The United Kingdom government has secretly requested that Apple build a backdoor into its iCloud service, granting the government unrestricted access to users’ private data. This revelation deeply concerns me – it is a blatant overreach that threatens privacy, security and civil liberties.
I have been using Apple devices and services since 2006 and I trust the company. Apple has built its reputation on user privacy and is unlikely to comply. The company has previously resisted similar demands, even suggesting that it would rather leave the UK market than compromise its privacy standards. This raises an urgent question: should technology companies be forced to bow to government pressure and bring in George Orwell’s 1984 nightmare, or should they remain steadfast in protecting our privacy rights? In this context, I agree with Edward Snowden’s summary on privacy:
“Saying you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
Context
In January 2025, the UK government issued a “technical capability notice” to Apple under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, mandating that the company provide a backdoor to its encrypted iCloud services. This order requires Apple to grant access to users’ encrypted data, effectively bypassing the end-to-end encryption that protects user privacy. The issuance of such notices is typically confidential, and the Home Office has declined to confirm or deny its existence.
As someone who was born in former Czechoslovakia, I still remember what it was like to live under an authoritarian regime. Governments that control access to information, monitor citizens and suppress dissent do not make people safer – they make them fearful and compliant. I never want to see the UK, or any other country, slide into that kind of surveillance-driven state.
To understand why this is so dangerous, let us look at the role of end-to-end encryption, Apple’s security measures and the dangers of government-mandated backdoors. This is not just about technology – it is about fundamental freedoms and the future of democracy.
A brief history of end-to-end encryption
End-to-end encryption (E2EE) ensures that only the sender and recipient of a message can access its contents. Even the company providing the service (e.g., Apple) has no access. This kind of encryption is crucial for protecting personal information from hackers, criminals and overreaching governments.
Encryption has existed for centuries, from ancient ciphers to military codes. It became essential in the digital era, securing everything from online banking to personal emails. The introduction of Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and later Transport Layer Security (TLS) transformed web security, ensuring encrypted data transfers online.
In the wake of Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations about mass government surveillance, tech companies strengthened their encryption to reassure users that their data was private. Apple led the way with iMessage end-to-end encryption in 2011, followed by Signal in 2013 and WhatsApp in 2016.
For many – journalists, activists, whistleblowers and even ordinary citizens – E2EE is the only way to communicate safely in an increasingly intrusive digital world.
Apple’s approach to security and privacy
Apple has built its ecosystem around strong security and privacy protections. Some of its most significant measures include:
- Secure Enclave – A dedicated coprocessor that stores encryption keys separately from the main processor. The encryption keys are stored inside and cannot be exported.
- File-based encryption – Each file is encrypted individually, making it more difficult for unauthorized access.
- End-to-end encryption in iCloud – With Advanced Data Protection enabled, iCloud backups, messages, notes and other sensitive data are encrypted so securely that even Apple cannot access them.
Apple’s history of resisting government overreach
This is not the first time Apple has faced pressure to create a security backdoor. In 2016, the FBI demanded access to a locked iPhone belonging to a terrorist. Apple refused, arguing that creating such a tool would set a dangerous precedent.
Now, the UK government is making similar demands, but on an even larger scale. If Apple concedes, it will not just be law enforcement agencies accessing data. Other governments, including authoritarian regimes, will demand the same.
The case against government-mandated backdoors
The idea of a government backdoor might sound reasonable in theory – after all, should law enforcement not have a way to stop criminals? But in reality, backdoors weaken security for everyone and pose serious risks:
1. Backdoors undermine security for everyone
Once a vulnerability is created, it will be exploited – by criminals, hostile nations and even corrupt insiders. The UK government might claim it will only use the backdoor responsibly, but history shows that security loopholes do not stay secret for long.
The history also shows that provisions in law to lower privacy in just extreme cases have been abused and the threshold to use them has lowered. For example, some local UK councils have been found using CCTV under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to monitor minor offences such as littering, dog fouling, and school catchment fraud.
2. A slippery slope to mass surveillance
Allowing the UK government access to iCloud data could set a dangerous precedent. If Apple complies, other countries – China, Russia, Saudi Arabia – will demand the same. The moment a backdoor is created, Apple loses control over who can access it.
I have seen what happens when governments have unchecked power. In former Czechoslovakia, the state monitored citizens, controlled the media and crushed dissent. People lived in fear of being watched and punished for speaking freely. The more power governments have to monitor private lives, the easier it becomes to control them.
If the UK normalizes this kind of surveillance, it could eventually reach a point where citizens accept it as “necessary” for security – just like in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four dystopia.
3. It violates basic human rights
Privacy is a fundamental right, protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No Governments can justify mass surveillance under the guise of national security. The argument “If you have done nothing illegal you have nothing to hide” cannot be used to reduce our privacy rights.
4. It will not stop criminals
The idea that backdoors will prevent crime is naive and politicians who use it as an argument are either in someone’s pocket or naïve, but dangerous in either case.
Criminals will simply switch to other encryption tools or develop their own. The only people affected will be ordinary citizens who won’t any longer trust their devices.
The bigger picture: Digital rights and the future of privacy
Apple’s response to this request will set a global precedent. If it stands firm, it reinforces the idea that privacy is a right, not a privilege. If it caves, it opens the door to widespread government surveillance.
This is about more than just Apple – it is about the future of digital privacy. Do we want a world where governments have unchecked access to our personal data? Or do we believe in the right to communicate and store information securely, without fear of intrusion?
Privacy is non-negotiable
The UK government’s request for an iCloud backdoor is a blatant attack on my and your privacy. Weakening encryption for one government weakens it for all, making users less safe and paving the way for widespread surveillance.
I have lived in a country where privacy was a luxury, where the government had too much power and where people were afraid to speak freely. I never want the UK – or any other country – to follow that path.
Apple must reject this demand, and the public must push back against any attempt to normalize mass surveillance. Privacy is not just a feature – it is a fundamental right. If we allow governments to chip away at it, we risk losing the freedoms that define a democratic society.
My message to the UK government is clear:
“Our data is not yours to take, and we refuse to live in a world where privacy is just an illusion.”