As everyone knows, the only thing more viscerally exciting than a 3rd sector consultation response is a consultation response to a regulator's annual plan of work. But FIPR's response to Ofcom's recent consultation is worth a read - we cover some of the biggest policy issues facing the UK today.

Huge thanks to everyone at FIPR who's contributed to this consultation response as well.

FIPR has submitted a response to the Ofcom consultation on its work plan for 2026, arguing that the UK needs an ambitious programme of technically-informed work on the digital rights, privacy, and information policy issues that we currently face. 1/7

The #AI company blames the store, and they're right – the store should NEVER have hired the AI company. www.theguardian.com/technology/2... #facerec #AIEthics #AIBias via @fipr-policy.bsky.social

If Ofcom did decide to ban the social media platform X, how would such a ban work? Some thoughts drawn from Internet history... iptegrity.com/online-safet... @fipr-policy.bsky.social

The #OnlineSafetyAct allows providers to mark their own homework. @ofcom.bsky.social told to kick X into gear, with little effective power. How likely will we see positive action? My take on the policy problem. iptegrity.com/ai/grok-ai-i... @fipr-policy.bsky.social

More technical report www.volexity.com/blog/2025/10... via the excellent @fipr-policy.bsky.social

Governments and industry are building ID systems to support their needs to administer, govern - and profit. In turn, these systems are being used to facilitate targeting, profiling and surveillance. Learn more about our approach to identity: privacyinternational.org/learn/identity

The PM mentioned taking inspiration from systems in Estonia and India. Our research on the ID systems in both countries has documented a lack of transparency around data processing, and the high risks to people’s safety and dignity. privacyinternational.org/long-read/46...

The UK Prime Minister has announced plans for a new mandatory digital ID scheme for anyone who wants to work in the UK. The initiative is being pitched as a way to control borders - we fail to see how the two are linked. www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cw...

On the BritCard - in theory better government systems are a great idea, but implementing it requires very high levels of management competence to cope with the ambition and complexity; the costs will correspondingly be very high.

⏰ Our case against UK Government's secret surveillance orders to be heard in 2026! But... privacyinternational.org/news-analysi...

Don’t want your phone to know where you’ve been? 🤫 We have a guide for that… privacyinternational.org/guide-step/5...

⏰ UPDATE: The US Government is not happy with the UK Government's secret surveillance orders privacyinternational.org/news-analysi...

The government would be sensible to step back and retract this notice, and instead focus on the important work of renewing the UK’s basic infrastructure, digital security, and privacy protections."

Law enforcement have much more effective tactics - ones which don’t involve undermining our shared security - to investigate and disrupt serious criminal activity where encryption is being used.

As the UK government’s own guidance for companies and the public makes clear, strong encryption is at the heart of keeping the services we all use safe and secure. There is no way to undermine encryption which doesn’t leave huge weaknesses that criminals and hostile state actors can exploit.

Our basic human rights and democratic freedoms rely on security, privacy, and the accountability of our institutions. Tactics like issuing encryption removal orders to tech companies will only make every iPhone user in the UK less secure.

My comment on behalf of FIPR: “It’s not surprising that the Home Office’s attempt to compel Apple to undermine the security of their products is facing resistance from the US Government. The UK Government’s order would effectively ban Apple from telling the US Congress what they had been asked to do

We explain the key issues behind the case, arguing that this fundamentally breaks security and privacy for Apple's users, and outlining some of the many alternatives which law enforcement have to these backdoors.

It has been the source of significant controversy, with the US Government pushing back against the order and making it an issue in ongoing trade negotiations between the US and UK.

This order - initially made in secret and which Apple is not allowed to discuss even with the US Congress - effectively requires Apple to build a backdoor into its encrypted systems.

It emerged earlier this year that the Home Office has issued a TCN to Apple. This notice requires Apple to make technical changes to its Advanced Data Protection service, which provides users with secure encrypted storage, to allow the UK Government to access encrypted user data on request.

The Foundation for Information Policy Research is today publishing a policy explainer of the ongoing case between Apple and the Home Office, in which we outline the issues and our views on them as experts in law, cryptography, policy, security, and criminology. You can find it here: www.fipr.org