I would like to remind you that many of the idiots pushing for this enjoy the use of iPhones and their encrypted services. I think that if the UI were to regularly remind the user that their data is no longer properly protected, that some of those idiots may be under more political pressure.
Is there some sort of way short of constitutional amendment (or UK equivalent) to avoid having to defend this "legal challenge" every time it comes up? This is so exhausting I don't even bother clicking on the article, I just write a check to the EFF.
I feel like the toothpaste is already out of the tube on effective, low effort, decentralized encryption, but there's plenty of $$$ government contracting dollars to be made integrating government systems with megacorp datastorage, so there will always be someone else pushing to make this happen.
Just to be clear, the UK system is much simpler than the US system. There is just a bad law. That law could be repealed with a majority in parliament tomorrow, until it is repealed (spoiler it absolutely will not be repealed) the regulator can and will file these law suits. The best we can hope for is that the regulator (Home Office) just don't bother trying to enforce the law.
The core problem is the people writing the laws are know-nothing busy bodies who write crap laws and then cause massive problems, and we've demonstrated over the last 18 months that you can fire literally 70% of the UK Parliament, replace them all and still end up with the same rules written by the same know-nothing busy bodies.
Whitehall - the UK civil service - persists between governments in a fairly unique way. It's essentially a political entity that exists beyond democracy that has pinky-promised to be politically ambivalent.
To paraphrase an adage I've forgotten: you can skim as much shit as you like off the Thames, it'll still be a filthy river.
The closest the UK has to a constitution-like protection is getting it to sign an international treaty, e.g. what's behind the Human Rights Act — after Brexit, some of the usual suspects have been campaigning to also leave the corresponding treaty, because it limits the sovreign right of each government to completely disregard what the previous one did.
To answer your question, the other solution is to do what I did in response to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016: leave the country.
> international treaties have no effect under UK law, unless Parliament decides to pass an Act containing its provisions
Indeed, all I claim is that leaving treaties comes with consequences that mean they stick, hard to change in practice even when it's theoretically just another law that only needs a parliamentary majority to delete.
Functional closest equivalent, not identical in every detail.
The UK Home Office demanded in early September that Apple create a means to allow officials access to encrypted cloud backups, but stipulated that the order applied only to British citizens’ data, according to people briefed on the matter.
Is there any information about this demand, was it in the form of a TCN?
Both Apple and the Home Office are restricted from discussing TCNs by law.
Didn't Apple win a court case recently where they could openly discuss why they removed ADP in the UK?
In the real world one would get the cold shoulder. In the UK, they get the Boston Tea Party and the IRA as a response for the British government being smart.
There's a claim that the Reform Party is extreme-right fascists, but I'm only looking at one party in power pulling dictatorship moves. They're not even done either, there is the intention to also add this digital ID on top - and I'm sure at some point that will also be tied to your online activities.
I've removed the statement because your right and wrote in haste. It is anecdotal and self-bias but Nigel Farage being the leader of the UK is next level dystopian-bleak.
Someone who pushed for Brexit, supports Hard Euroscepticism (yet has an European wife) running a party promoting that human-made climate change isn't a thing, want "illegal" immigrants thrown out of the UK, removal from Europe's Convention of Human Rights is a party I don't want to imagine being in power.
With regards to my online activities, I am already supposedly a terrorist for using Tor.
> I've removed the statement because your right and wrote in haste.
It happens to us all.
> Someone who pushed for Brexit, supports Hard Euroscepticism, (yet has an European wife) [..]
I think the largest push was for sovereignty of the nation, which is a huge win for democracy. The UK shouldn't have people making important decisions that cannot be unelected.
I don't think that Brexit was driven by a hatred of Europeans or European nation states.
> [..] and runs a party promoting that human-made climate change isn't a thing, [..]
Not sure that this is the case, I think the case being made is that net-zero is being chased religiously at the cost of economic growth. If the UK want to be a leader in AI for example, then the UK needs access to cheap reliable energy.
> [..] wants immigrants thrown out of the UK is a party I don't want to imagine being in power.
I think to be clear, they want economically unproductive immigrants and criminals out of the UK. This seems to be the policy of all the major parties currently.
> With regards to my online activities, I'm already a terrorist for using Tor.
As they say whilst taking your privacy away: "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
Sure but this wasn't fascism, this was entirely democratic. Then people got upset and wanted a do-over because the democracy didn't do the thing they wanted. And after accusing the brexiters of just being anti immigration, still nothing was done about immigration, because fuck what people want if its not what better people want. Now we have constant riots, pork pie patriots in their hundreds of thousands gathering in London, and useless promises after 20 years of lies and broken promises now that the demographics have changed massively creating a situation where one has to either do nothing or do something unsettling to revert any of this. Its like fascism for cowards.
> Not sure that this is the case, I think the case being made is that net-zero is being chased religiously at the cost of economic growth.
Quoting Wikipedia here,
> A late 2024 poll done by YouGov found that Reform UK voters are twice as likely as the general public, to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity
> In February 2025, Tice said: "There's no evidence that man-made CO2 is going to change climate change.
> In April 2025 Farage said that the current government's net zero policy was "lunacy" and that "[t]his could be the next Brexit – where Parliament is so hopelessly out of touch with the country.”
> In July 2025, Reform UK's Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Andrea Jenkyns, said, "Do I believe that climate change exists? No."
Tice being the Deputy. Of course the First isn't going to admit to it, but if the second implies it; that pretty much sets the tone of the parties agenda. With the added Mayor I would conclude that the party is anti-climate change.
> If the UK want to be a leader in AI for example, then the UK needs access to cheap reliable energy.
The UK will never be a leader again, we were once but threw it all away to privatisation and stripping of industries. You're only the leader when you actually produce, we rarely do that anymore.
Besides "cheap reliable" is an oxymoron. Anything cheap is not reliable, anything reliable isn't cheap. Nuclear = Reliable but expensive, Renewable = Cheap but unreliable (in comparison).
Where was the best place to obtain that; the best place was the EU! We decided to axe that, bravo.
> I think to be clear, they want economically unproductive immigrants and criminals out of the UK.
Why isn't there focus on national citizens, or can we do no harm?
That primary focus is bogus. I don't rule out that immigrants are not committing crimes, I don't have time to source the stats so I'll play the devils advocate and say maybe. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less but crime is crime.
If it is truly immigrants, then why have we not been tackling immigration laws? Why is it suddenly a concern now when crimes have been reported and ignored for decades? The government(s) have documented cases of these gang-crimes for years.
Instead we cut funds to the police force, special services so instead of tackling proper immigration these governments swept them under the rug and instead rile folk for the sake of ?. Throw the blame of that it is immigrants when it's the corruption, stir the pots of "Your from X go back to your own country" leading to uneducated dimwitted-ness of "Your of different culture go back to your own country!" and push votes for your new corrupt agenda.
We will however go for the innocent folk who have really done nothing wrong though. I want privacy as the next person, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is as like "when the fun stops, stop!" a sponsored gambling anti-gambling advertisement campaign. When your an addict, there is no fun to stop.
I enjoy walking around my apartment naked when I wake up which is why I own curtains. The government can't watch me apart from my WiFi signal. McAdverts can't advertise to me boxer briefs and Doritos for breakfest; we did have window tax once, I'm sure curtain tax will be a thing too soon.
Dear Apple,
I would like to remind you that many of the idiots pushing for this enjoy the use of iPhones and their encrypted services. I think that if the UI were to regularly remind the user that their data is no longer properly protected, that some of those idiots may be under more political pressure.
Sincerely, UK person
Perhaps a dialogue saying:
[Keep my messages encrypted]
[Send a copy of my messages to government authorities for checking]
Then when you choose the first one, disable the button with a toast saying "local laws do not allow this option, please choose another".
Is there some sort of way short of constitutional amendment (or UK equivalent) to avoid having to defend this "legal challenge" every time it comes up? This is so exhausting I don't even bother clicking on the article, I just write a check to the EFF.
I feel like the toothpaste is already out of the tube on effective, low effort, decentralized encryption, but there's plenty of $$$ government contracting dollars to be made integrating government systems with megacorp datastorage, so there will always be someone else pushing to make this happen.
Just to be clear, the UK system is much simpler than the US system. There is just a bad law. That law could be repealed with a majority in parliament tomorrow, until it is repealed (spoiler it absolutely will not be repealed) the regulator can and will file these law suits. The best we can hope for is that the regulator (Home Office) just don't bother trying to enforce the law.
The core problem is the people writing the laws are know-nothing busy bodies who write crap laws and then cause massive problems, and we've demonstrated over the last 18 months that you can fire literally 70% of the UK Parliament, replace them all and still end up with the same rules written by the same know-nothing busy bodies.
Is the problem that the system is inherently broken, or does the problem sit in that 30% ?
Whitehall - the UK civil service - persists between governments in a fairly unique way. It's essentially a political entity that exists beyond democracy that has pinky-promised to be politically ambivalent.
To paraphrase an adage I've forgotten: you can skim as much shit as you like off the Thames, it'll still be a filthy river.
The closest the UK has to a constitution-like protection is getting it to sign an international treaty, e.g. what's behind the Human Rights Act — after Brexit, some of the usual suspects have been campaigning to also leave the corresponding treaty, because it limits the sovreign right of each government to completely disregard what the previous one did.
To answer your question, the other solution is to do what I did in response to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016: leave the country.
> The closest the UK has to a constitution-like protection is getting it to sign an international treaty
international treaties have no effect under UK law, unless Parliament decides to pass an Act containing its provisions
this is called dualism
for example, the effect of all EU law in the UK was dis-applied with an Act of Parliament, by a single line:
> The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.
(European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018)
> international treaties have no effect under UK law, unless Parliament decides to pass an Act containing its provisions
Indeed, all I claim is that leaving treaties comes with consequences that mean they stick, hard to change in practice even when it's theoretically just another law that only needs a parliamentary majority to delete.
Functional closest equivalent, not identical in every detail.
Any decade bow the answer will dawn on someone.
Curious this has come up again just around the time where the UK government has signed a new strategic partnership with Palantir...
The UK Home Office demanded in early September that Apple create a means to allow officials access to encrypted cloud backups, but stipulated that the order applied only to British citizens’ data, according to people briefed on the matter.
Is there any information about this demand, was it in the form of a TCN?
Both Apple and the Home Office are restricted from discussing TCNs by law.
Didn't Apple win a court case recently where they could openly discuss why they removed ADP in the UK?
Looks like I finally found some common ground with the US government. May the UK fail again.
In the real world one would get the cold shoulder. In the UK, they get the Boston Tea Party and the IRA as a response for the British government being smart.
That is some evil government.
When the current Labour party doesn't want us voting for the Reform Party. This stuff isn't going to win votes.
The Reform party, a far-right party who tell us they will retract all these laws; not that I believe them.
There's a claim that the Reform Party is extreme-right fascists, but I'm only looking at one party in power pulling dictatorship moves. They're not even done either, there is the intention to also add this digital ID on top - and I'm sure at some point that will also be tied to your online activities.
I've removed the statement because your right and wrote in haste. It is anecdotal and self-bias but Nigel Farage being the leader of the UK is next level dystopian-bleak.
Someone who pushed for Brexit, supports Hard Euroscepticism (yet has an European wife) running a party promoting that human-made climate change isn't a thing, want "illegal" immigrants thrown out of the UK, removal from Europe's Convention of Human Rights is a party I don't want to imagine being in power.
With regards to my online activities, I am already supposedly a terrorist for using Tor.
> I've removed the statement because your right and wrote in haste.
It happens to us all.
> Someone who pushed for Brexit, supports Hard Euroscepticism, (yet has an European wife) [..]
I think the largest push was for sovereignty of the nation, which is a huge win for democracy. The UK shouldn't have people making important decisions that cannot be unelected.
I don't think that Brexit was driven by a hatred of Europeans or European nation states.
> [..] and runs a party promoting that human-made climate change isn't a thing, [..]
Not sure that this is the case, I think the case being made is that net-zero is being chased religiously at the cost of economic growth. If the UK want to be a leader in AI for example, then the UK needs access to cheap reliable energy.
> [..] wants immigrants thrown out of the UK is a party I don't want to imagine being in power.
I think to be clear, they want economically unproductive immigrants and criminals out of the UK. This seems to be the policy of all the major parties currently.
> With regards to my online activities, I'm already a terrorist for using Tor.
As they say whilst taking your privacy away: "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
> I don't think that Brexit was driven by a hatred of Europeans or European nation states.
You are absolutely delusional if you truly believe that. It was the raison d'être of the entire UKIP cause.
Sure but this wasn't fascism, this was entirely democratic. Then people got upset and wanted a do-over because the democracy didn't do the thing they wanted. And after accusing the brexiters of just being anti immigration, still nothing was done about immigration, because fuck what people want if its not what better people want. Now we have constant riots, pork pie patriots in their hundreds of thousands gathering in London, and useless promises after 20 years of lies and broken promises now that the demographics have changed massively creating a situation where one has to either do nothing or do something unsettling to revert any of this. Its like fascism for cowards.
> Not sure that this is the case, I think the case being made is that net-zero is being chased religiously at the cost of economic growth.
Quoting Wikipedia here,
> A late 2024 poll done by YouGov found that Reform UK voters are twice as likely as the general public, to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity
> In February 2025, Tice said: "There's no evidence that man-made CO2 is going to change climate change.
> In April 2025 Farage said that the current government's net zero policy was "lunacy" and that "[t]his could be the next Brexit – where Parliament is so hopelessly out of touch with the country.”
> In July 2025, Reform UK's Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Andrea Jenkyns, said, "Do I believe that climate change exists? No."
Tice being the Deputy. Of course the First isn't going to admit to it, but if the second implies it; that pretty much sets the tone of the parties agenda. With the added Mayor I would conclude that the party is anti-climate change.
> If the UK want to be a leader in AI for example, then the UK needs access to cheap reliable energy.
The UK will never be a leader again, we were once but threw it all away to privatisation and stripping of industries. You're only the leader when you actually produce, we rarely do that anymore.
Besides "cheap reliable" is an oxymoron. Anything cheap is not reliable, anything reliable isn't cheap. Nuclear = Reliable but expensive, Renewable = Cheap but unreliable (in comparison).
Where was the best place to obtain that; the best place was the EU! We decided to axe that, bravo.
> I think to be clear, they want economically unproductive immigrants and criminals out of the UK.
Why isn't there focus on national citizens, or can we do no harm?
That primary focus is bogus. I don't rule out that immigrants are not committing crimes, I don't have time to source the stats so I'll play the devils advocate and say maybe. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less but crime is crime.
If it is truly immigrants, then why have we not been tackling immigration laws? Why is it suddenly a concern now when crimes have been reported and ignored for decades? The government(s) have documented cases of these gang-crimes for years.
Instead we cut funds to the police force, special services so instead of tackling proper immigration these governments swept them under the rug and instead rile folk for the sake of ?. Throw the blame of that it is immigrants when it's the corruption, stir the pots of "Your from X go back to your own country" leading to uneducated dimwitted-ness of "Your of different culture go back to your own country!" and push votes for your new corrupt agenda.
We will however go for the innocent folk who have really done nothing wrong though. I want privacy as the next person, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is as like "when the fun stops, stop!" a sponsored gambling anti-gambling advertisement campaign. When your an addict, there is no fun to stop.
I enjoy walking around my apartment naked when I wake up which is why I own curtains. The government can't watch me apart from my WiFi signal. McAdverts can't advertise to me boxer briefs and Doritos for breakfest; we did have window tax once, I'm sure curtain tax will be a thing too soon.
unfortunately the electorate like the authoritarian nature of the two main parties