Apple has publicly been pushing back against a UK order that demands it create encryption backdoors, and it has now formally appealed that order to the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The filing is only slightly concerned with the UK market, said Fred Chagnon, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group. The United States has also echoed Apples concerns.The greater objective is getting the UK authorities to back off on the request, which would hopefully discourage other governments from trying the same tactic, Chagnon said, describing it as preventing a potential domino effect. Lets say that Apple lets the order stand and simply opts out of the UK market, which is essentially what it has already done, he said. That could encourage other governments, especially those in France, Australia, and Canada, to try the same tactic. If that happens, then the [UK] government has set a precedent, Chagnon said. But if Apple succeeds in this appeal, which was reported in various media including The Financial Times, then Apple will have turned the tables and set their own precedent. It would be saying No, China, no, Germany, no, France, you cant have a backdoor.Nikolas Guggenberger, an assistant law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the risk of a domino effect is particularly strong in Europe right now.Guggenberger, who was born in Germany and studied law there before immigrating to the US, said many European countries might try to mimic what the UK does. The situation would have been different before 2020, when the UK formally exited the EU, because that shift gave more influence to Germany and France. Given Germanys strong privacy position, Guggenberger said, its unlikely the EU today would embrace an encryption backdoor.However, noted Forrester senior analyst Madelein van der Hout, the potential for global ripple effects is very real and troubling.If one government is granted this level of access, others will undoubtedly follow, leading to a global erosion of digital privacy, van der Hout said.Guggenberger also questioned the premise of the UKs official argument. The UK maintains that it only want this backdoor to access the records of specific criminal suspects. But Guggenberger argued that what the UK authorities actually want is to be able to access a massive number of records at once.They want to be able to, very cheaply, hit not the cloud content of one person but the cloud content of thousands of people at once, Guggenberger said.Fruit of the poisonous treeIn the US, there is a legal doctrine known as the fruit of the poisonous tree. It holds that if data is accessed illegally, not only will that data be excluded as evidence, but anything that law enforcement learned by leveraging that data is also excluded.But, Guggenberger argued, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not nearly as strong in Europe compared with the US, meaning that law enforcement fishing expeditions might benefit police there.Another concern about forcing Apple to create a backdoor, beyond the fact that a backdoor for law enforcement will also be a backdoor for state actors and cyberthieves, is that if UK law enforcement is truly only interested in the records of specific criminal suspects, it has the ability to access them without Apples help.The FBI proved that back in 2017 when it used tools, reportedly from an Israeli security vendor, to break into the phone of a suspect in the San Bernardino shooting attack, without any help from Apple. Since then, the technology has sharply improved.Could create an uneven playing fieldForresters van der Hout also speculated that the appeal likely argues that it was unfair for the UK government to issue such an order against only Apple rather than all tech players.Apples position also raises concerns about fairness in the industry. If it were forced to comply while competitors faced no such obligations, it could create an uneven playing field, potentially distorting market competition, van der Hout said. More broadly, Apples stance sends a strong message to other technology providers: companies can and should push back against government overreach when it threatens the security of their users. This could galvanize a broader industry movement advocating for stronger encryption protections.Van der Hout said that Apples resistance is also about broader issues.Ultimately, this case highlights the ongoing tension between innovation, security and regulation. Apples resistance is not just about one companys policies, van der Hout said. Its about setting a global precedent for how technology firms defend encryption and user trust in the face of increasing governmental pressure. Especially since more European governments are trying to demand similar measures, as illustrated by Signals battle with Sweden.