• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apple Gives Thousands of Customers Info to Govt Per Month

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Appointed by Obama in 2008, and currently working for Apple, Lisa Jackson sent this email to Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta:

Please know that Apple will continue its work with law enforcement. We share law enforcement's concerns about the threat to citizens and we work closely with authorities to comply with legal requests for data that have helped solve complex crimes. Thousands of times every month, we give governments information about Apple customers and devices, in response to warrants and other forms of legal process. We have a team that responds to those requests 24 hours a day. Strong encryption does not eliminate Apple’s ability to give law enforcement meta-data or any of a number of other very useful categories of data.

Why was John Podesta interested in information obtained from Apple phones?

Should the government be collecting your encrypted data, just because they want to?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30593#efmAHtANd
 
Why was John Podesta interested in information obtained from Apple phones?

Did you even bother reading the e-mail? it was clearly unsolicited and she was feeding Podesta PR lines in hopes Hillary might use them as free publicity for apple
 
Appointed by Obama in 2008, and currently working for Apple, Lisa Jackson sent this email to Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta:



Why was John Podesta interested in information obtained from Apple phones?

Should the government be collecting your encrypted data, just because they want to?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30593#efmAHtANd

Did you not read what you just posted? The email clearly says they can't help with encrypted data, just with metadata and other kinds of (unencrypted) data.
 
Err this is common and public knowledge... Apple gives up customer details and access to accounts much much easier than its rivals. Has been known for years, as each company publishes each year how many requests by government they get and give.
 
Err this is common and public knowledge... Apple gives up customer details and access to accounts much much easier than its rivals. Has been known for years, as each company publishes each year how many requests by government they get and give.

Apple has improved over the years.

It used to be the case that the government could send a phone to Apple, pay them a fee, and Apple would decrypt the phone and send it back un-encrypted. After the NSA wiretapping scandals precipitated by Snowden, Apple changed the way they encrypt devices so that they are no longer able to decrypt a phone even if they wanted to.

That's why, in the case of the San Bernardino shooting, the FBI tried to force Apple to provide a special version of iOS that would make cracking the passphrase via brute force (trying every possible combination) easier.
 
Apple has improved over the years.

It used to be the case that the government could send a phone to Apple, pay them a fee, and Apple would decrypt the phone and send it back un-encrypted. After the NSA wiretapping scandals precipitated by Snowden, Apple changed the way they encrypt devices so that they are no longer able to decrypt a phone even if they wanted to.

That's why, in the case of the San Bernardino shooting, the FBI tried to force Apple to provide a special version of iOS that would make cracking the passphrase via brute force (trying every possible combination) easier.

Yea live in that lala land. The reason that the FBI wanted Apple to do what they refused to do, was so the FBI was not exposed in using less than kosher methods (unknown to Apple). Just look at the last iOS 9 update that came out.. the panic oh **** update, where the world found out that iOS had been 100% hackable remotely for years and that governments (and private citizens) had been exploiting it for years .. for a price of course. Apple have gotten better, but on average are still far behind the other OS makers security.. Apples idea of security is to make it more difficult to access their services with extra layers of idiotic security that does nothing but piss off the user and put the user in a false sense of security.
 
Yea live in that lala land. The reason that the FBI wanted Apple to do what they refused to do, was so the FBI was not exposed in using less than kosher methods (unknown to Apple).

Not at all. We know that's not the case because shortly after going to court over this, the FBI, with the help of a third party, did discover how to do it and withdrew the case after publicly admitting they now had this capability. Not only that, but the FBI decrypts phones all the time. Admitting they had the capacity to decrypt a phone would have revealed absolutely nothing; they decrypt phones on a daily basis and no one bats an eye.

Just look at the last iOS 9 update that came out.. the panic oh **** update, where the world found out that iOS had been 100% hackable remotely for years and that governments (and private citizens) had been exploiting it for years .. for a price of course. Apple have gotten better, but on average are still far behind the other OS makers security.. Apples idea of security is to make it more difficult to access their services with extra layers of idiotic security that does nothing but piss off the user and put the user in a false sense of security.

The discussion we were having was about Apple's level of cooperation with the government and whether your claim that they give up information easier than its competitors is true. The security of Apple's iOS and how it compares to other mobile Operating Systems is off topic.

As to the original topic, your claim was true. Things have changed though. At the time I wrote the response, I thought you probably just weren't aware of the changes in Apple's policies; thus why you said "for some time". I thought I would just let you know things have changed. But it seems now that that's not it at all. You're just an Apple hater. In which case...whatever floats your boat...
 
Back
Top Bottom