Categories
News

Joint Letter on the UK Government’s use of Investigatory Powers Act to attack End-to-End Encryption

On 13 February 2025, 109 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts, including Global Encryption Coalition members, published a joint letter to the British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper calling on the UK Home Office to rescind its demand that Apple create a backdoor into its end-to-end encrypted services.

The letter, published and sent to the Home Secretary initially on 13 February, remains open to sign-ons until 20 February. After 20 February, a final version of the letter with a complete list of signatures will be sent to the Home Secretary. Until 20 February, the list of signatories will be updated daily.

If you are a cybersecurity expert or work at an organization or company that would like to sign on to this open letter in support, please fill out this sign-on form.

The current number of signatures is 157. (last updated at 22.45UTC, 13 February)


To The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP,

The undersigned civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts, including members of the Global Encryption Coalition1, call on the UK Home Office to rescind its demand that Apple create a backdoor into its end-to-end encrypted services. This demand jeopardizes the security and privacy of millions, undermines the UK tech sector, and sets a dangerous precedent for global cybersecurity.

Reports indicate that the UK Government has issued a technical capability notice (or TCN) to Apple under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 s.253 (IP Act). If all had gone according to plan, the UK government would have forced Apple to build a backdoor into its end-to-end encrypted cloud services. The world’s second-largest provider of mobile devices would be built on top of a systemic security flaw, putting all of its users’ security and privacy at risk, not just in the UK but globally.

The consensus among cybersecurity experts could not be clearer: there is no way to provide government access to end-to-end encrypted data without breaking end-to-end encryption, thus putting every user’s security and privacy at risk.

Strong encryption keeps information and communication confidential. In a digital society, encryption is critical to safeguarding citizens both online and off, to protecting the digital economy, and to ensuring national security. In late January, the UK’s National Audit Office released a report that the “cyber threat to the UK government is severe.”2 As Ciaran Martin, former Director and founder of the UK Government’s National Cybersecurity Center notes “E2EE [end-to-end encryption] must expand, legally unfettered, for the betterment of our digital homeland.”3 With cyberattacks becoming ever-more frequent and sophisticated4,  the reliance of the UK government, citizens, and businesses on end-to-end encryption to keep themselves safe and secure has never been greater. 

The UK Government has stressed the importance of digital technologies to the UK’s economic growth, but by forcing a company to secretly undermine the security of their product, the UK government risks foreign companies leaving the market and casting doubt on the security of products from UK tech companies. For some global companies, they may choose to leave the UK market rather than face the global reputational risks that breaking the security of their products would entail. UK companies will also suffer reputational damage, as foreign investors and consumers will consider whether their products are riddled with secret UK government-mandated security vulnerabilities. 

International human rights bodies have recognised the importance of end-to-end encryption to protect the right to privacy and to promote the exercise of other rights. This is because being able to communicate safely and securely can be a precondition to being able to communicate and express one’s views. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recognises the importance of anonymity in “promoting the free flow of ideas and information in an important manner” including by protecting people from reprisals for their exercise of freedom of expression5. In February 2024, the ECtHR found that Russia’s order issued to Telegram requiring it to disclose “technical information” including encryption keys breached human rights law, as it was not proportionate6.

Undermining the confidentiality of cloud services would have the most harmful impact on those already at greatest risk: families, domestic violence survivors7, LGBTQ+ individuals8, and many more who rely on the safety and privacy provided by end-to-end encrypted services. For these and other at-risk groups, the confidentiality guaranteed by end-to-end encryption can be critical in preventing harassment and physical violence.

Similarly, encrypted communications protect the UK’s national security. Government services benefit from encryption and providing backdoors in one instance can lead to encryption being weakened across the ecosystem of the public sector, as well. For national security professionals and government employees, access to end-to-end encrypted services allows them to safeguard their personal life. Ensuring the security and privacy of government officials is vital for helping prevent extortion or coercion attempts, which could lead to greater national security damage.

To ensure the national and economic security of the United Kingdom, the Home Office must end its technical capability notice forcing Apple to break its end-to-end encryption.

  1.  https://www.globalencryption.org/about/members/ ↩︎
  2.  https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/cyber-threat-to-uk-government-is-severe-and-advancing-quickly-spending-watchdog-finds/ ↩︎
  3.  https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-11/End-to-end%20Encryption%20Ciaran%20Martin%20Blavatnik%20School.pdf ↩︎
  4.  https://cyberscoop.com/salt-typhoon-us-government-jen-easterly-cisa/ ↩︎
  5.  Delfi AS v Estonia [2015] EMLR 26, [147] and [149]: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-155105”]} ↩︎
  6. Podchasov v Russia [2024] ECHR 134 [79]: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854%22]} ↩︎
  7.  https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NNEDV_Survivor_FactSheet-EN.pdf ↩︎
  8. https://www.lgbttech.org/encryption-privacy-security ↩︎

Signatories*

Organizations

3 Steps Data

Access Now

Ambient Information Systems

ARTICLE 19

AT Worthy Technology

BETAPERSEI SC

Big Brother Watch

Bits of Freedom

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)

Center for Democracy & Technology

Chaos Computer Club

Chayn

Comunitatea Internet Association

Community Focus Foundation Ghana

Cryptography Consulting LLC

Cybersecurity Advisors Network (CyAN)

cyberstorm.mu

Defend Digital Me

Digital Rights Ireland

eco – Association of the Internet Industry

École Supérieure Polytechnique, Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar

Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)

Electric Coin Co.

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc

Electronic Frontier Norway

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Element

Fight for the Future

Filecoin Foundation

Foundation for Information Policy Research

Fundación Karisma

Gate 15

Girlhype Women Who Code

Global Partners Digital

Homo Digitalis

Index on Censorship

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Institute for Research on Internet and Society

Internet Architecture Board

Internet Governance Project

Internet Society

Internet Society Benin Chapter

Internet Society Dominican Republic Chapter

Internet Society Honduras Chapter

Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapter

Internet Society Manitoba Chapter

Internet Society Niger Chapter

Internet Society Panama Chapter

Internet Society Portuguese Chapter

Internet Society Senegal Chapter

Internet Society Switzerland Chapter

Internet Society Tanzania Chapter

Internet Society Togo Chapter

Internet Society UK England

Internet Society Venezuela Chapter

Irish Council for Civil Liberties

ISOC Brazil – Brazilian Chapter of the Internet Society

ISOC-CAT Catalan Chapter

JCA-NET

Kenya Human Rights Commission

Law and Technology Research Institute of Recife

Legal Resources Centre

LGBT Tech

Marks Software Limited

Mozilla

Myntex

NetTek Ltd

Nym

OpenMedia

Open Rights Group

OPTF

Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

Palmer Computer Services Inc.

Phoenix R&D

PointWire

Prague Centre for Media Skills

PrivacyMatters

Privacy & Access Council of Canada

Privacy International

Quilibrium Inc

Red de Desarrollo Sostenible – Honduras

SECURECOM

SECURECRYPT

SkypLabs

Software Freedom Law Center India (SFLC.IN)

Surfshark

Tech for Good Asia

TEDIC

The Tor Project

The Zcash Foundation

Tuta Mail

Universal Privacy Alliance

Individual Experts

Andrea Basso, University of Bristol

Professor Subhajit Basu, School of Law, University of Leeds

Steven M. Bellovin, Columbia University

Ian Brown, Visiting Professor, Fundaçao Getulio Vargas Direito

Randy Bush, Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus Inc

Jon Callas, Indiana University

Duncan Campbell, University of Sussex

Sofía Celi, Brave

Michael J. Chapple, University of Notre Dame

Richard Clayton, University of Cambridge

Andrew Clement, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto

Ben Collier, University of Edinburgh

Rachel Coldicutt OBE

Alissa Cooper, Georgetown University

Alan Cox, Hon. Fellow Swansea University, Hon. Fellow University of Wales Trinity St David

Javier Ruiz Diaz, Associate, University of Sussex Centre for Law and Technology

Sven Dietrich, City University of New York

Orr Dunkelamn, University of Haifa

Zakir Durumeric, Stanford University

Roya Ensafi, University of Michigan

Nicola Fabiano, Studio Legale Fabiano

Stephen Farrell, Trinity College Dublin

Dr. Richard F. Forno, UMBC Cybersecurity Institute

Simson L. Garfinkel, Association for Computing Machinery Technology Policy Committee

Harley Lorenz Geiger

Professor Oscar González, University of Managua

Geoffrey Goodell, University College London

Bill Goodwin, Journalist

Ian Grant, Telecommunications industry analyst

Wendy M. Grossman, Author, net.wars

Masayuki Hatta, Surugadai University

Guy Herbert, NO2ID

Dr Monica Horten, Iptegrity.com

Dr Julian Huppert, University of Cambridge

David R. Jefferson

Sidney Karin

Mallory Knodel, NYU

Susan Landau, Tufts University

Carl Landwehr, University of Michigan

Jean Linis-Dinco

Dr Angus M Marshall, n-gate Ltd. (digital evidence specialists)

Michelle L. Mazurek, University of Maryland

Eran Messeri

Eric Mill

Kathleen Moriarty, SecurityBias

Alec Muffett, Security Researcher & Writer

Peter Gabriel Neumann, SRI Computer Science Lab

Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow and Internet Research Task Force

Riana Pfefferkorn, Stanford University

Ronald L. Rivest, Insitute Professor, MIT

Jan Schaumann, Security Architect

Bruce Schneier, Harvard Kennedy School

Wendy Seltzer

Adam Shostack, author of Threat Modeling: Designing for Security

Kris Shrishak, ICCL – Enforce

Jessica Shurson, University of Sussex

Professor Peter Sommer, Birmingham City University

Eugene H. Spafford, Professor, Purdue University

Michael A. Specter, Georgia Institute of Technology

Prof. J.W. Verret, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

David Wagner, University of California, Berkeley

Tarah Wheeler, US/UK Fulbright Scholar in Cybersecurity

Kenneth White, Cryptography Engineer

Philip Zimmermann

*Affiliations listed for identification purposes only