The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) recently conducted a day-long secret hearing regarding Apple’s appeal against a government notice requiring access to data encrypted by its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service on iCloud. Despite calls for the hearing to be public, it remained closed to the public.
A group of 10 media organizations, including BBC, Financial Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, Reuters, and Computer Weekly, along with the Press Association, filed legal submissions urging for an open court hearing. Additionally, privacy and human rights groups also advocated for transparency in the case.
The hearing, which took place on March 14, 2025, at the Royal Courts of Justice, stemmed from Apple’s complaint to the IPT against a Home Office decision to issue a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) requiring access to data protected by Apple’s ADP service. The order, issued by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, extended law enforcement access to encrypted data stored on Apple’s iCloud service globally to users of the ADP service.
Despite lawyers, journalists, broadcasters, and campaigners waiting outside the court to present arguments for an open hearing, they were not given the opportunity to address the court. The case was presided over by Investigatory Powers Tribunal President Lord Justice Rabinder Singh and High Court Judge Jeremy Johnson, with representation from James Eadie KC for the government and Barristers Julian Milford KC and Dan Beard KC for Apple.
Privacy International and Liberty have separately launched a legal challenge against a secret Home Office order, arguing that the government’s actions could have global implications and threaten personal data security. They emphasize the importance of end-to-end encryption in protecting privacy and free expression, particularly for marginalized groups.
The campaign groups stress the need for users to control who can access their data, especially for those in vulnerable situations. They argue that undermining end-to-end encryption could have severe consequences for individuals and communities worldwide. Privacy International’s executive director, Gus Hosein, and Liberty’s director, Akiko Hart, have voiced concerns over the potential creation of a backdoor that could compromise individuals’ privacy.
Overall, the case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding data encryption, privacy rights, and government access to personal data. It underscores the importance of safeguarding privacy and upholding encryption standards to protect individuals’ fundamental rights in the digital age.
