For the first time since records began, the United Kingdom is no longer classified as an “Open” country in a leading global ranking of freedom of expression. In its latest Global Expression Report, the free speech advocacy organisation Article 19 downgraded the UK after its rating for core expressive freedoms fell below the threshold that separates the world’s most liberal societies from the rest.
Each year, Article 19 assigns every country a score from 0 to 100, based on 25 indicators including media freedom, internet censorship, academic independence, freedom of assembly, and the public’s ability to access information and criticise those in power. Countries are then placed into five categories: Open (80–100), Less Restricted (60–79), Restricted (40–59), Highly Restricted (20–39), and In Crisis (0–19). The UK’s 2024 score of 79 places it just below the cut-off for “Open” status and into the next category down, for the first time since the index began.
Between 2000 and 2013, the UK’s rating held steady at 88. Over the past decade, however, the downward trend has become clear. By 2014 it had slipped to 87, and from 2019 onwards the decline accelerated, falling from 85 that year to 79 in the latest report. This most recent, single-point drop places the UK among a second tier of countries that includes Colombia, Nigeria, Romania, and South Africa. For a country often described as the birthplace of Parliamentary democracy, this statistical downgrade carries undeniable symbolic weight.
Perhaps the only exculpatory factor here — though admittedly a dismal one — is that it comes amid a broader global contraction in expressive freedoms. According to Article 19, more than 5.6 billion people across 77 countries have experienced a deterioration in their freedom of expression over the past decade, while just 299 million people — fewer than 4 percent of the global population — have seen an improvement.
Regionally, Europe and Central Asia remain home to all ten of the world’s top-scoring countries, and nearly half the region’s population lives in states classed as “Open”. While the UK’s eight-point decline over the past decade is not among the steepest — Article 19 classifies any drop of 20 points or more as a “significant” deterioration — it is part of a wider regional trend. Of the 29 countries in this region, 26 have seen their scores fall since 2014. Only three have improved, and none of those gains was statistically significant.
Commenting on this year’s data, David Diaz-Jogeix, Article 19’s Senior Director of Programmes, told Radio France Internationale that while the most severe repression is still found in authoritarian states such as China, Iran, and Russia, a growing number of democratic governments are now adopting repressive policies of their own. “Ironically, you see a very clear pattern of deterioration of the freedom of expression in western countries,” he said, pointing to the UK as one example of this broader trend.
The irony here may, in fact, be deeper than Article 19 acknowledges. The risk is no longer merely that democracies have begun to imitate authoritarian regimes, but that in some cases they are actively pioneering the mechanisms those regimes will soon adopt. Indeed, when it comes to online surveillance, the UK now appears intent on providing the world’s strongmen with a spot of Orwellian inspiration.
Under this legislation, the Home Secretary earlier this year issued what is known as a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) to Apple, compelling the company to reengineer its systems to enable future government access to encrypted user data. Unlike a warrant for specific information, a TCN requires a company to build surveillance capacity in advance, even when no individual is under investigation. In proceeding this way, the Government is effectively requiring Apple to break the end-to-end encryption that protects messages, photos, documents and personal data – encryption so robust that even Apple cannot access it.
The most chilling part of this story isn’t that the Government instantly gains access to iCloud data worldwide – it doesn’t – but that Apple is being forced to break encryption pre-emptively. Rather than request access when necessary and legally warranted, the TCN seeks to establish permanent infrastructure for surveillance. That apparatus will exist, whether or not it is ever used.
This is plainly a troubling prospect, not least because freedom of expression and privacy are mutually reinforcing rights. Undermine one, and the other begins to erode. As Apple put it in a submission to the UK Parliament last year, end-to-end encryption acts as “an invaluable protection for journalists, human-rights activists and diplomats who may be targeted by malicious actors”. The company also warned that British surveillance powers could force it to withdraw parts of its service from the UK market altogether.
True to its word, the US tech giant has since rolled back some of its encryption features for British users and is now preparing to challenge the order in court. But under UK law, companies must begin complying with a TCN even while an appeal is pending, meaning Apple may be forced to lay the groundwork for surveillance long before the courts have ruled.
Authorities often claim they seek access only for legitimate purposes, but history tells a different story. Once a surveillance system is built, it is almost always repurposed. Weakening end-to-end encryption won’t stay confined to its original purpose. Sooner or later, abuses will occur.
Whatever happens next, the UK has fired the starting gun on a global contest over digital privacy
Nowhere is that more likely than in authoritarian states. Should Apple concede a “backdoor” to UK authorities, other governments will quickly demand the same. Once the technical capability exists, the company can no longer plausibly claim it cannot decrypt user data. It will become merely a question of who is granted access. Authoritarian regimes will have been granted a powerful new argument: if Britain is allowed in, why not them?
Whatever happens next, the UK has fired the starting gun on a global contest over digital privacy. If backdoors become the norm, the ability to communicate securely, without fear of surveillance or reprisal, will be permanently weakened. Successive governments have long relied on boosterish language to obscure the disjointed, ill-conceived, and often haphazard nature of British statecraft. But in this case, the rhetoric may finally be justified. In a context where democratic states are increasingly mimicking authoritarian regimes, Britain can now truly lay claim to being a “world leader” in showing the Erdoğans, Khameneis and Ortegas of our digital world the way forward.
