![]() ![]() “Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data,” the company wrote on its website. Security on earlier devices was much weaker, and there were various ways to break into them, but Apple could no longer access locked devices running iOS 8, even if law enforcement had a valid warrant. The encryption was so strong, not even Apple could break it. ![]() It encrypted all the user’s data-phone call records, messages, photos, contacts, and so on-with the user’s passcode. IOS 8 added much stronger encryption than had been seen before in smartphones. Apple and the government had been at odds for more than a year, since the debut of Apple’s encrypted operating system, iOS 8, in late 2014. The magistrate’s order thrust into the spotlight a long-running debate Apple had been having with the authorities about encryption. Though it was difficult for him to resist orders from the US government, and he knew he’d face backlash, he needed to take a stand. “We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack,” he wrote. He believed the FBI’s intentions were good, but it was his responsibility to protect Apple users. #Memo tim cook apple softwareThe government could then demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept messages, access health records or financial data, or track users’ locations. from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.” It would be a slippery slope from there. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”Ĭook then accused the government of trying to force Apple “to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers. “The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. a backdoor to the iPhone.” He continued, “In the wrong hands, this software-which does not exist today-would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.” This could have potentially disastrous consequences, leaving users powerless to stop any unwanted invasion of privacy. “But now the US government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. “If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data.”Īpple had been working with the FBI to try to unlock the phone, providing data and making engineers available, Cook explained. He had to show the world that he was advocating for user privacy rather than supporting terrorism.Īt 4:30 a.m., just in time for the morning news cycle on the East Coast, Cook published an open letter to Apple customers explaining why the company would be opposing the ruling, which “threatens the security of our customers.” He referenced the danger that could come from the government having too much power: “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling,” he wrote. #Memo tim cook apple how toThis was brand-new territory, and Cook had to figure out how to navigate it. This case put the company unexpectedly on the side of a terrorist. What kind of company wouldn’t help the FBI in a terrorist investigation? From a public relations standpoint, Apple had always been on the side of privacy advocates and civil libertarians. Cook was very concerned about the public’s reaction and knew that one of the outcomes of his action could be that Apple would be accused of siding with terrorists. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |