WhatsApp moves to join Apple’s encryption fight with UK government

WhatsApp on Wednesday announced it was seeking to intervene in a legal case between Apple and the British government regarding whether the iPhone maker can be forced to retain access to the content of its users’ iCloud accounts in order to comply with legal warrants.

It follows a judgment back in April when the Investigatory Powers Tribunal — the only court in the country that can hear certain national security cases — confirmed that Apple was suing the British government over the secret legal order.

WhatsApp’s chief, Will Cathcart, stated the Meta-owned messaging app had “applied to intervene in this case to protect people's privacy globally.”

“Liberal democracies should want the best security for their citizens. Instead, the UK is doing the opposite through a secret order. This case could set a dangerous precedent and embolden nations to try to break the encryption that protects people’s private communication.

“WhatsApp would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services and will continue to stand up for people's right to a private conversation online,” stated Cathcart.

It has been widely reported that the British government issued Apple a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) demanding that the company stop the rollout of its Advanced Data Protection feature. The opt-in feature means that content stored in iCloud would be end-to-end encrypted and therefore that Apple would be unable to provide the authorities with access to it even when it had received a warrant to do so.

The British government as a matter of policy neither confirms nor denies the existence of specific legal demands. Apple subsequently turned off the feature for British users in February, although it did not confirm why.

While it is not illegal to report on the existence of a TCN, the individual target of a notice is instructed not to disclose it and seemingly can face criminal proceedings if they do so, although there is some doubt about this interpretation of the law.

The Washington Post, which revealed the existence of the TCN in January, initially described it as creating a “back door allowing [British authorities] to retrieve all the content any Apple user worldwide has uploaded to the cloud,” although this is not how TCNs function according to statute.

Despite the potential misrepresentation, the British government did not respond to alarmed complaints about the privacy implications of its legal notice.

Experts, including from within Britain’s own intelligence community, argued that the government’s attempts to access encrypted messaging platforms should be more transparent. Academics described the Home Office's ongoing refusal to either confirm or deny the legal demand as unsustainable and unjustifiable.

Following the tribunal’s judgment in April, a government spokesperson finally commented on the outcry, stating: “TCNs themselves do not directly provide access to data — relevant targeted warrants and authorisations must also be in place. Nor do TCNs extend powers to obtain access to data; their purpose is to ensure that those existing powers can continue to be exercised effectively.”

The British government described Apple’s introduction of the Advanced Data Protection feature as a “unilateral” move that would “prevent investigations into terrorism or serious child abuse and put public safety at grave risk.”

They added that TCNs are “purely about preventing serious crime and pursuing criminals, and do not affect our commitment to free speech.”

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has not yet set out a timetable for how the case will progress.