``A bill that allows you to check updates in advance and secretly veto them'' has been submitted in the UK, and Apple strongly opposes it as ``an excessive bill that puts users at risk.''

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom will begin deliberations on the proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA). Regarding this amendment, Apple has issued a statement saying, ``If enacted, the privacy and security of users around the world will be at risk,'' making it clear that it opposes the amendment.

Apple says UK could 'secretly veto' global privacy tools - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68128177

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is based on a bill introduced by Theresa May, then home secretary, in 2015. Ms. May said that ``encryption of communications is an impediment to counter-terrorism measures,'' and called for companies to be required to introduce ``a mechanism to remove encryption,'' and since then, she has been calling on companies to ``require companies to introduce backdoors.'' This could lead to serious situations.' Even during the bill's deliberations, Apple made it clear that it opposed the bill, saying, ``The existence of backdoors risks compromising the safety of users' data.''

The dangers of the UK encryption ban bill that Apple opposes - GIGAZINE

by Marco Paköeningrat

The bill was passed in 2016 and came into force as the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The enacted law requires companies to store users' email and web page browsing history for one year, and allows police and intelligence agencies to check that information. Although the law did not include a clause requiring the introduction of a system to ensure that users' actions are implemented, there were opinions that expressed concerns about increased government surveillance and security risks posed by companies storing users' behavioral histories. It was being done.

The ultimate surveillance law is passed that allows police and intelligence agencies to access and monitor citizens' web browsing data - GIGAZINE

by Cesar Astudillo

In July 2023, the UK Home Office proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, stating that it has not kept up with advances in technology. The proposed amendment includes provisions that ``if a company makes changes to security features related to personal information, it will be required to notify the Ministry of Home Affairs before releasing security updates'' and ``empowers the Ministry of Home Affairs to withdraw the provision of the features.'' ``Currently, in order for the Ministry of Home Affairs to block the provision of new products and services, it is necessary for the Ministry of Home Affairs to undergo a review by a monitoring agency, but if the proposed amendments are adopted, the Ministry of Home Affairs will be able to avoid the review and covertly prevent the provision of new products and services. The Home Office could now exercise powers against tech companies around the world as the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 applies to providers around the world with users in the UK. He pointed out that he was opposed to the proposed amendment.

Apple opposes the UK surveillance law amendment bill, saying it is extraterritorial and poses a security risk and should be rejected - GIGAZINE

Subsequently, the British government submitted an amendment bill in November 2023, and deliberation will begin in the House of Lords on January 30, 2024. Ahead of the deliberations, Apple said: ``The proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 represent an unprecedented overreach by the UK government. The company has made clear its opposition to the proposed amendments by issuing a statement saying, ``The proposed amendments could impede companies' ability to provide user protection systems,'' and ``the proposed amendments endanger users' privacy and security.''

The Home Office told the BBC: ``It is important that decisions about lawful access to protect the country from child molesters and terrorists are taken by those who are democratically responsible and approved by Parliament.'' comments, emphasizing that the proposed amendment is aimed at protecting citizens, not monitoring them.