Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have slammed a recent UK government order demanding that Apple unlock encrypted cloud data, warning that the measure jeopardises privacy rights not only in the UK but around the world.
The secret order—reported by the Washington Post as having been issued in January 2025 by the Home Office—compels Apple to provide access to encrypted user data, including device backups containing contact lists, location history, and messaging records.
This pertains to the Advanced Data Protection feature on iPhones, which employs end-to-end encryption, meaning Apple itself cannot access the data stored on its servers.
Critics argue that such a move is an alarming overreach. Zach Campbell, Senior Surveillance Researcher at Human Rights Watch, stated, “If these reports are true, this is an alarming overreach by the UK authorities seeking to access the private data of not only people in the UK, but anyone worldwide with an Apple account.
“People rely on secure and confidential communications to exercise their rights.”
News reports indicate that the UK government has invoked the Investigatory Powers Act—a 2016 law that allows authorities to demand companies remove “electronic protection” from user data.
Under this law, recipients, including Apple, are forbidden from acknowledging or commenting on such orders.
The new directive effectively mandates a back door in Apple products, giving authorities blanket capability to view fully encrypted material from users across the globe, regardless of their UK connection.
Encryption is vital for protecting the privacy and security of online communications. Human rights defenders, journalists, and ordinary users depend on strong encryption to safeguard their data from both unlawful government surveillance and cybercrime. Weakening encryption, or forcing companies to install vulnerabilities, leaves everyone at risk.
In recent years, numerous revelations about state-sponsored surveillance and the misuse of spyware have sparked global debates about digital privacy.
Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently warned that such practices endanger the rights of individuals, particularly marginalised groups, and create a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful protest.
In response to mounting concerns, tech giants like Apple have introduced security features such as Lockdown Mode and Advanced Data Protection to shield users from targeted hacking and spyware.
The current UK government order, however, would undermine these protections, putting journalists, human rights defenders, and other vulnerable users at greater risk.
The UK is a signatory to several international treaties that enshrine the right to privacy and data protection. United Nations bodies and human rights experts have repeatedly highlighted the importance of robust encryption for ensuring freedom of expression and protecting digital communications.
A 2015 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression urged governments to refrain from introducing measures that weaken individual security, such as mandated back doors.
Critics argue that the UK government’s order is disproportionate by design. By compelling Apple to provide universal access to encrypted data, the order weakens data protections for all users, regardless of any suspicion of wrongdoing.
“States have more, and more powerful legal and technical tools at their disposal, and research shows that they are using them to target people for protesting, speaking out, or even just because of who they are,” said Joshua Franco, senior research adviser at Amnesty Tech. “Strong encryption is one of the few protections we have against such attacks.”
The UK government’s directive to force Apple to compromise its encryption is being widely criticised as a dangerous infringement on privacy rights.
Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch urge the government to drop the order and support robust encryption measures that protect users globally.
If implemented, the order would not only harm the privacy of millions but also set a troubling precedent for state surveillance worldwide.
