Can Apple block Britain from forcefully hacking its customers?
Apple urged the British government on Monday to change a draft bill that would give new Internet surveillance powers to state authorities, which say they are "essential to tackle child sexual exploitation, to dismantle serious crime cartels, take drugs and guns off our streets and prevent terrorist attacks," according to the bill draft.聽
In a statement to the Investigatory Powers Bill committee, which is considering whether to approve legislation that the government says aims to modernize the country鈥檚 security laws, the American tech giant exhorted UK lawmakers to avoid compromising the online security of millions of British citizens in exchange for unbridled access to the private communications of a small number of people who pose a threat.
鈥淭he creation of backdoors and intercept capabilities would weaken the protections built into Apple products and endanger all our customers,鈥� Apple said in its submission, .
鈥淎 key left under the doormat would not just be there for the good guys. The bad guys would find it too,鈥� Apple wrote, referring to it says could allow the government to demand that the company alter the way its messaging service, iMessage, works to allow security services to view messages sent by Apple customers. Currently, those messages are encrypted to prevent access by third parties.
The draft bill, which critics are calling a 鈥渟nooper鈥檚 charter,鈥� would also require the company to help the government hack into its own devices, Apple says.
But despite security warnings from the company and from Internet privacy defenders, it鈥檚 hard to predict whether the threat of increased government surveillance will register widely in Britain, where there鈥檚 less tension historically about giving up privacy for the sake of security, especially in the age of terrorism.聽
British citizens tend to聽have a higher threshold for the actions of their spy agencies, as 海角大神 has reported. There are several reasons for this: For one, Britons are used to having their actions recorded, having lived under the watchful gaze of millions of surveillance cameras in cities and on roadways.
There鈥檚 also the kingdom's monarchical tradition, which prescribes that power be wielded from the top, or from the government, over the subjects at the bottom, as The Guardian鈥檚 executive editor, , has pointed out.
鈥淭he extent to which Britain is still a monarchical country is very relevant,鈥� he told The World, shortly after leaked documents from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed widespread US and UK spying in 2013.
The news didn鈥檛 rile Britons like it did Americans and others around the world.
"The big difference between Britain and America is that in the United States the Constitution begins with the words, 鈥榃e the people.鈥� Power in Britain does not belong even formally to the people,鈥� Mr. Freedland said.
Some high-profile Britons have raised alarms about the public鈥檚 apparent apathy toward government monitoring. The UK鈥檚 new surveillance commissioner, Tony Porter, who was formerly a counter-terrorism officer, warned that the British public is too complacent about increasingly intrusive government surveillance.
鈥淭he lack of public awareness about the nature of surveillance troubles me鈥� .
鈥淭he UK has some of the most surveillance cameras per head in the developed world,鈥� Mr. Porter said.聽鈥淭hat reputation spurs me on to make sure I make a difference. If I don鈥檛 make an impact, I won鈥檛 want to hang around,鈥� he said.
