Will the sun ever rise again on the British Empire? Probably not, but not for lack of trying.
Apple, which has a slightly better reputation for protecting its users’ data than other companies, has partially caved to the UK’s demand to end cloud encryption. Earlier in the month, the UK’s Home Office invoked its 2016 Investigatory Powers Act to get Apple to surrender access to its end-to-end encrypted data that users uploaded to the cloud.
Advertisement
As the BBC notes, Apple itself does not even have the ability to see that data, which is referred to as Advanced Data Protection, or ADP. The UK wanted access to the data from users across the globe. The outlet reports that Apple has partially acquiesced. It decided that ADP would no longer be able to be activated within the UK. If one tries to turn it on, one gets an error message, and residents who currently use ADP will have the service deactivated at a later date.
Standard encryption is still available, but law enforcement can access it with a warrant. Proponents of the move say it will be a boon for child safety since ADP could be used to stash child sexual abuse material or information about trafficking. The BBC reported:
Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at the NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children), said it wants tech firms like Apple to ensure they are balancing child and user safety with privacy.
“As Apple looks to change its approach to encryption, we’re calling on them to make sure that they also implement more child safety measures so that children are properly protected on their services,” she told BBC News.
The UK children’s charity has said that end-to-end encrypted services can hinder child safety and protection efforts, such as identifying the sharing of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
There is definitely a case to be made for that. No sane and civilized person can stomach the abuse and sexual exploitation of children. Anyone who believes that privacy laws should be used to protect such things should have his head and his hard drive examined, along with the contents of his cloud data. That isn’t the problem.
Advertisement
No one has a problem with authorities in the UK and elsewhere tracking down and apprehending pedophiles. The question is, what else will the UK do with this new policy? We can all get on board with the police raiding the home of a sex offender. But in the UK, the police come knocking on peoples’ doors because they express views about immigration, the LGBTQETC movement, and abortion that contrast those of the government and the “acceptable” narratives.
Breitbart reports that it hadn’t even been a week since JD Vance upbraided the UK for its Orwellian speech policies, specifically regarding abortion buffer zones, and a 74-year-old Scottish woman became the first person to be arrested under the country’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. She carried a sign that read: “Coercion is a crime. I’m here to talk, only if you want.”
🚨BREAKING🚨: Scottish police filmed applying “buffer zone” law to “silent vigil”, despite recent denials from the Scottish government! 👮♂️
“Am I committing an offence?”
“Yes, I believe you are conducting a silent vigil”
Vance was right. The law IS being misapplied to prayer!🏴 pic.twitter.com/Gsm0x4yspM
— Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) February 18, 2025
Breitbart also reported:
The author of the legislation, Green party Member of Scottish Parliament Gillian Mackay, accused Vance of spreading “shameless misinformation” and “dangerous scaremongering”. Meanwhile, the government has denied that it sent letters warning against praying in homes near abortion clinics.
Note that all the cop needed was the belief that the woman was holding a vigil — a vigil that is now illegal. With that in mind, if the UK’s Home Office wants to look for evidence of a crime, that’s understandable. But we know what the UK leadership considers criminal and what it will look for when accessing the Apple cloud. And it isn’t just CSAM.
Advertisement
If they were just going after sex criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists, that would be one thing. But they will likely be going after people with opinions under the pretext of public safety, which is a whole other order of fish and chips. That said, the Home Office probably believes that targeting people with traditional views on sexuality and abortion or who oppose unfettered immigration is a matter of public safety. After all, there is also the issue of national unity, no matter how hard the authorities need to work to enforce it. And if coercion doesn’t work, there’s always Victory Gin.
