Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Two human rights groups have launched a legal challenge against the UK government’s bid to force Apple to create a “back door” in its security systems, as the iPhone maker prepares to go to court to fight the secret order on Friday. In legal submissions to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which probes complaints against the UK’s security services, Privacy International and Liberty argue that Apple’s appeal should be heard in public. They add that ordering the company to compromise the security of its products breaches its customers’ free expression and privacy rights. “The UK’s use of a secret order to undermine security for people worldwide is unacceptable and disproportionate,” said Caroline Wilson Palow, legal director at Privacy International. “People the world over rely on end-to-end encryption to protect themselves from harassment and oppression. No country should have the power to undermine that protection for everyone.”Apple lodged its own legal complaint to the tribunal last month, around the same time as it withdrew its most secure online back-up service from the UK. It pulled the iCloud Advanced Data Protection system after receiving a “technical capability notice” (TCN) under the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act in January. The notice demanded that the company enable law enforcement to tap iPhone back-ups, according to people familiar with the matter. Under ADP, an optional layer of extra security for the iCloud, customer data is stored using end-to-end encryption so that even Apple is unable to access it. “We have never built a back door or master key to any of our products, and we never will,” Apple said at the time. Under the IPA, recipients of a TCN are unable to discuss the matter publicly unless granted permission by the secretary of state. As a result, Apple’s complaint against the order is also held in secret. The tribunal’s website lists Friday’s hearing only as “an application in private” to be held before Lord Justice Sir Rabinder Singh, its president, and Justice Jeremy Johnson. Privacy International and Liberty are challenging the secrecy of the TCN process, which they say fails to meet the statutory requirements of the Investigatory Powers Act. Law firm Leigh Day is acting on behalf of the campaigners. “It would be an entirely reckless and unprecedented move from the UK government to open up a back door to this data, and one that will have global consequences,” said Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director. “We need concrete guarantees from the UK government that they won’t proceed with these plans.” UK media organisations, including the BBC, Reuters, Sky News and the publishers of The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, Computer Weekly and Financial Times, have also made a submission to the IPT arguing that the Apple case should not be heard in private. Other campaign groups, including Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship and the Open Rights Group, have also called on the IPT to make the case public. The legal submissions come amid mounting pressure from the US on the British government to open up the legal process surrounding the IPA. Five bipartisan US lawmakers wrote to the IPT on Thursday demanding it “remove the cloak of secrecy related to notices given to American technology companies by the UK, which infringes on free speech and privacy”. Both US President Donald Trump and his director of intelligence have slammed the British government over the Apple order. “It is in the public interest for there to be open hearings about the extent to which important communications services have been deliberately compromised to make them less secure,” wrote Democratic senator Ron Wyden and others in the letter. The UK’s Home Office has said it cannot comment on “operational matters”. When asked about the Apple case by MPs last month, security minister Dan Jarvis said: “The suggestion that privacy and security are at odds is not correct; we can and must have both.”
