ABC News announced via Twitter that Apple CEO Tim Cook will be speaking with World News Tonight host David Muir to discuss the company’s battle between with the U.S. government over a locked iPhone.
This will be Tim Cook’s first public appearance to discuss the issue. Cook has already posted an open letter and a FAQ regarding the issues at stake on Apple’s website.
World News Tonight with David Muir airs on ABC at 6:30 PM Eastern.
EXCLUSIVE: Apple CEO @Tim_Cook sits down with @DavidMuir on FBI vs. Apple and the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone pic.twitter.com/LS9TArD7aO
— ABC News (@ABC) February 24, 2016
MacDailyNews Take: The PR battle rages.
SEE ALSO:
Apple vs. FBI iPhone battle shows users remain the weakest link in security – February 24, 2016
Apple’s fight with U.S. could speed development of devices impervious to government intrusion – February 24, 2016
Apple to argue that FBI court order violates its free-speech rights – February 24, 2016
Apple, the U.S. government, and security – February 24, 2016
Congressman Ted Lieu asks FBI to drop demand that Apple hack iPhones – February 23, 2016
In the fight to hack iPhones, the U.S. government has more to lose than Apple – February 23, 2016
Here are the 12 other cases where the U.S. government has demanded Apple help it hack into iPhones – February 23, 2016
John McAfee blasts FBI for ‘illiterate’ order to create Apple iPhone backdoor – February 23, 2016
Some family members of San Bernardino victims back U.S. government – February 23, 2016
Apple supporters to rally worldwide today against U.S. government demand to unlock iPhone – February 23, 2016
U.S. government seeks to force Apple to extract data from a dozen more iPhones – February 23, 2016
Apple CEO Cook: They’d have to cart us out in a box before we’d create a backdoor – February 22, 2016
Tim Cook’s memo to Apple employees: ‘This case is about more than a single phone’ – February 22, 2016
Obama administration: We’re only demanding Apple hack just one iPhone – February 17, 2016
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”
JFK, April 27, 1961.
well said botvinnik
I agree that we need to keep on government to be transparent. But national security and criminal investigations often require secrecy or they get threatened.
We accept as society that agencies within the government like the FBI be allowed to conceal information from the public to that end. For example, the public may demand to know all of the suspects in a criminal investigation or even if there is an investigation, but by disclosing these things, the investigation could be disrupted and the ability to arrest the guilty party(s) reduced. For example, a person may flee the country if he knows he’s a suspect, or, if he’s abroad, not come back. Cover his tracks, form a new identity, etc.
With national security, it’s in the same. If the public demands to know what “the government knows” about which countries have anti-ballistic missle systems and where those are precisely located, it could increase threats to national security because the public disclosure of that information could tip off the countries in question. They could then move those installations, hide them better, etc.
I was privy to NATO Top Secret information at one time. I know where all of the defence points are in Canada. This information is under high security at all times and only those with high level security clearances can see it. If this was publicly disclosed, it would provide everyone with the information about where our weaknesses are in terms of defence and monitoring within our country.
Aggressive states. Drug runners. Terrorists… all would benefit from knowing this information.
Only naive idiots would think that the government can’t or shouldn’t hold information in secrecy.
There is no conspiracy against people. There’s a reason why some information is secret and not publicly disclosed. People need to remove their tin hats and let other people do their job. There is nothing wrong with the FBI going after this to try and set a precedent. This will help them in their jobs, make it easier and more efficient, etc.
Edward Snowden. Nuff said.
Dswe, you smell like a government rat mole or pig to me
That applies to a public government not to the people. That is why the constitution protects the rights to privacy of the public.
Not the government.
eldernorm:
What privacy issues and constitutional issues are you talking about in this case? Specifically detail the sections of the constitution that are being infringed by the Court Order and when it’s executed, and specifically detail the privacy issues at play including relevant statutes that would be infringed.
You been showing up here regularly, since the FBI case and writing newspapers of stupid justifications and mistruths for the government and FBI, while showing total ignorance of technology and Apple.
What are you a government PR effort or fart?
I’ve been here for years. I’m not associated with the FBI or any law enforcement or otherwise. And I’m also not American and don’t live in the US. So cut the crap.
oh okay, you’re merely an idiot without a sponsor.
Fanboy.
ooh. ooh. I am cut to the quick! I may require counseling. You bully!
By coincidence I listened to this speech yesterday. Kennedy talks about the steps we must take to thwart our enemies’ attempts at exploiting our secrets.
If a backdoor is created then or enemies could severely damage our way of life. I mentioned several months ago that the very nature of Android is a national security threat because the majority of those devices were not running up-to-date software and are hackable. A state sponsored enemy could install malware on these devices, which would brick them ALL. This would not only be devastating to many Android users, but cause financial and commercial chaos.
If a backdoor is created on the iPhone then security holes will be exploited, and we could lose many more lives and treasure than people realize. Some say a cyber threat of this magnitude is greater than any other threat we have faced, including nuclear.
Here is Kennedy’s speech:
Cook strikes fear in you. You believe that a company that has hundreds of millions of iTunes account holders with sensitive financial information that has kept that secret and secure for years; a company is large as Apple with over 100,000 employees and global manufacturing and distribution; a company notorious for excessive security within its business and otherwise, including several redundant locked areas, advanced key card systems, and the like…; a company that creates innovative technologies in terms of both the hardware and software where impossible isn’t in its vocabulary…
You believe this company can’t help the FBI get data from an iPhone without things leaking out in terms of how they’re doing it…
You’ll believe anything.
Stop worshipping corporations.
Stop blindly following companies.
Question everything.
He was talking about secret government operations, not personal privacy.
duh.
Watched it.
What a terrific job Tim did in expressing Apple’s case.
If there was ever a time to ask the question “What would Steve Jobs do?” and get exactly this response, this was the time!
We just watched as well. Tim Cook is one brave, gracious and non egoistical gentleman. He should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now that’s a great idea.
Tim Cook could do an inversion making Apple a foreign company and sue the US government under the Investor-State Dispute Resolution clauses of numerous so-called “free trade” deals for hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. This would not be in a US court but in a WTO arbitration and would be binding under US law.
When Obama got smacked with a Bill for Half a Trillion Dollars or drop the bullshit, what do you think would happen?
Interesting idea.
Actually it has occurred to me that the government might dig its heals into this subject and not care if it chases another US company from our shores. Pretty fucking tragic! Please pardon my French.
I like that.