Select a region
One of the biggest technology companies in the world has entered the debate over the UK’s draft Investigatory Powers Bill.
The proposed new legislation would give greater power to government to access and listen in on encrypted communications used across modern smart devices. However, Apple is against the idea of introducing a so-called “back-door” into encrypted systems for authorities to use when a warrant is issued.
As part of the ongoing debate of the draft bill, Apple has submitted an eight-page document detailing its thoughts on the proposed new laws.
These are the key points from the submission:
1. Apple believes we should be strengthening encryption
“We owe it to our customers to protect their personal data to the best of our ability. Increasingly stronger — not weaker — encryption is the best way to protect against these threats,” the submission reads.
2. And that introducing a back-door could be dangerous.
“The Bill threatens to hurt law-abiding citizens in its effort to combat the few bad actors who have a variety of ways to carry out their attacks. The creation of back doors and intercept capabilities would weaken the protections built into Apple products and endanger all our customers.
“A key left under the doormat would not just be there for the good guys. The bad guys would find it too.”
3. With encryption already a widely used and known technology, Apple argues simply giving government a way in does little to curb the threat.
“Encryption today is as ubiquitous as computing itself and we are all the better for it. There are hundreds of products that use encryption to protect user data, many of them open-source and beyond the regulation of any one government.
“By mandating weakened encryption in Apple products, this Bill will put law-abiding citizens at risk, not the criminals, hackers and terrorists who will continue having access to encryption.”
4. The unpredictability of cyber attacks and hackers makes building security around this Bill very difficult.
“Some have asserted that, given the expertise of technology companies, they should be able to construct a system that keeps the data of nearly all users secure but still allows the data of very few users to be read covertly when a proper warrant is served.
“But the Government does not know in advance which individuals will become targets of investigation, so the encryption system necessarily would need to be compromised for everyone.
“The best minds in the world cannot rewrite the laws of mathematics. Any process that weakens the mathematical models that protect user data will by extension weaken the protection. And recent history is littered with cases of attackers successfully implementing exploits that nearly all experts either remained unaware of or viewed as merely theoretical.”
5. Forcing big tech companies to essentially hack themselves to get data would be counter-intuitive.
“The Bill would also force companies to expend considerable resources hacking their own systems at the Government’s direction. This mandate would require Apple to alter the design of our systems and could endanger the privacy and security of users in the UK and elsewhere.
“We are committed to doing everything in our power to create a safer and more secure world for our customers. But it is our belief this world cannot come by sacrificing personal security.”
It is believed that other technology firms are also set to supply the committee with their thoughts on the proposals, with Apple stressing that the submission is not an attack on the Bill, but rather its contribution to the ongoing debate.
