part of that ongoing process. No final decisions have been made yet.

The issue highlights a clash between the government’s aim to strengthen national security and protect the public and the concerns raised by technology companies and experts about potential implications for data security and privacy. The outcome of the consultation and the subsequent decisions will likely have significant implications for the relationship between tech companies and government surveillance policies in the UK.