“Whistleblower Edward Snowden on Monday said companies like Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. had an ‘ethical obligation’” not to cooperate with the National Security Agency data-gathering program, arguing that the tech giants had enough clout to resist the agency,” Benjamin Pimentel reports for MarketWatch.
“Snowden, a former government contractor who leaked classified NSA documents related to a secret data-gathering program, took part in a live chat through the Guardian newspaper, which broke the story about the spying scandal,” Pimentel reports. “‘As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we’re finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception,’ he said. He noted that the big tech companies were ‘legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program.'”
Pimentel reports, “But he also suggested the companies had enough clout to resist. ‘If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?’ he asked.”
According to The Guardian, companies began providing data to the NSA’s PRISM program as early as 2007. See this accompanying godawful image:
(Image source: The Guardian)
Unsurprisingly, ’twas The Borg that jumped on board first on September 11, 2007. Apple, it seems, held out all the way until October 2012.
Hmm, wonder why? What changed at Apple between September 2007 when Microsoft began providing data to PRISM and October 2012 when Apple joined up?
Superficially, at least, the major difference at Apple was that Steve Jobs was no longer running the company.
Did Steve Jobs tell the NSA spooks to go pound sand while Tim Cook folded like a cheap suit right around the one year anniversary of Steve’s untimely death?
SteveJack is a long-time Macintosh user, former web designer, multimedia producer and a regular contributor to the MacDailyNews Opinion section.
“Did Steve Jobs tell the NSA spooks to go pound sand while Tim Cook folded like a cheap suit right around the one year anniversary of Steve’s untimely death?”
I’m angry at Cook for complying with the illegal unconstitutional nazi spy program, but the US citizens also need to wake up from their slumber and storm the gates and end this rediculous government abuse.
It’s not Apple’s job to decide which requests they will “honor”, it’s a Fourth Amendment LAW that requires probable cause and a warrant issued from a federal judge.
Obviously, Jobs obeyed and applied the Fourth Amendment with customers, the folding cheap suit did not.
if I were an American journalist these days, I would copy & paste my articles into Messages and submit them to my editor using Messages’ built in encryption. A defense against the rat bastards at the NSA, CIA, IRS, DOJ and FBI, all agencies under the control of the Executive Branch and subordinate to Obama Messiah, who serve at his pleasure.
Nope. Has nothing to do with Steve Jobs. Being overbearing and cantankerous with employees and vendors is one thing. Telling the NSA to fuck off is another. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is indeed naïve. And it’s possible that these companies truly didn’t always know how much information was being taken from them. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook etc. all have huge pipelines coming in and out of their systems. The NSA simply copied the incoming and outgoing information upstream from these companies making identical copies. Then storing same. This was done unbeknownst to these companies. Routers not servers. Google for instance would have never known that this was occurring at an AT&T main office. But since Google and others would have seen where information they held was used in criminal cases, the NSA had to ask for information so as to not make it obvious that they were getting all data upstream. So perhaps Google, Apple, Microsoft and others aren’t as complicit as everyone thinks.
Surely you don’t believe what you just wrote? Jeez! I really thought you were smarter than that.
Unfortunately for your labored little self-delusional fairy tale, the timeline clearly suggests that the presence of Steve Jobs was what kept Apple from handing over customers private data to government spy agencies.
As I stated, and I guess you don’t understand, he believes an article from a rag worse than the inquirer.
“Did Steve Jobs tell the NSA spooks to go pound sand while Tim Cook folded like a cheap suit right around the one year anniversary of Steve’s untimely death?”
Leave it to SteveJack to drive a stake straight into the heart of the matter.
As I wrote earlier — it should be repeated as media do not talk about it — today’s detailed denials from all of big participants of PRISM programs do not really deny anything. They talk about government “requests”, not about court orders. Under court gag orders companies can not admit even that order itself exists, let alone whether the scope of it is narrow or super-broad — telling even that would be violation of gag order.
We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order.…
See that? ‘Court order’. It’s well worth reading Apple’s entire document on the subject.
Fair mention, but they also talk about how they are denying certain “requests”. This means that actually by far not every request goes as court order, or otherwise Apple would not be able to deny it.
Anyway, it does not change main point that if gag order on specific case is not lifted by judge, companies can not admit that court ruling exists, or, the more so discuss how broad or narrow it is.
So Google, FB, MS, Apple can not really deny anything — because this is how the system is built. Secret hearings, secret rulings, total gag order.
Yes, I understand that situation. At least now they can give out general numbers.
Apple is pointing out, however, that they internally review all ‘requests’ (be they actually DEMANDS) for information with their lawyers and turn away ‘requests’ that are not clearly legal. How that legality is determined, remains unknown. But I have pointed out that all US lawyers have the US Constitution as the source document for legal fundamentals. AND blanket surveillance of US citizens inside the USA is blatantly UNconstitutional. Therefore, I cannot but assume Apple is throwing back unconstitutional ‘requests’.
MDN, don’t you even bother looking at your own postings?
Or are you just contrary or the sake of it?
Your posting at 14.44 ET quite clearly states what info Apple will provide, and now you’re getting all whiney about Tim ‘folding like a cheap suit’, puh-leeeeese, enough of the sanctimonious crap, Apple, like any other entity, is legally obliged to comply with requests for info when it’s demanded, but it’s perfectly clear, at least to me, that Apple’s compliance is the absolute minimum it can get away with, without compromising itself and being drawn into ever more legal confrontations with the courts in Washington.
I really don’t like Obama’s continuation of the bipartisan police state. But, did you have to expose your racism (and a bit of homophobia)?
Obama supporting a fascist surveillance state should be opposed and criticized for THAT, not for his skin color. Perhaps you should take note that a big chunk of the fascist-supporters are white folks and get over your knee-jerk tendency to see everything through skin color. Most of the oppressing in the USA has been by people with light-colored skin.
Geez.
Quote from the earlier post that MDN put up:
“Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
Apple has always placed a priority on protecting our customers’ personal data, and we don’t collect or maintain a mountain of personal details about our customers in the first place. There are certain categories of information which we do not provide to law enforcement or any other group because we choose not to retain it.
For example, conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data. Similarly, we do not store data related to customers’ location, Map searches or Siri requests in any identifiable form.
We will continue to work hard to strike the right balance between fulfilling our legal responsibilities and protecting our customers’ privacy as they expect and deserve.”
MDN seem to be ignoring this, they didn’t make any comment after it, unlike the snarky one after this posting.
The Department of Defense dragged their feet for years to get the iPhone and iPad approved for government use. Meanwhile they approved Android years ago and the platform was weaving its way through the government pipeline while Apple waited and waited. Low and behold it just so happens that a few months after Tim Cook reportedly relented to the NSA’s demands, the iPhone and iPad are now cleared for liftoff. That doesn’t seem fishy to anyone else?
In the absence of facts, speculate, right? I really don’t get the anti-Tim tone here. Tim was Steve’s hand-picked guy. Tim did great with the congressional hearings earlier this month… Stop assuming the worst. Tim isn’t Steve, for sure. But he’s obviously hugely thoughtful and directionally correct enough for Steve to have handed his first child over to… Relax.
Seriously, no one but NO ONE here, has the slightest idea what drove that timeline. Look, I’m a huge Jobs fan… but this line of speculation, and assumption is really stretching it.
What a bunch of armchair analysts this group is. It’s all fair game when we’re spinning our own fantasy I guess. But boy are we quick to jump on others when exercise the same poor judgement when writing about something they don’t know sh!t about!
The problem is not Apple. Only Jobs could have resisted the NSA, because he created Apple. All else have an unshakeable duty to shareholders with regard to winning billion dollar deals with government agencies. The problem is that we need to fire every judge that was hired in the last couple administrations and fire all of Congress, and hire only Bill of Rights champions. Plus maybe remove money from elections, end US involvement in all wars, give teeth to regulatory agencies and simplify and strip legalese from laws and contracts to make them accessible to anyone. If you please, Mr. Santa Claus.
Apple has always been more concerned about its customers’ privacy than Google, Microsoft, etc. I don’t think this timeline has anything to do with when Steve Jobs was in charge of Apple or Tim Cook — I think it has more to do with when Apple was finally backed into a corner by the NSA and ultimately Apple’s attorneys told the company, “Look, they have orders which comply with existing Federal law, plus they’re the *%^%$%#%$^ NSA. We’ve resisted as much as we can without potentially incurring significant consequences. Time to give the NSA what they ask for before they raid HQ and take everything.”
This idea that private companies can fight against the NSA is silly, especially when the NSA has authorizations under Federal law. We can debate whether the law is Constitutional or not, but right now the law is the law and companies have to abide by it, or they suffer serious consequences.
Every private company can fight and eventually destroy the NSA by making a public refusal to acquiesce to illegal, unconstitutional demands along with documentation of said demands through email, video and audio. It’s this new thing they have out called courage.
none, so far. Only The Steve-o resisted them. That is the entire point Snowden was making. Read the article and his comments before you start spouting your daily dose of horseshit.
Get a diaper old fart, or get out of your chair, to take a shit once in a while instead of dumping your automatic vile all over the feedback pages like a rabid parrot.
Question answered : None.
Polly wants a cracker.
today’s daily dose of horseshit.
You can bet that if Apple Corporation had NOT kow-towed (and who knows, perhaps all the 3-pronged attacks by each government arm is still payback), we would see a lot more cancers in Apple management today.
Conspiracy Theory 101: The government killed off Steve Jobs via cancer, because he wasn’t a team player.
My god, the paranoia here is incredible. You folks think that we do not need the government to do whatever it takes to protect us? You think Obama started this stuff? Who cares if the whole world knows who to call on a phone? Really? What crimes are doing. Get your foil hats out and you will be fine.
Another sickening discussion based on opinion only bringing out the worst in MDN people. I’ll walk away and quietly try to refrain from vomiting. So many insults, such prejudice!…
I’d much rather that security agencies were overseen by transparent public courts and responsible to the citizens that they are supposedly “protecting”. Fact is, the protection is minimal and, like most of the military-industrial complex, a ludicrously poor value.
Snowden is a hero. NSA spooks are mostly greedy contractors attempting to scare people and thus attempt to justify their existence. For decades they have enjoyed operating under completely inadequate oversight.
… and no, neither party is any different than the other. Both are thoroughly corrupt and beholden no longer to their voter constituents, but rather to their corporate funders (which includes Booz Allen Hamilton, a “consultancy” firm whose primary client is the federal government and whose political contributions total $1.2 billion since 1990 (primarily to incumbent politicians, where influence can be leveraged via senior officials in key committees).
Two weeks ago, when technology companies were accused of indiscriminately sharing customer data with government agencies, Apple issued a clear response: We first heard of the government’s “Prism” program when news organizations asked us about it on June 6. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order….
The actual PROBLEM is that the FISA court has been unconstitutionally handing out BLANKET surveillance warrants. Any company honoring BLANKET surveillance of any US citizen inside the USA is BREAKING THE US CONSTITUTION. IOW: It’s more than just an ethical obligation to throw such BLANKET warrants back into the faces of the NSA, FBI, Justice Department et al. They are flat out ILLEGAL under any circumstance.
Once again, here is the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
APPLE SAYS: Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
The Constitution wasn’t written to be interpreted by Apple’s or anyone else’s “legal team.” It’s the fucking supreme law of the land, anything contrary to it is illegal.
I’m trying to make sense of what you’re saying. Certainly the FEDS should be following the law. But why NOT tell a criminal “No, I will not cooperate with your crime!”
I don’t think you’re trying to say that Apple should ‘just roll over’, right?
no, I am saying precisely what I typed: not Apple nor any company should assume to have the discretion to allow any request for spying on American citizens without probable cause and a warrant by a federal judge. Period. End of story. It’s not up to Apple or one of the Nazi alphabet soup to decide.
to elaborate: “In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.”..you refuse ALL requests unless they fulfill the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
further, as you accurately noted, FISA courts are also in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment as their blanket warrants do not fulfill the amendment’s “and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” clause.
So you would like Apple et al. to simply with respond with:
‘We know nothing, NOTHING!’
and
‘We were just following order!’
If so, I call SHENANIGANS! and entirely disagree. Apple is a conscientious company, thank goodness. Saying ‘NO’ to blanket surveillance is exactly what they, and every other company, should be doing. That is customer respect, the very core of professional business. As I am ever ranting, any company that refuses to respect their customers should not be doing business. They’re self-destructive and belong in the ranks of unprofessional biznizziz.
“What changed at Apple between September 2007 when Microsoft began providing data to PRISM and October 2012 when Apple joined up?”
MDN is exactly right in wondering if Steve Jobs’ death was the deciding factor for Apple finally cooperating, because it was.
As I outlined in posts before, Cook caved to government pressure in the US first, and most recently to the PRC. He has no problem with that, just as he has no problem caving to Wall St in taking out loans to pay dividends to the gamblers in 3-piece suits. To him it’s nothing more than making deals with entities that he (mistakenly) believes will help get Apple ahead in the future, or not cause problems in the present. That’s a fine way to be when your nothing more than the COO, but a CEO …? Of Apple …? It’s just not enough.
What it boils down to is that Cook is a functionary, NOT a visionary. He’s doing his best to emulate Jobs on the outside – his constant peppering of his speeches with buzzwords like “magical” and “amaaaazing” is the most obvious example of that. But inside he has limited capacity to see the bigger picture, or stand up for what’s right against those who must be stared down & told “no”. That’s not who he is, apparently, and God only knows if he’ll ever learn how to be different – to Think Different – but his track record so far says otherwise.
Jobs was truly one of a kind. A pain in the ass to be sure, but a guy who saw things holistically in ways that few can. The country is poorer with out him in ways that go far beyond good looking consumer electronic devices.
Apple’s very carefully worded statement makes me a bit suspicious, for example:
> We do not provide any government agency with direct
> access to our servers, and any government agency
> requesting customer content must get a court order.
>
Ok, but what about Booz Allen Hamilton? the private company that works for the gov agency? Or some other “3rd parties” mentioned in all apple’s privacy documents.
The reason private companies are used for this task is that the public then has no right to request information or disclosure of their activities, if it was the gov doing the data collection the public (theoretically) could insist on being informed.
Then there is this:
> For example, conversations which take place over iMessage
> and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no
> one but the sender and receiver can see or read them.
> Apple cannot decrypt that data.
>
I just don’t believe that. Apple has the root certificate and generates the key pairs used for “end-to-end encryption” – I don’t recall generating my own keys and having control over the private key. It’s nice that “end-to-end encryption” is taking place so the data can’t be sniffed in transit but I doubt its “peer to peer”, there most definitely is an apple server in the middle, decrypting.
I think they should resist.
They are so spineless in this matter they are even asking permission to release more info about the program they know nothing about…
Maintaining plausible deniability.
Go back to sleep America.
Nothing to see here.
heh.
“Did Steve Jobs tell the NSA spooks to go pound sand while Tim Cook folded like a cheap suit right around the one year anniversary of Steve’s untimely death?”
you bet your Bill Of Rights he did.
I’m angry at Cook for complying with the illegal unconstitutional nazi spy program, but the US citizens also need to wake up from their slumber and storm the gates and end this rediculous government abuse.
…February 12, 2013, Little Timmy sits with Mr. Ed at the State of The Union presidential box.
Until he proves otherwise, versus Steve Job’s Big Brass Balls, Tim Cook has a pair of tiny boiled peas.
“…while Tim Cook folded like a cheap suit right around the one year anniversary of Steve’s untimely death?”
NO! As I posted below, READ THIS:
Apple’s Commitment to Customer Privacy
http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
…In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
Anti-Tim Cook FUD: IASSOTS
WOL italics closing tag! Sorry. You get the idea:
NO! Tim Cook did not fold…
It’s not Apple’s job to decide which requests they will “honor”, it’s a Fourth Amendment LAW that requires probable cause and a warrant issued from a federal judge.
Obviously, Jobs obeyed and applied the Fourth Amendment with customers, the folding cheap suit did not.
if I were an American journalist these days, I would copy & paste my articles into Messages and submit them to my editor using Messages’ built in encryption. A defense against the rat bastards at the NSA, CIA, IRS, DOJ and FBI, all agencies under the control of the Executive Branch and subordinate to Obama Messiah, who serve at his pleasure.
Nope. Has nothing to do with Steve Jobs. Being overbearing and cantankerous with employees and vendors is one thing. Telling the NSA to fuck off is another. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is indeed naïve. And it’s possible that these companies truly didn’t always know how much information was being taken from them. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook etc. all have huge pipelines coming in and out of their systems. The NSA simply copied the incoming and outgoing information upstream from these companies making identical copies. Then storing same. This was done unbeknownst to these companies. Routers not servers. Google for instance would have never known that this was occurring at an AT&T main office. But since Google and others would have seen where information they held was used in criminal cases, the NSA had to ask for information so as to not make it obvious that they were getting all data upstream. So perhaps Google, Apple, Microsoft and others aren’t as complicit as everyone thinks.
you’re naive, if his hand was forced, all the Steve-o would have to do is go public with documentation. As you may recall, he was quite influential.
people diagnosed with terminal cancer and the CEO of the most valuable company in the world aren’t intimidated by anyone, including NSA spooks.
Surely you don’t believe what you just wrote? Jeez! I really thought you were smarter than that.
Unfortunately for your labored little self-delusional fairy tale, the timeline clearly suggests that the presence of Steve Jobs was what kept Apple from handing over customers private data to government spy agencies.
So because it serves your purpose you believe a newspaper article from the Guardian? Talk about delusional and self-serving. Funny.
At least he has a timeline.
As I stated, and I guess you don’t understand, he believes an article from a rag worse than the inquirer.
“Did Steve Jobs tell the NSA spooks to go pound sand while Tim Cook folded like a cheap suit right around the one year anniversary of Steve’s untimely death?”
Leave it to SteveJack to drive a stake straight into the heart of the matter.
As I wrote earlier — it should be repeated as media do not talk about it — today’s detailed denials from all of big participants of PRISM programs do not really deny anything. They talk about government “requests”, not about court orders. Under court gag orders companies can not admit even that order itself exists, let alone whether the scope of it is narrow or super-broad — telling even that would be violation of gag order.
They talk about government “requests”, not about court orders.
APPLE specifically talks about “court orders“. (Beats me why MDN missed this crucial document):
http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order.…
See that? ‘Court order’. It’s well worth reading Apple’s entire document on the subject.
Fair mention, but they also talk about how they are denying certain “requests”. This means that actually by far not every request goes as court order, or otherwise Apple would not be able to deny it.
Anyway, it does not change main point that if gag order on specific case is not lifted by judge, companies can not admit that court ruling exists, or, the more so discuss how broad or narrow it is.
So Google, FB, MS, Apple can not really deny anything — because this is how the system is built. Secret hearings, secret rulings, total gag order.
Yes, I understand that situation. At least now they can give out general numbers.
Apple is pointing out, however, that they internally review all ‘requests’ (be they actually DEMANDS) for information with their lawyers and turn away ‘requests’ that are not clearly legal. How that legality is determined, remains unknown. But I have pointed out that all US lawyers have the US Constitution as the source document for legal fundamentals. AND blanket surveillance of US citizens inside the USA is blatantly UNconstitutional. Therefore, I cannot but assume Apple is throwing back unconstitutional ‘requests’.
MDN, don’t you even bother looking at your own postings?
Or are you just contrary or the sake of it?
Your posting at 14.44 ET quite clearly states what info Apple will provide, and now you’re getting all whiney about Tim ‘folding like a cheap suit’, puh-leeeeese, enough of the sanctimonious crap, Apple, like any other entity, is legally obliged to comply with requests for info when it’s demanded, but it’s perfectly clear, at least to me, that Apple’s compliance is the absolute minimum it can get away with, without compromising itself and being drawn into ever more legal confrontations with the courts in Washington.
Then why didn’t Apple begin providing the data until 6+ years after Microsoft, five of which Steve Jobs was alive and in charge of the company?
Apple may have stonewalled for a long time…
Could it be because Apple didn’t have the massive server farms until then. Besides the phone detail was coning from VZ and T.
They all love the Brown Messiah too much to resist getting fscked up the ass by him.
So does half the world.
not in this half.
I really don’t like Obama’s continuation of the bipartisan police state. But, did you have to expose your racism (and a bit of homophobia)?
Obama supporting a fascist surveillance state should be opposed and criticized for THAT, not for his skin color. Perhaps you should take note that a big chunk of the fascist-supporters are white folks and get over your knee-jerk tendency to see everything through skin color. Most of the oppressing in the USA has been by people with light-colored skin.
Geez.
Quote from the earlier post that MDN put up:
“Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
Apple has always placed a priority on protecting our customers’ personal data, and we don’t collect or maintain a mountain of personal details about our customers in the first place. There are certain categories of information which we do not provide to law enforcement or any other group because we choose not to retain it.
For example, conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data. Similarly, we do not store data related to customers’ location, Map searches or Siri requests in any identifiable form.
We will continue to work hard to strike the right balance between fulfilling our legal responsibilities and protecting our customers’ privacy as they expect and deserve.”
MDN seem to be ignoring this, they didn’t make any comment after it, unlike the snarky one after this posting.
Read more at http://macdailynews.com/2013/06/17/apple-since-december-2012-we-have-received-u-s-govt-requests-for-customer-data-for-up-to-10000-accounts/#k6TTbvLid2SpgiFR.99
Jack signs and indicates his editorial opinion; not a press release that you quote.
The Department of Defense dragged their feet for years to get the iPhone and iPad approved for government use. Meanwhile they approved Android years ago and the platform was weaving its way through the government pipeline while Apple waited and waited. Low and behold it just so happens that a few months after Tim Cook reportedly relented to the NSA’s demands, the iPhone and iPad are now cleared for liftoff. That doesn’t seem fishy to anyone else?
That is probably the most astute observation I have read about the entire scandal.
wholly mackerel, it sure does.
In the absence of facts, speculate, right? I really don’t get the anti-Tim tone here. Tim was Steve’s hand-picked guy. Tim did great with the congressional hearings earlier this month… Stop assuming the worst. Tim isn’t Steve, for sure. But he’s obviously hugely thoughtful and directionally correct enough for Steve to have handed his first child over to… Relax.
Perfectly stated Magnus.
Seriously, no one but NO ONE here, has the slightest idea what drove that timeline. Look, I’m a huge Jobs fan… but this line of speculation, and assumption is really stretching it.
What a bunch of armchair analysts this group is. It’s all fair game when we’re spinning our own fantasy I guess. But boy are we quick to jump on others when exercise the same poor judgement when writing about something they don’t know sh!t about!
The problem is not Apple. Only Jobs could have resisted the NSA, because he created Apple. All else have an unshakeable duty to shareholders with regard to winning billion dollar deals with government agencies. The problem is that we need to fire every judge that was hired in the last couple administrations and fire all of Congress, and hire only Bill of Rights champions. Plus maybe remove money from elections, end US involvement in all wars, give teeth to regulatory agencies and simplify and strip legalese from laws and contracts to make them accessible to anyone. If you please, Mr. Santa Claus.
Apple has always been more concerned about its customers’ privacy than Google, Microsoft, etc. I don’t think this timeline has anything to do with when Steve Jobs was in charge of Apple or Tim Cook — I think it has more to do with when Apple was finally backed into a corner by the NSA and ultimately Apple’s attorneys told the company, “Look, they have orders which comply with existing Federal law, plus they’re the *%^%$%#%$^ NSA. We’ve resisted as much as we can without potentially incurring significant consequences. Time to give the NSA what they ask for before they raid HQ and take everything.”
This idea that private companies can fight against the NSA is silly, especially when the NSA has authorizations under Federal law. We can debate whether the law is Constitutional or not, but right now the law is the law and companies have to abide by it, or they suffer serious consequences.
Every private company can fight and eventually destroy the NSA by making a public refusal to acquiesce to illegal, unconstitutional demands along with documentation of said demands through email, video and audio. It’s this new thing they have out called courage.
And which American company, specifically relating to this topic or otherwise, has shown and exercised this “new found courage” or destroyed the NSA?
none, so far. Only The Steve-o resisted them. That is the entire point Snowden was making. Read the article and his comments before you start spouting your daily dose of horseshit.
Get a diaper old fart, or get out of your chair, to take a shit once in a while instead of dumping your automatic vile all over the feedback pages like a rabid parrot.
Question answered : None.
Polly wants a cracker.
today’s daily dose of horseshit.
You can bet that if Apple Corporation had NOT kow-towed (and who knows, perhaps all the 3-pronged attacks by each government arm is still payback), we would see a lot more cancers in Apple management today.
Conspiracy Theory 101: The government killed off Steve Jobs via cancer, because he wasn’t a team player.
When push comes to shove, most companies are more interested in not making waves than anything else.
Unfortunately, when you look at what the CIA and other US government agencies have done in the past, this line of thinking isn’t totally off-base.
Of course I think you’re wrong about this one. Heart attacks, car bombs, rendition, disappearing, and ricin darts shut people up much quicker.
My god, the paranoia here is incredible. You folks think that we do not need the government to do whatever it takes to protect us? You think Obama started this stuff? Who cares if the whole world knows who to call on a phone? Really? What crimes are doing. Get your foil hats out and you will be fine.
who protects us from Obama, Comrade Josef?
NSA doesn’t need anyone’s permission to monitor calls, emails, FAXes, and Internet activity.
uh, yes they do…they require probable cause and a warrant signed by a federal judge. Any other route is illegal.
Another sickening discussion based on opinion only bringing out the worst in MDN people. I’ll walk away and quietly try to refrain from vomiting. So many insults, such prejudice!…
Close the door on your way out please.
I’d much rather that security agencies were overseen by transparent public courts and responsible to the citizens that they are supposedly “protecting”. Fact is, the protection is minimal and, like most of the military-industrial complex, a ludicrously poor value.
Snowden is a hero. NSA spooks are mostly greedy contractors attempting to scare people and thus attempt to justify their existence. For decades they have enjoyed operating under completely inadequate oversight.
… and no, neither party is any different than the other. Both are thoroughly corrupt and beholden no longer to their voter constituents, but rather to their corporate funders (which includes Booz Allen Hamilton, a “consultancy” firm whose primary client is the federal government and whose political contributions total $1.2 billion since 1990 (primarily to incumbent politicians, where influence can be leveraged via senior officials in key committees).
well said.
APPLE SAYS:
http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
Apple’s Commitment to Customer Privacy
Two weeks ago, when technology companies were accused of indiscriminately sharing customer data with government agencies, Apple issued a clear response: We first heard of the government’s “Prism” program when news organizations asked us about it on June 6. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order….
The actual PROBLEM is that the FISA court has been unconstitutionally handing out BLANKET surveillance warrants. Any company honoring BLANKET surveillance of any US citizen inside the USA is BREAKING THE US CONSTITUTION. IOW: It’s more than just an ethical obligation to throw such BLANKET warrants back into the faces of the NSA, FBI, Justice Department et al. They are flat out ILLEGAL under any circumstance.
Once again, here is the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
APPLE SAYS:
Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.
Kick butt Apple! 😀
The Constitution wasn’t written to be interpreted by Apple’s or anyone else’s “legal team.” It’s the fucking supreme law of the land, anything contrary to it is illegal.
I’m trying to make sense of what you’re saying. Certainly the FEDS should be following the law. But why NOT tell a criminal “No, I will not cooperate with your crime!”
I don’t think you’re trying to say that Apple should ‘just roll over’, right?
no, I am saying precisely what I typed: not Apple nor any company should assume to have the discretion to allow any request for spying on American citizens without probable cause and a warrant by a federal judge. Period. End of story. It’s not up to Apple or one of the Nazi alphabet soup to decide.
to elaborate: “In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it.”..you refuse ALL requests unless they fulfill the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
further, as you accurately noted, FISA courts are also in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment as their blanket warrants do not fulfill the amendment’s “and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” clause.
So you would like Apple et al. to simply with respond with:
‘We know nothing, NOTHING!’
and
‘We were just following order!’
If so, I call SHENANIGANS! and entirely disagree. Apple is a conscientious company, thank goodness. Saying ‘NO’ to blanket surveillance is exactly what they, and every other company, should be doing. That is customer respect, the very core of professional business. As I am ever ranting, any company that refuses to respect their customers should not be doing business. They’re self-destructive and belong in the ranks of unprofessional biznizziz.
“What changed at Apple between September 2007 when Microsoft began providing data to PRISM and October 2012 when Apple joined up?”
MDN is exactly right in wondering if Steve Jobs’ death was the deciding factor for Apple finally cooperating, because it was.
As I outlined in posts before, Cook caved to government pressure in the US first, and most recently to the PRC. He has no problem with that, just as he has no problem caving to Wall St in taking out loans to pay dividends to the gamblers in 3-piece suits. To him it’s nothing more than making deals with entities that he (mistakenly) believes will help get Apple ahead in the future, or not cause problems in the present. That’s a fine way to be when your nothing more than the COO, but a CEO …? Of Apple …? It’s just not enough.
What it boils down to is that Cook is a functionary, NOT a visionary. He’s doing his best to emulate Jobs on the outside – his constant peppering of his speeches with buzzwords like “magical” and “amaaaazing” is the most obvious example of that. But inside he has limited capacity to see the bigger picture, or stand up for what’s right against those who must be stared down & told “no”. That’s not who he is, apparently, and God only knows if he’ll ever learn how to be different – to Think Different – but his track record so far says otherwise.
Jobs was truly one of a kind. A pain in the ass to be sure, but a guy who saw things holistically in ways that few can. The country is poorer with out him in ways that go far beyond good looking consumer electronic devices.
correcto mundo.
Apple’s very carefully worded statement makes me a bit suspicious, for example:
> We do not provide any government agency with direct
> access to our servers, and any government agency
> requesting customer content must get a court order.
>
Ok, but what about Booz Allen Hamilton? the private company that works for the gov agency? Or some other “3rd parties” mentioned in all apple’s privacy documents.
The reason private companies are used for this task is that the public then has no right to request information or disclosure of their activities, if it was the gov doing the data collection the public (theoretically) could insist on being informed.
Then there is this:
> For example, conversations which take place over iMessage
> and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no
> one but the sender and receiver can see or read them.
> Apple cannot decrypt that data.
>
I just don’t believe that. Apple has the root certificate and generates the key pairs used for “end-to-end encryption” – I don’t recall generating my own keys and having control over the private key. It’s nice that “end-to-end encryption” is taking place so the data can’t be sniffed in transit but I doubt its “peer to peer”, there most definitely is an apple server in the middle, decrypting.
I think they should resist.
They are so spineless in this matter they are even asking permission to release more info about the program they know nothing about…