Apple has launched a blistering attack on government proposals that would force tech firms to clear new privacy features with the Home Office.
The iPhone maker said the changes to the Investigatory Powers Act, which are under consultation, would pose a “serious and direct threat” to the security of user data.
In a nine-page submission, Apple said it would rather withdraw critical privacy measures in its services from the UK than adhere to the plans.
But what exactly does this law do, what’s being proposed now, and is Apple right to be so opposed to it?
It included allowing security agencies and police to intercept suspicious communications, and permitting the Home Office to compel communications providers to remove encryption from communications or data.
More on Apple
Related Topics:
Encryption is what protects messages from being seen by people outside the conversation. It’s used in popular messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal.
Advocates say it protects users from surveillance, theft, and fraud; while critics say it helps criminals thrive.
Advertisement
The government argued the bill would keep the UK safe from hostile threats and crack down on illegal activity.
A statement this week said the amendments will help keep the law relevant as technology develops and “protect the public from criminals, child sex abusers and terrorists”.
Image: WhatsApp is among the platforms that offers end-to-end encryption
What are the amendments?
Apple, which opposed the original bill, is particularly unhappy about three proposed changes.
One would force companies to tell the Home Office in advance of new security features they want to add. Those it doesn’t approve of would need to be disabled immediately.
Another would see expanded authority for the Home Office to force non-UK companies to comply with changes it wants them to make to security features.
Apple says this would give the UK an “authority that no other country has” and stifle innovation.
The Home Office insists the act includes “strong independent oversight” to regulate how the surveillance powers it gives public authorities are used. Sky News previously revealed the government has never used the bill to order WhatsApp owner Meta to let authorities access encrypted messages, for example.
Apple says the changes erode some of these protections and afford more direct power to the home secretary.
Dr Nathalie Moreno, data protection partner at Addleshaw Goddard, told Sky News they “don’t seem subject to the clear conditions or guardrails normally in place to make such reform”.
Apple has been a prominent opponent of efforts to have authorities access user data, even in extreme cases.
Following a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in 2015, the firm went to court against the FBI to stop it breaking into an iPhone used by the killer.
Robin Wilton, a director at the Internet Society, said Apple’s latest intervention was timed for maximum impact.
It came a day after the Online Safety Bill, the government’s flagship internet safety legislation which could force companies to scan messages for abuse content, made it through the House of Lords.
Mr Wilton told Sky News: “It’s not only driven by the proposed amendments to this act, but their perception of the general policy direction of the UK government.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
What is in the online safety bill?
Will Apple’s intervention have an impact?
Matthew Hodgson, the boss of UK-based messaging platform Element, which counts Britain’s Ministry of Defence among its clients, hopes the intervention of such a major company will scupper the proposals.
He told Sky News these “backdoors” could give bad actors the opportunity to break into them too.
“I am glad Apple is taking a strong line – the idea one has to seek permission from the government to add or change encryption on your product is terrifying,” he said.
“This strategy will only undermine our ability to provide secure communications because customers won’t trust us if they believe policy decisions have to be run past the government.”
The consultation is due to last for eight weeks.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We keep all legislation under review to ensure it is as strong as it can be, and this consultation is part of that process – no decisions have yet been made.”
The Online Safety Bill, meanwhile, is due to be debated by MPs after the summer break. Among its backers are children’s charities that have described private messaging as the “frontline” of child sexual abuse.
The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body, a major review of the sector has advised.
It has recommended abolishing regulator Ofwat as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which ensures that public water supplies are safe.
The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.
The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.
The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.
He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.
Here are nine key recommendations:
More from Money
• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England
• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales
• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints
• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters
• Tighter oversight of water company ownership and governance, including new powers for the regulator to block changes in water company ownership
• Public health reforms – this aims to better manage public health risks in water, recognising the many people who swim, surf and enjoy other water-based activities
• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets
• Clear strategic direction – a newlong-term National Water Strategy should be published by both the UK and Welsh governments with a “minimum horizon of 25 years”
• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – including new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets and new resilience standards
In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.
Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence.
Major other suggested steps for the government include greater consumer protection by upgrading the Consumer Council for Water into an ombudsman with advocacy duties being transferred to Citizens Advice.
Stronger and updated regulations have been proposed by Sir Jon, including compulsory water metering, changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A social tariff is also recommended.
Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.
To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to.
It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.
The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.
A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.
A long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.
Companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
A new public inquiry will “uncover the truth” behind the so-called “Battle of Orgreave”, a bloody fight between striking miners and police officers in the 1980s.
One hundred and twenty people were injured in the violent confrontation on 18 June 1984, outside a coal processing factory in Orgreave, South Yorkshire.
Five thousand miners clashed with an equal number of armed and mounted police during a day of fighting.
Police used horse charges, riot shields and batons against the picketers, even as some were retreating.
Image: Masses of miners and police clashed during the day of fighting
Image: Police officers on horses charged against protesters
In the aftermath, miners were blamed for the violence in what campaigners believe was an institutional “frame-up”.
“There were so many lies,” says Chris Peace, from campaign group Orgreave Truth and Justice, “and it’s a real historic moment to get to this stage.”
“There’s a lot of information already in the public domain,” she adds, “but there’s still some papers that are embargoed, which will hopefully now be brought to light.”
More on South Yorkshire
Related Topics:
Image: Campaigner Chris Peace
Although dozens of miners were arrested, trials against them all collapsed due to allegations of unreliable police evidence.
Campaigners say some involved have been left with “physical and psychological damage”, but until now, previous governments have refused calls for a public inquiry.
Launching the inquiry today, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky Newsi that she wanted to “make sure” campaigners now got “proper answers”.
“We’ve obviously had unanswered questions about what happened at Orgreave for over 40 years,” Ms Cooper says, “and when we were elected to government, we determined to take this forward.”
Image: A police officer tackling a miner
Image: A bleeding protester being led away by police during the ‘Battle of Orgreave’
Image: The Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox, will chair the inquiry
The inquiry will be a statutory one, meaning that witnesses will be compelled to come and give evidence, and chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox.
“I’m really happy,” says Carl Parkinson, a former miner who was at Orgreave on the day of the clash, “but why has it took so long?”
“A lot of those colleagues and close friends have passed away, and they’ll never get to see any outcome.”
Image: Former miner Carl Parkinson
Image: Former miner Chris Skidmore
Mr Parkinson and Chris Skidmore, who was also there that day, were among the group of campaigners informed first-hand by Ms Cooper about the public inquiry at the Orgreave site.
“It wasn’t frightening to start off with,” Mr Skidmore remembers of the day itself, “but then what I noticed was the amount of police officers who had no identification numbers on. It all felt planned.”
“And it wasn’t just one truncheon,” says Mr Parkinson, “there were about 30, or 40. And it was simultaneous, like it was orchestrated – just boom, boom, boom, boom.
“And there’s lads with a split down their heads for no good reason, they’d done nothing wrong. We were just there to peacefully picket.”
Image: Police used riot shields against the picketers, even as some were retreating
Image: In the aftermath of the fighting, miners were blamed for the violence
In the intervening years, South Yorkshire Police have paid more than £400,000 in compensation to affected miners and their families.
But no official inquiry has ever looked at the documents surrounding the day’s events, the lead-up to it and the aftermath.
“We need to have trust and confidence restored in the police,” says South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard, “and part of that is about people, like this campaign, getting the justice that they deserve.
“Obviously, we’ve had things like Hillsborough, CSE [Child Sexual Exploitation] in Rotherham, and we want to turn the page.”
Consumers will get stronger protections with a new water watchdog – as trust in water companies takes a record dive.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed will announce on Monday that the government will set up the new water ombudsman with legal powers to resolve disputes, rather than the current voluntary system.
The watchdog will mean an expansion of the Consumer Council for Water’s (CCW) role and will bring the water sector into line with other utilities that have legally binding consumer watchdogs.
Consumers will then have a single point of contact for complaints.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the new watchdog would help “re-establish partnership” between water companies and consumers.
A survey by the CCW in May found trust in water companies had reached a new low, with fewer than two-thirds of people saying they provided value for money.
Just 35% said they thought charges from water companies were fair – even before the impact could be felt from a 26% increase in bills in April.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:20
‘We’ll be able to eliminate sewage spillages’
Mr Reed is planning a “root and branch reform” of the water industry – which he branded “absolutely broken” – that he will reveal alongside a major review of the sector on Monday.
The review is expected to recommend the scrapping of water regulator Ofwat and the creation of a new one, to incorporate the work of the CCW.
Image: A water pollution protest by Surfers Against Sewage in Brighton
Campaigners and MPs have accused Ofwat of failing to hold water operators to account, while the companies complain a focus on keeping bills down has prevented appropriate infrastructure investment.
He pledged to halve sewage pollution by water companies by 2030 and said Labour would eliminate unauthorised sewage spillages in a decade.
Mr Reed announced £104 billion of private investment to help the government do that.
Victoria Atkins MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “While stronger consumer protections are welcome in principle, they are only one part of the serious long-term reforms the water sector needs.
“We all want the water system to improve, and honesty about the scale of the challenge is essential. Steve Reed must explain that bill payers are paying for the £104 billion investment plan. Ministers must also explain how replacing one quango with another is going to clean up our rivers and lakes.
“Public confidence in the water system will only be rebuilt through transparency, resilience, and delivery.”