Why digital privacy should matter to you ?

This week, I might have won a bet that I had hoped to lose - and it had to do with whether or not Apple would maintain its global position on protecting consumer's data privacy rights, in the face of state government pressure to build the capacity to unlock data on Apple iPhones, on request.

The wager: capitalism vs state power ??

The bet was against my partner, and the wager was made - not unusually, after a heated debate as we headed home in our campervan after a long and muddy weekend of hillwalking in the Scottish highlands. ??

My partner is a devoted Apple user, and his view was that Apple's brand strategy and USP is built on their unique approach to protecting the data privacy of consumers - and that global market forces (that USP) would be sufficient to incentivise Apple to never roll back on their commitment to exclusively design products that can only be unlocked by the data owner.

It won't surprise you all to know that I am more cautious, and pessimistic, about whether market forces alone will hold any company (or actor) to incentivise forever a rights affirming position, when it sits so squarely against state interest.

So offered a bet: for the next 30 years, Apple would not lower the digital privacy protections that it offered users, in response to any state government demands.

The stakes were a little reckless, but I felt confident.

My partner was confident, too - this being in 2021, and what feels like a very different time.

Who wins? ??

This week, Apple has announced that it is removing access to its highest level of data security for from consumers in the UK. Specifically, they are pulling access to Advanced Data Encryption for users not yet enrolled, and will turn off this function in the UK for users who are currently enrolled, at some point in the future.

This is in response to a demand from the UK Home Office for access to Apple users' encrypted data under the UK Investigatory Powers Act in January 2025.

This is troubling, and whilst my partner (when he gets around to reading this article) will probably start with a long list of reasons why he has not yet lost this bet... my point is, even if he doesn't concede now, we must both agree that the odds have significantly shifted in my favour, and at a minimum, this is a significant first step down the road of Apple eventually capitulating to state interests.

Why?

Because the next step for the UK Government is to find a very compelling "bad facts" case - where the public will feel obliged to agree that breach of an individual's data privacy rights might be warranted - and then serve Apple with a demand to provide access to this person's data.

Even if Apple cannot comply - even if, at that time, it is still technologically incapable of doing so - the fall out will build public and political pressure on the company to change how it operates. That's the play; this is how states exercise power, and people lose rights.

A closer look at: UK media coverage

When I had a closer look at the UK Investigatory Powers Act, I was surprised at how wide ranging the powers are, and how little I knew about the consequences.

This is what relatively amateur observers, like me, have to navigate: here is GCHQ's explanation of what the Act does, and here is a response from consumer advocates Open Rights Group.

There's a lot to fill in between the two, and I wonder if we have access to enough easy to digest and independent information to do that work as informed citizens?

I also found it interesting that the BBC coverage of this issue sought to reassure readers:

"It's also important to note that the government notice does not mean the authorities are suddenly going to start combing through everybody's data.

It is believed that the government would want to access this data if there were a risk to national security - in other words, it would be targeting an individual, rather than using it for mass surveillance.

Authorities would still have to follow a legal process, have a good reason and request permission for a specific account in order to access data - just as they do now with unencrypted data."

I'm not sure why a news editor felt it was important to reassure us that the UK Government would or would not do something that they clearly have the power to do, but ...just to be clear, the "legal process" for issuing a notice under the Act does not require judicial authorisation. That means, no judge has to agree with a government decision that granting access to your data is in the state's interest.

?? This is - not a legal process; this is the government marking its own homework.

??Authoritarianism, beyond politics

My last point, is about the enduring risk that governments with power will seek to retain and exercise power.

?? It was a Conservative-led government that built the framework for dismantling our digital privacy rights.

?? But it was a Labour-led government that actually took the first steps, under the new legislation, to remove those rights.

??Reflections, and what next???

So, I realise this may have been a bit of a hard hitting article for what I hope is a sunny and pleasant Friday for everyone reading today.

So as not to leave you down, I will say that I may not, in fact, have won my wager - but having made this bet (however reckless and ill-informed) has certainly sharpened my interest in a subject that is actually very important to all of us.

And maybe that is a good lesson to take away - that we cannot ever know and understand all the important things that influence the world around us, but:

??we can stay open and curious to learning from others

??we can make an effort to inform ourselves about issues that are new and unfamiliar to us

??and we can stay committed to thinking critically about what we hear, and most of all, about continuously re-examining our own views

??Thanks again for reading this week. I would love to hear your thoughts on the UK's most recent moves around data privacy rights as well as welcome any additional reading you think I should be doing! And also, interested - if you're happy to share - to hear if there are issues adjacent to your work or thinking that you've resolved to learn more about this year.