Let's talk tech Thursday #4
It's a big week for governments vs big tech. In fact, as I'm tidying up the newsletter before I hit send, I realise now there's specifically quite a lot of Apple vs UK/EU government in here. And I'm in different corners of the ring in each story. Goes to show that tech is a complicated business! Just because a company has the right idea when it comes to (one very specific aspect of) data privacy, it doesn't mean they have your best interests at heart when it comes to the longevity of your hardware. But we'll get to all that.
This week we:
- Check back in on the Apple vs UK Government court case around an encryption backdoor in iMessages,
- Take a look at some newly enforced legislation to make online shopping more transparent,
- And we consider what the US tariffs might mean for the technology repair industry.
And to round things off, a quick look into our growing electricity needs (it's not all AI's fault), and a study on how music impacts your work day.
Stick around at the end for some final thoughts.
Let's dig in.
Top Stories
UK loses bid to keep Apple appeal against demand for iPhone 'backdoor' a secret
Summary
Apple won a legal battle to keep details of its appeal against a U.K. government order for a "backdoor" to iPhone data public. The U.K. Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that secret hearings would violate the principle of open justice.
So what?
Look, its not often you'll see me rooting for Apple when it comes to court cases. But as we discussed two weeks ago, this is perhaps one of the scariest stories in tech right now.
Way back in the midst of time, if you wanted to message people in secret and without fear of being discovered, you'd need highly sophisticated and very expensive communications equipment. In the modern day you don't need military-grade hardware to run your illicit deals. You can use any number of easily available messaging apps - from iMessage to WhatsApp, Signal to Telegram - to send messages secured by end-to-end encryption (E2EE). The government's position is that it is now too easy to send secret messages. Everyone from terrorists to drug dealers can conduct business free from scrutiny, and the government want to put a stop to this. They believe one of the ways they can do so is by getting a backdoor to the secure messaging systems that people use everyday.
I won't make a habit of repeating myself in this newsletter, but I cannot stress this point enough: You cannot cherry-pick who backdoors are for. If they exist, no one is safe.
Let's think for a minute about what it might mean for the government to have a master key to all your messages. There is a long and rich history of government bodies abusing their legal powers of surveillance for personal benefit. From NSA agents in the States using government assets to spy on spouses and ex-lovers, to the case of an Australian law enforcement officer using police databases to identify over 30 vulnerable women he would go on to abuse.
Even if you think the government can be trusted with this level of power, the risks don't stop there. If a backdoor exists, it is only a matter of time before hackers break their way through it.
This also isn't just about your messages. Everything from medical records to banking relies on E2EE. Now, I'm not saying that a backdoor into iMessages will mean the government can read your doctor's notes. The two systems are unconnected and unrelated. But if they are successful in passing this law, they will have a precedent to put backdoors in all manner of encrypted services.
In short: secure encryption is for everyone, or it is for no one.
That's why this particular news story is so welcome. The government were trying to deal with all of this in secret outside of the public's ability to examine and scrutinise the process. They wanted to make sure the deck was stacked in their favour as possible. Luckily, the judges ruling on this case disagreed, arguing that to let this play out in private would be "the most fundamental interference with the principle of open justice.”
I'm not trying to scare people with this. But I do believe it is important to be aware of the dangers of breaking end-to-end encryption. And there are plenty who agree. If you're interested in reading up on this a little more, I'd recommend checking out the Open Rights Group's Save Encryption campaign - just one of dozens of organisations campaigning to make sure we keep out digital safety.
One last thing before we move on. While this battle is going on in the UK courts, there is also some worrying news from our EU neighbours. The newly proposed ProtectEU security governance framework aims to "foster a new EU security culture". Details are thin on the ground for now, but the language includes a provision for "lawful access to data", which very much reads as a desire for backdoors into encrypted communications platforms.
Related story: Europe proposes backdoors in encrypted platforms under new security strategy
UK bans fake reviews and ‘sneaky’ fees for online products
Summary
A new measure under the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumer Act 2024 came into force this week. Now, all online stores must either bake additional fees into the price of the product, or else very clearly state them at the start of the process. Additionally, it is now the responsibility of online retailers to take "reasonable and proportionate steps" to ensure that there are no fake reviews of their products.
So what?
It's good news for online shoppers! Or, as we call them these days, shoppers. The new rules aim to make parting with your hard earned cash a much more transparent process. Retailers have been rolling out these changes for months - you might have noticed your favourite food delivery app reshuffling its layout to show the delivery charge and service fees earlier in the checkout flow. Now, it’s not just best practice. As of Sunday, it’s the law.
As excitingly, online retailers are now responsible for ensuring that reviews of their products and services are legit, or else face a fine of up to 10% of their annual global turnover. How this will look in practice is yet to be seen. While the article notes that there has already been a crackdown on fake reviews in Google Maps listings, I'm left to wonder: will Amazon really be fined $60 billion for the plethora of fake reviews on their products? Will it be down to the individual sellers on the platform? The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has already started taking action, but the scale of the problem is enormous. Entire businesses have grown around gaming review systems to flood some products with fake five-star reviews, while trashing competitors with one-star ones. Caught in the middle are normal people just trying to find a decent new kettle. How do you prove a review is fake without taking down genuine ones? For platforms that thrive on user-generated content, this could get messy fast.
Still, it’s a significant piece of legislation, and also reflects a growing global trend: governments are finally waking up to the need for stronger digital consumer protections. Between this, the EU’s Digital Services Act, and the US’s increasingly loud grumbles about big tech accountability, we might see a real shift in online marketplaces.
In Trump’s Tariff Era, the Right to Repair Will Be More Important Than Ever
Summary
As the price of electronics is expected to rise, will we be more likely to repair and keep our existing devices longer? This is a good idea in theory, but with most tech famously impossible to open and fix, it'll likely need government backing to become a reality. If successful, a global right-to-repair mandate could help consumers save money and build resilience during economic uncertainty.
So what?
I'm not here to break down the economics of Trump's insane policies. Suffice to say, electronics - indeed most goods - are likely to become more and more expensive if his plan to sink the dollar continues unobstructed. We can barely exist without our gadgets, so what happens when your phone or your laptop inevitably break? Online retailers like Backmarket are already seeing massive increases in transactions, but there might yet be another string to the bow of the savvy tech-consumer.
Last year, the EU mandated that manufacturers of white goods make products easier to repair, requiring the supply of spare parts and repair documentation for up to 10 years. In the US there’s bipartisan support for similar legislation — with New York, Minnesota, and California having already passed right-to-repair laws that force electronics companies to provide support in the repair of goods on "fair and reasonable terms". Even Apple, which has historically fought tooth and nail to keep its devices locked down, is now dipping its toe in the water of self-service repair kits.
And sticking with Apple and the EU for a second, there's more precedent. If you've bought a new iPhone in the last couple of years you'll have needed a new charger, the old Lightning port having finally been replaced by USB-C. The Apple marketing team will tell you that this is for your convenience. But don’t be fooled - this move was driven by EU regulation. If companies like Apple can be strong-armed by governments to ditch their proprietary tech, there’s hope for broader change. That’s good news for consumers squeezed by inflation, and also for the planet.
And if you're thinking "Will, weren't you just going on about how the fate of all of our privacy rests of Apple not bowing to government pressure?" Yes, yes I was. But there are different interests and motivations at play here. Sometimes we need government pressure, and there are times where we need tech companies to push back. I'll pontificate more about a that at the end.
Related story: Tariffs Will Make Electronics More Expensive.
Anything else you should know?
The Rising Demand For Electricity Is About More than AI
We all know that our increasing use of AI is causing a spike in demand for electricity. But this story urges us to not take our eye off the ball in other areas. Electric cars, the use of electric to heat and cook, and increased use of air conditioning due to high temperatures, among others, are considerable contributors to our rising electricity needs. There is some good news though; globally over a third of our energy needs are now being met by renewables.
Google discontinues Nest Protect smoke alarm and Nest x Yale lock
In another blow to Nest customers, Google has pulled the rug out from under two more smart home products - their smoke detector and smart lock. It might not seem all that important - especially as new Google-backed alternatives to these products are being launched. However, it's a reminder that we're living in a time where, just because you've bought a product, doesn't mean you can use it indefinitely.
Music Choice Can Harm Productivity
A study from Ohio State University shows that, far from improving mood and productivity, the wrong background music choice lead to slower work, and more tired employees. Tens of millions of people work in industries where background music is common - including restaurant staff, retail workers, and even a considerable number of office staff. The study showed that if the background music was out of sync with what they needed, individuals not only performed worse at their jobs, but they were considerably less happy. So, by all means pop on some tunes while you work - but make sure you've got the right playlist on!
So, where does this leave us? One month into Let's Talk Tech Thursdays and if there's a common thread it's that the relationship between governments and tech companies is getting more complicated by the day.
Sometimes, we need regulation to pull tech giants into line. Without it, your new phone charger would still cost £40, you’d be buying goods online rated five stars by people who'd never used the product, and good luck trying to fix your laptop without a soldering iron and a prayer.
But we also need tech companies to stand their ground. To resist overreach. To draw the line when governments demand tools that would quietly (and not so quietly) chip away at our privacy, our autonomy, and our security.
Those with the power to shape the digital world aren’t the ones we elect. And the ones we do elect don’t understand the tech they’re trying to regulate. That makes public scrutiny, be it open courts, transparent policy, or grassroots campaigns, more vital than ever.
Something to think about.
Until next time, have a great week,
Will