Whose side are they on? Apple REFUSES court order to unlock dead Islamic terrorist's iPhone found after husband and wife’s San Bernardino attack

[SheriffJoe]

I can't blame Apple for fighting this. Yet we need this information. But The FBI is overstepping asking Apple to create a whole new platform that they can easily break into.

So likely there will be a compromise. Apple will break into the phone, make a screenshot of the data and print it out for the FBI.

Up next on 'The Mentalist'.

This is basically what Ted Cruz said yesterday - Apple should hand over whatever the govt needs for this particular phone. He said that would be perfectly in line with the 4th Amendment: the cell phone equivalent of getting a search warrant.

Trump said "security first" therefore the gubbermint can tell Apple to do whatever the hell it wants. face)(*^%

 

[Dave007inVegas]

If anyone thinks the government isn’t already collecting your data I’ve got the proverbial bridge to sell you.


They already know your finances, your medical history, your political leaning, what you do for a living et al.


For the average Joe Blow it’s meaningless.


I personally don’t care if the government reads my emails or listens to my phone conversations because the poor bastard who’s assigned that task will eventually go crazy from boredom.


However if it means stopping one bad guy I’m all for it.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Lee Rigby's family say Apple have a 'moral duty' to help terror victims get justice after firm refuses to unlock a terrorist's iPhone[/h]

• Apple ordered to unlock phone used by ISIS gunman Syed Rizwan Farook
• Firm said obeying court order to help FBI would set 'dangerous precedent'
• Lee Rigby's uncle Ray McClure accused the firm of forgetting about victims
• He said Apple was protecting terrorists, adding: 'Life comes before privacy'

By STEPH COCKROFT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 12:57, 18 February 2016 | UPDATED: 13:11, 18 February 2016


The family of Lee Rigby who was murdered by Islamic extremists has accused Apple of ignoring their 'moral duty' to help victims get justice after refusing to unlock a terrorist's iPhone.
Apple prompted a debate over privacy after refusing to unlock a phone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook who, alongside his wife Tashfeen Malik, shot 14 people in California after apparently pledging allegiance to ISIS.
The company had been ordered in a court ruling to help the FBI circumvent security software on a phone used by Farook, which police say contains crucial information.
But today Ray McClure, the uncle of the murdered soldier, said what Apple was 'denying victims of attacks a course to justice'.
He accused Apple of protecting terrorists, drug dealers and paedophiles, adding: 'Life comes before privacy.'
He told the BBC: 'I would hate to see on the streets of London another murder like happened to Lee Rigby, I'd hate to see another attack like happened in Paris.
'How many victims of crime are not getting justice because of Apple's stance?'
He added: 'If Mr Cook (Apple CEO) has no sympathy for terrorists, why is he stopping the FBI accessing those phone records?
'There is a moral issue here about justice for the victims. If they don't do something, the victims of terrorism go without justice.'
Apple has already said it would oppose the court order - which involved a phone owned by Farook's employer San Bernardino County - because it 'set a dangerous precedent'.
CEO Tim Cook said the U.S. government order would undermine encryption by using specialised software to create an essential 'backdoor' that he compared to a 'master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks.'


Lee Rigby, 25, was murdered in May 2013 by jihadists Michael Adebolajo and his accomplice Michel Adebowale near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, South-East London.
They knocked Rigby down in a car and then hacked him to death with knives and a cleaver. Both of the attackers were found guilty of Rigby’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

• SHARE PICTURE

​

+3


The family of Lee Rigby who was murdered by Islamic extremists has accused Apple of ignoring their 'moral duty' to help victims get justice after refusing to unlock a terrorist's iPhone

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]New York officials cannot access at least 175 iPhones that hold crucial evidence as Apple refuses to help the feds get into encrypted devices[/h]

• NYPD has called on Apple to help unlock phones for crucial evidence
• They said iPhone operating system is first 'warrant proof' technology
• Their plea on Thursday came as FBI slams Apple CEO Tim Cook for refusing to unlock San Bernardino shooter's phone
• Apple CEO Tim Cook has indicated his company will fight the court ruling
• The FBI wants to hack the pass code on terrorist Syed Farook's iPhone 5c
• Investigators fear if the wrong code is used the phone's data will be wiped

By REUTERS
PUBLISHED: 20:16, 18 February 2016 | UPDATED: 02:14, 19 February 2016
New York officials cannot access evidence in at least 175 iPhones due to Apple's encrypted operating system technology.
The phones contain crucial evidence connected to homicide and sex abuse cases, according to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.
But despite court orders giving officers permission to hack the phones, technology and encrypted apps from The App Store make the devices 'warrant proof', he said.
His words come amid uproar over Apple's refusal to help unencrypt an iPhone recovered from one of the two San Bernardino shooters who killed 14 people in December.

+2


NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton holds up one of the 175 iPhones that officers have tried and failed to hack into to access crucial evidence connected to homicide and sex abuse cases. Bratton said the OS is 'warrant proof'

Speaking on Thursday, Vance accused Apple Inc of being irresponsible, saying its stance could harm countless criminal prosecutions.
At a news conference with New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton on Thursday, Vance said the San Bernardino attack, carried out by a young married couple apparently inspired by Islamic State, is 'the most visible example of how Silicon Valley's decisions are thwarting criminal investigations and impeding public safety.'
The case is just part of a larger problem that encryption creates for more common crimes like homicide, sexual abuse and identity theft, he said..



.

 

[superbeets]

[h=2]Eccentric tech millionaire John McAfee says his team of tattooed pot-smoking hackers will break into terrorists' iPhone for free[/h]

McAfee, 70, who now lives in Tennessee, claimed to have a team of expert hackers who will break into the San Bernardino terrorists' iPhone in three weeks, or he will eat his shoe on live television.

 

[superbeets]

[h=2]Mother of man killed in San Bernardino terror attack BACKS Apple's fight to block the FBI from accessing his killer's iPhone[/h]

Carol Adams, whose son Robert, pictured with his wife Summer, was among 14 people murdered in San Bernardino in December claimed the FBI was trying to undermine the Constitution.

 

[superbeets]

[h=2]Apple reveals FBI screw-up: Tech giant says government lost access to shooter's iPhone backup by changing passcode hours after the attack - as Trump calls for brand boycott[/h]

Apple is firing back at the government saying they could have accessed the phone of the San Bernadino shooter had his password not been changed after the FBI seized the device. Apple executives (CEO Tim Cook left) pointed out that Syed Farook's (right with his wife) iCloud account had been reset with a new passcode by his employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, who owned the phone just 24 hours after the shooting. Had that not happened his cloud would have been accessible if the phone was taken to

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]FBI escalates war with Apple: 'marketing' bigger concern than terror[/h]


Court filing from Department of Justice says Apple is more concerned with ‘its marketing strategy’ than helping FBI unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone


Spencer Ackerman in New York and Danny Yadron in San Francisco
Friday 19 February 2016 21.09 GMT


The FBI accused Apple of prioritizing its public relations strategy over a terrorism investigation on Friday in a significant escalation of this week’s war between the tech company and the law enforcement agency.



The accusation, made in a court filing demanding Apple comply with an order to unlock an iPhone belonging to the San Bernardino terrorists, represents a nadir in the relationship between two opponents that previously extended each other public respect.

“Apple’s current refusal to comply with the Court’s Order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in the Friday filing.

Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, called the court order “chilling” in a letter published on the company’s website. Cook called for public debate and has been backed in his fight by some of tech’s biggest names, including Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai, WhatsApp and whistleblower Edward Snowden.
“The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.
The government and the US’s most valuable company have been shadowboxing over digital privacy since fall 2014, when Apple expanded the use of encryption on its phones. In a shift, Apple said it would no longer be able to unlock devices for authorities, even if faced with a warrant.
But the disagreement has been mostly cordial. Even in January 2016, FBI director James Comey and other national security officials met Tim Cook in San Jose in an effort to mend fences and look for other areas of cooperation.

The government on Friday took off its gloves.

It accused Apple of “numerous mischaracterizations” of the government’s request and “an incorrect understanding” of the law underlying the Justice Department argument.

The government has asked Apple to write and digitally sign software that would make it easier for investigators to guess the passcode for an iPhone 5C used by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the December attack in San Bernardino, California, that left 14 people dead.

Apple said that forcing it to do so would undermine trust in the security of its company’s products. The government, in effect, would be forcing it to hack one of its phones through the automatic update process consumers use monthly.
“The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe,” Cook wrote.
If Apple complies with this order, the company argues, it will set a legal precedent that will allow the government to order “updates” on suspect’s Apple products again and again.

The problem, the government counters, is that Apple has complied with similar requests in the past, before it tightened the security of its products. In the past the government, says, it hasn’t made the same public protests.

A key government claim is that it is seeking access to one particular device, thereby limiting the danger to Apple’s security features, and would permit the company to retain possession of the specific code it would have to write to unlock the phone. The company maintains that once it does that, it sets a precedent that law enforcement officials would use at every opportunity when it cannot immediately unlock a suspect’s phone.
The Justice Department said Apple had cooperated under the law in previous cases and was falsely attempting to make a legal exemption for the iPhone Farook used. It also rejected Cook’s contention that it was being asked to introduce a security flaw onto its devices that would stretch beyond the current case.
Department lawyers made particular note of pre-2014 compliance the company gave, before it introduced a version of its mobile operating system that removed the company from possessing decryption keys for its users. They contend that Apple, as a provider of the secured communications, is inherently responsible for fulfilling warrant requests for third-party data.

“Just because Apple has sold the phone to a customer and that customer has created a passcode does not mean that the close software connection ceases to exist; Apple has designed the phone and software updates so that Apple’s continued involvement and connection is required,” the government lawyers contend.

The filing comes as the government is waging its own public relations battle over the increasing use of encryption by tech companies. For more than a year Comey has been pushing the Obama administration and Congress to regulate how companies like Apple use encryption that can stymie his agents. Both sides have declined, realizing that the FBI fought and lost a similar battle – the so called Crypto Wars – during the Clinton administration.

“At no point has Apple ever said that it does not have the technical ability to comply with the Order, or that the Order asks Apple to undertake an unreasonably challenging development task,” the government’s filing says. “On this point, Apple’s silence speaks volumes.”
But the government in its filing seems to acknowledge its legal push is about much more than gaining access to a single phone. Rather, it wants to ensure it can maintain access to any phone.
“Where Apple designed its software and that design interferes with the execution of search warrants… where it owns and licensed the software used to further the criminal enterprise, where it retains exclusive control over the source code necessary to modify and install the software, and where the very software must now be used to enable the search ordered by the warrant, compulsion of Apple is permissible,” the government says.

Apple has yet to file any formal response with the court. A hearing is scheduled in California for 22 March.

 

[carlspackler]

Tim Cook is what a true American Conservative looks like.

 

[carlspackler]

Mr. Lieu is the man and he is pissed! He pretty much sums up the issue in two minutes.

 

[carlspackler]

LOL. Yes lets give the government these capabilities. They will never screw it up.

"The Apple ID passcode linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn’t happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible…
The executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a back door. One of those methods would have involved connecting the phone to a known wifi network."

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

 

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

After all the revelations about the NSA, how can anyone be foolish enough to think that the government won't abuse this power if they get it?

 

[Acebb]

Here is what I don't understand about this story. What, exactly, is the FBI looking for? Text messages, call logs and browser information can all be gathered from the mobile carrier. Apple also said they gave the FBI a backup of this phone.

This story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Apple doesn’t really care about our freedom or safety, they think they are just too damn COOL to help the FBI hack a terrorist’s phone[/h]By PIERS MORGAN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 18:29, 22 February 2016 | UPDATED: 18:29, 22 February 2016


When is phone-hacking acceptable?
As you might imagine, this is a question that a few people have posed to me over the past few years.
My usual answer - once I’ve reiterated that I’ve never personally hacked a phone nor told anybody else to - is this: when it might prevent terror attacks.
I always assumed there wouldn’t be a sane person alive who would quibble with hacking a phone if it belonged to the likes of Osama bin Laden, or the current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
But I was wrong.

+3


You may think no sane person would argue with hacking the phone of a terror leader - but it turns out Apple CEO Tim Cook, pictured, would find that unacceptable

It turns out that a lot of people would still find that unacceptable, led by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple.
He is refusing to co-operate with the FBI over the unlocking of an iPhone that was used by a terrorist.
Not just any terrorist; one of the worst terrorists in the history of the United States of America.
Last December, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people and wounded 22 more in a mass shooting at a disability centre in San Bernardino, California.
Farook was an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the U.S.
The pair, both Muslims, had become radicalised over several years prior to the attack and were described by FBI Director James B. Comey as ‘homegrown violent extremists’.
They were both killed in a shoot-out with police and in a later search of their homes it was discovered that they had smashed up their cellphones and taken the hard drive from their laptop.
However, an iPhone 5c belonging to Farook was found in the car in which he died.
Clearly, the contents of this phone are a matter of potentially huge significance.
Who knows what’s on it?
The FBI doesn’t yet, and nor does Apple.
But let me suggest a distinct possibility: clues that Farook and Malik knew other Islamic extremists and had contact with them either through text, email or some form of social media.

+3


Clues to who Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik communicated with, and potentially other extremists living in America, could be named on an iPhone 5c found in their car. But at this rate authorities will never know



Perhaps those fellow extremists were also living in America?
Perhaps they, too, harbour deep angry thoughts about their country of their residence?
Perhaps they, right now, are planning similarly barbaric attacks on Americans living around them?
‘You’re just scare-mongering!’ I hear you cry.
But am I?
How far-fetched does this actually seem to you?
I would think it is highly likely that phone could reveal all sorts of information that might prove absolutely crucial to America’s national security.
Hence the FBI’s urgent interest in finding out.
But Apple’s having none of it.
Cook has announced that he can’t and won’t unlock the phone.
He claims there are technical reasons why to do so would be to imperil the privacy and security of every single Apple user in the world.
Those reasons are complex but essentially boil down to an update Apple introduced to its operating system in September, 2014 which made it, they claim, impossible to hack into an iPhone without knowing the password.
A new setting, when turned on, means the phone destroys itself after 10 incorrect attempts at entering a password. And ‘destroyed’ means destroyed; nothing can then be retrieved from it.
The only way round this update is for Apple to create new software to circumnavigate it, and they insist if they build such software then criminals would soon be able to get hold of it for their own nefarious use.
Cook took a defiant, patriotic tone in in a letter to Apple employees today.
‘Apple is a uniquely American company,’ he began, which is laughably disingenuous given how much of its business has been out-sourced to places like China.
‘It does not feel right to be on the opposite side of the government in a case centering on the freedoms and liberties that government is trying to protect.’
Very laudable, Mr Cook, but that’s exactly and very deliberately where you’ve placed yourself.

+3


Apple is just trying to look cool. The company has no moral objection to doing what the FBI is asking, we know, because the company previously acceded on nearly 100 occasions to similar FBI requests

‘As individuals and as a company,’ he said, ‘we have no tolerance or sympathy for terrorists. When they commit unspeakable acts like the tragic attacks in San Bernardino, we work to help the authorities pursue justice for the victims. And that’s exactly what we did.’
Really? Because from where I’m looking it looks like you’ve done the complete opposite.
Cook then cited an email he’d received from a 13-year app developer who ‘thanked us for standing up to all future generations’ and a 3-year Army veteran who told him, ‘Like my freedom, I will always consider my privacy as a treasure.’
All of which is designed to make us feel warm and fuzzy towards Apple, and to fully appreciate and understand this glorious stand they are making against a shocking government attempt to invade our privacy.
So why don’t I feel all warm and fuzzy? Why, instead, do I feel a deep sense of unease?
Well, because I don’t believe a damn word of it, that’s why.
Are we really expected to believe that Apple doesn’t have a single engineer among its 80,000 employees who can get the data out of this one phone without re-writing the company’s entire security bible?
Of course it does.
But to admit that, and then to let them do it, isn’t good for Apple’s brand or its business.
It doesn’t look ‘cool’ to co-operate with law enforcement like this.
Apple, let’s be clear, has no moral objection to doing what the FBI is asking it to do.
We know this because before the new update was introduced, the company previously acceded on nearly 100 occasions to similar FBI requests for assistance in unlocking iPhones.
Something I don’t remember Tim Cook emailing his staff to tell them about, nor to inform Apple shareholders like me.
I believe there is absolute, unequivocal public interest when it comes to hacking into phones belonging to terrorists.
Not just to find information which may prevent future attacks, but also to gather as much detail as possible about ones which have already occurred.
Apple should stop behaving like a bunch of tech-luvvie pseudo Che Guevaras and either hack into Syed Farook’s phone themselves or let the FBI do it.
If they don’t, and another attack happens on U.S. soil which could have possibly been prevented by information on that phone, then Tim Cook and Apple will have the blood of the victims on its hands.

 

[carlspackler]

Apple doesn’t really care about our freedom or safety, they think they are just too damn COOL to help the FBI hack a terrorist’s phone

By PIERS MORGAN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 18:29, 22 February 2016 | UPDATED: 18:29, 22 February 2016


When is phone-hacking acceptable?
As you might imagine, this is a question that a few people have posed to me over the past few years.
My usual answer - once I’ve reiterated that I’ve never personally hacked a phone nor told anybody else to - is this: when it might prevent terror attacks.
I always assumed there wouldn’t be a sane person alive who would quibble with hacking a phone if it belonged to the likes of Osama bin Laden, or the current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
But I was wrong.

+3


You may think no sane person would argue with hacking the phone of a terror leader - but it turns out Apple CEO Tim Cook, pictured, would find that unacceptable

It turns out that a lot of people would still find that unacceptable, led by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple.
He is refusing to co-operate with the FBI over the unlocking of an iPhone that was used by a terrorist.
Not just any terrorist; one of the worst terrorists in the history of the United States of America.
Last December, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people and wounded 22 more in a mass shooting at a disability centre in San Bernardino, California.
Farook was an American-born U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the U.S.
The pair, both Muslims, had become radicalised over several years prior to the attack and were described by FBI Director James B. Comey as ‘homegrown violent extremists’.
They were both killed in a shoot-out with police and in a later search of their homes it was discovered that they had smashed up their cellphones and taken the hard drive from their laptop.
However, an iPhone 5c belonging to Farook was found in the car in which he died.
Clearly, the contents of this phone are a matter of potentially huge significance.
Who knows what’s on it?
The FBI doesn’t yet, and nor does Apple.
But let me suggest a distinct possibility: clues that Farook and Malik knew other Islamic extremists and had contact with them either through text, email or some form of social media.

+3


Clues to who Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik communicated with, and potentially other extremists living in America, could be named on an iPhone 5c found in their car. But at this rate authorities will never know



Perhaps those fellow extremists were also living in America?
Perhaps they, too, harbour deep angry thoughts about their country of their residence?
Perhaps they, right now, are planning similarly barbaric attacks on Americans living around them?
‘You’re just scare-mongering!’ I hear you cry.
But am I?
How far-fetched does this actually seem to you?
I would think it is highly likely that phone could reveal all sorts of information that might prove absolutely crucial to America’s national security.
Hence the FBI’s urgent interest in finding out.
But Apple’s having none of it.
Cook has announced that he can’t and won’t unlock the phone.
He claims there are technical reasons why to do so would be to imperil the privacy and security of every single Apple user in the world.
Those reasons are complex but essentially boil down to an update Apple introduced to its operating system in September, 2014 which made it, they claim, impossible to hack into an iPhone without knowing the password.
A new setting, when turned on, means the phone destroys itself after 10 incorrect attempts at entering a password. And ‘destroyed’ means destroyed; nothing can then be retrieved from it.
The only way round this update is for Apple to create new software to circumnavigate it, and they insist if they build such software then criminals would soon be able to get hold of it for their own nefarious use.
Cook took a defiant, patriotic tone in in a letter to Apple employees today.
‘Apple is a uniquely American company,’ he began, which is laughably disingenuous given how much of its business has been out-sourced to places like China.
‘It does not feel right to be on the opposite side of the government in a case centering on the freedoms and liberties that government is trying to protect.’
Very laudable, Mr Cook, but that’s exactly and very deliberately where you’ve placed yourself.

+3


Apple is just trying to look cool. The company has no moral objection to doing what the FBI is asking, we know, because the company previously acceded on nearly 100 occasions to similar FBI requests

‘As individuals and as a company,’ he said, ‘we have no tolerance or sympathy for terrorists. When they commit unspeakable acts like the tragic attacks in San Bernardino, we work to help the authorities pursue justice for the victims. And that’s exactly what we did.’
Really? Because from where I’m looking it looks like you’ve done the complete opposite.
Cook then cited an email he’d received from a 13-year app developer who ‘thanked us for standing up to all future generations’ and a 3-year Army veteran who told him, ‘Like my freedom, I will always consider my privacy as a treasure.’
All of which is designed to make us feel warm and fuzzy towards Apple, and to fully appreciate and understand this glorious stand they are making against a shocking government attempt to invade our privacy.
So why don’t I feel all warm and fuzzy? Why, instead, do I feel a deep sense of unease?
Well, because I don’t believe a damn word of it, that’s why.
Are we really expected to believe that Apple doesn’t have a single engineer among its 80,000 employees who can get the data out of this one phone without re-writing the company’s entire security bible?
Of course it does.
But to admit that, and then to let them do it, isn’t good for Apple’s brand or its business.
It doesn’t look ‘cool’ to co-operate with law enforcement like this.
Apple, let’s be clear, has no moral objection to doing what the FBI is asking it to do.
We know this because before the new update was introduced, the company previously acceded on nearly 100 occasions to similar FBI requests for assistance in unlocking iPhones.
Something I don’t remember Tim Cook emailing his staff to tell them about, nor to inform Apple shareholders like me.
I believe there is absolute, unequivocal public interest when it comes to hacking into phones belonging to terrorists.
Not just to find information which may prevent future attacks, but also to gather as much detail as possible about ones which have already occurred.
Apple should stop behaving like a bunch of tech-luvvie pseudo Che Guevaras and either hack into Syed Farook’s phone themselves or let the FBI do it.
If they don’t, and another attack happens on U.S. soil which could have possibly been prevented by information on that phone, then Tim Cook and Apple will have the blood of the victims on its hands.

LOL. Piers Morgan.

You are just shilling for the state.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Google and Facebook support Apple against FBI's hacking order—but they still want your information[/h]

• The FBI demanded Apple help them hack an iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino shooters, but the tech giant refused
• Google and Facebook have said they will stand with Apple against the FBI
• But the Silicon Valley companies are known to mine their users for data

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 18:16, 27 February 2016 | UPDATED: 02:35, 28 February 2016
In its fight with the FBI, Apple insists it's defending the privacy and safety of all iPhone users by resisting government calls to help unlock an extremist's iPhone—and now other big tech companies such as Google and Facebook are rallying to Apple's side.
Wait just a minute: Aren't those the same companies that Apple has previously criticized by lobbing veiled accusations that they exploit your personal information—to sell ads—and effectively endanger your privacy?
Some might argue that Apple's allies are hypocrites when it comes to privacy, much like the fraternity brothers in Animal House who declared: 'He can't do that to our pledges. Only we can do that to our pledges.'

+3


There's a deeply American conflict behind the unfolding battle between the tech industry and the federal government, over the FBI's demand for Apple to help it unlock an extremist killer's encrypted iPhone. Pictured is Apple CEO Tim Cook

But Silicon Valley's view of privacy is more nuanced than that. And Americans historically have worried less about the private sector and more about the government's power to infringe on individual rights.
'The government can put me in jail. Google, Facebook and Twitter cannot,' said Larry Downs, a scholar at Georgetown University's Center for Business and Public Policy.
That makes the details of the iPhone case especially important. The FBI says it's only asking for narrow technical assistance in bypassing security features on a phone used by one of the shooters who killed 14 people in San Bernardino.
'We couldn't look the survivors in the eye if we did not follow this lead,' FBI Director James Comey said online.
Apple contends that a magistrate's order would force it to create software that will make other iPhones vulnerable to future hacking by authorities and criminals.
Leading tech companies including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft say they'll file legal arguments in support of Apple's position.
The same companies objected loudly after former government contractor Edward Snowden revealed the scope of National Security Agency surveillance programs that collected user data and even tapped their networks without their knowledge.
The companies have gone to court and Congress to limit that kind of government data-gathering, while also fighting attempts to weaken the encryption codes that shield your messages from prying eyes.

+3


Facebook said it will file legal arguments in support of Apple's position in it's court battle against the FBI. Pictured is the company's CEO Mark Zuckerberg





Yet privacy advocates have long complained that those companies reap billions of dollars by collecting all kinds of personal information, including records of customers' online behavior, and using it to target them for advertising.
Apple CEO Tim Cook has leveled jabs at his competitors, boasting that Apple doesn't rely on ad revenue for most of its services.
As Cook has said more than once: 'When an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product.'
But even Apple collects some customer information. Experts say it's not really clear if Apple's privacy stance is a big selling point for most consumers.
Companies like Google and Facebook argue they take pains to protect the data they collect.
Facebook, for example, tracks users' likes and actions so the company can show them ads targeted to people with similar characteristics.



.

But Facebook has said it doesn't give advertisers access to information linked to any individual by name.
Internet companies do operate very differently from traditional data brokers such as credit bureaus, which make their money by selling all kinds of information on individuals — from their income and bill-paying history to where they've lived and worked.
'Google does not sell your personal information,' said Rachel Whetstone, then a senior vice president for the giant Internet company, in a speech last year.
'Nor do we share it without your permission except in very limited circumstances,' such as when faced with a court-issued warrant. Like Facebook, Google says it pushes back against government requests that seem unwarranted or over-broad.
By contrast with Google's business, Whetstone said, government surveillance often involves data 'collected for an entirely separate purpose,' usually from people who didn't expect it would be seen by authorities.

+3


NYPD officers prepare for protests in support of Apple outside the company's store on Fifth Avenue, New York, February 23

She said Google gives users the ability to limit the collection of their data.
Whetstone was speaking in Europe, where many national governments have strong privacy laws that restrict what businesses can do with individuals' data.
'The American view is we need protection from the government misusing information, rather than we need the government to protect us from other people misusing our information,' said Downs.
Still, some privacy advocates say the iPhone dispute underscores their worries about data collection.
Consumers should realize any information they give to companies could one day be sought by the government, said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
'I'm glad these companies are coming together to support Apple,' she said.
'It ultimately may raise some hard questions for them about how much information they need to collect, and how they secure it, and how long they keep it.'


.

 

[superbeets]

"The three worst privacy offenders in the world are supporting each other!"


"
Tim Cook is grandstanding. The device that you are using to access this website is already sending your data to Apple. I bet his marketing people have already finished a campaign telling you to buy Apple products because at Apple your privacy is number one."


"People should be far more afraid of Google, Apple, and Facebook as far as personal information goes. The government is trying to make sure the public is safe."

.

 

[carlspackler]

"The three worst privacy offenders in the world are supporting each other!"


"
Tim Cook is grandstanding. The device that you are using to access this website is already sending your data to Apple. I bet his marketing people have already finished a campaign telling you to buy Apple products because at Apple your privacy is number one."


"People should be far more afraid of Google, Apple, and Facebook as far as personal information goes. The government is trying to make sure the public is safe."

.

"The terrorist attack in San Bernardino was horrific and the tragic loss of innocent lives demands a strong response. I have several deep concerns, however, about the unprecedented court order that forces Apple to create software it does not have in order to provide a “back door” way to weaken its smartphone encryption system.
This FBI court order, by compelling a private sector company to write new software, is essentially making that company an arm of law-enforcement. Private sector companies are not—and should not be—an arm of government or law enforcement.
This court order also begs the question: Where does this kind of coercion stop? Can the government force Facebook to create software that provides analytic data on who is likely to be a criminal? Can the government force Google to provide the names of all people who searched for the term ISIL? Can the government force Amazon to write software that identifies who might be suspicious based on the books they ordered?
Forcing Apple to weaken its encryption system in this one case means the government can force Apple—or any other private sector company—to weaken encryption systems in all future cases. This precedent-setting action will both weaken the privacy of Americans and hurt American businesses. And how can the FBI ensure the software that it is forcing Apple to create won’t fall into the wrong hands? Given the number of cyberbreaches in the federal government—including at the Department of Justice—the FBI cannot guarantee this back door software will not end up in the hands of hackers or other criminals.
The San Bernardino massacre was tragic but weakening our cyber security is not the answer – terrorism succeeds when it gets us to give up our liberties and change our way of life. We can take common sense security measures without trampling on privacy rights."

 

[carlspackler]

"The three worst privacy offenders in the world are supporting each other!"


"
Tim Cook is grandstanding. The device that you are using to access this website is already sending your data to Apple. I bet his marketing people have already finished a campaign telling you to buy Apple products because at Apple your privacy is number one."


"People should be far more afraid of Google, Apple, and Facebook as far as personal information goes. The government is trying to make sure the public is safe.".

“You make another statement that somehow these companies are not credible because they collect private data,” Lieu told Conley. “Here’s the difference: Apple and Google don’t have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI does, the NSA does, and to me it’s very simple to draw a privacy balance when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn Constitution.”

 

[JudgeWapner]

The right call by Apple.