The UK’s War on Privacy is a Warning for America

The United Kingdom is out of control. Not only are they putting people in prison for their Facebook posts, but now they are forcing Apple to provide unfettered access to any protected data on your Apple devices. For the Apple faithful, such a move would be a complete departure from the promises made at Cupertino headquarters. While this level of surveillance may be acceptable across the pond, it is entirely unacceptable here in the United States and should be addressed at the state and federal levels.

For those who don’t know, Apple has a feature known as Advanced Data Protection (ADP) that allows users to secure their iCloud data with enhanced privacy features through end-to-end encryption. That means not even Apple can access your data as it’s securely stored directly on your devices instead of on Apple’s servers. But the UK government isn’t happy with that setup because it keeps them out.

What they want is a backdoor. For those unfamiliar with the term, a backdoor to a program created by the manufacturer that provides access to your program or device with the flip of a switch. Now, a new report reveals the UK Office of the Home Secretary wants that switch in Apple devices so they can access your device whenever they please—whether you’re in London, England, or Las Vegas, Nevada. They make this demand under the authority of the Investigatory Powers Act, a sweeping intelligence and surveillance law adopted in 2016.

The UK government is not alone in pressuring companies to comply with government orders. Sweden is now considering legislation to force end-to-end encrypted messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp to store all private user communications and create backdoor access—an unprecedented move justified under the guise of crime prevention. To date, Apple has resisted the UK’s order, while Signal’s CEO threatened to pull out of Sweden entirely should the proposed law pass.

Here at home, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple in federal court following the tragic 2015 mass shooting in San Bernadino, California. They argued that the shooter’s iPhone contained critical evidence for the FBI’s investigation and must be unlocked. Apple argued that such a move was unconstitutional and that a backdoor would be abused by malicious actors. (The DOJ dropped the case after the FBI hacked into the shooter’s phone without Apple’s help).

In the ten years since San Bernardino, as more of our lives take place online, government agencies and law enforcement continue to test boundaries and encroach upon the privacy and due process rights of Americans.

One of the most concerning avenues is through the collection of digital information stored on third-party servers. Just as the police are required to produce a search warrant to access a suspect’s storage unit, many jurisdictions afford third-party stored digital information the same constitutional protection.

Digital information can often become accessible and searchable by those other than the content owner, whereas physical property might not be. It is an inherent feature of our modern digital age of computers and the internet.  Attaining this information so directly is not only more possible but has also become a temptation for law enforcement leading criminal investigations. But just because certain information can be obtained more easily by law enforcement does not mean people’s most fundamental rights should be discarded.

Law enforcement may perceive secure digital property, and even Fourth Amendment protections, as an obstacle in their day-to-day jobs. Officials in the UK certainly do. But American legislators should not. Instead, lawmakers should uphold the fundamental right to individual privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures—a cornerstone of our legal system which has produced a populous of free citizens compared to one of mere subjects.

A step in the right direction would be backing legislation that protects American citizens from unwarranted surveillance like the ALEC Model Electronic Data Privacy Protection Act, which requires a valid search warrant before law enforcement can seize a user’s geolocation data or other digital information, even when it is stored on third-party servers. This approach would modernize state privacy law and close what is known as the “Third-Party Loophole,” which government agencies have historically abused to circumvent warrant requirements by going straight to a third-party or data broker to obtain user data.

If a Western ally like the United Kingdom can pressure American companies to weaken encryption and betray user trust without facing meaningful opposition, the erosion of privacy rights will only accelerate. As Congress debates federal reforms, states have an opportunity to take decisive action now by upholding Fourth Amendment principles and protecting their citizens from government overreach. Failing to do so risks setting a dangerous precedent—one where privacy is no longer a right, but a privilege government can revoke at will.