While many are taking shots at Apple for not helping the government investigate the San Bernardino terrorist attack by unlocking Syed Farook's Apple iPhone 5c, the truth might actually be a lot different. Based on a court filing by an Apple attorney, the company delivered "two parcels" of information related to subscriber data just three days after the attack. Most believe that this was iCloud information related to three different subscribers and nine different accounts.
The legal battle between Apple and the government has cast a spotlight on Apple CEO Tim Cook
On January 22nd, the attorney (named Lisa Olle) said that Apple received a search warrant for the same iCloud information for Farook's iPhone. On January 26th, Apple complied with the search warrant and handed over to the government all of the information it had. Around this time, Apple discovered that the Apple ID of the phone in question had been reset by the San Bernardino County Department of Health, which actually owned the iPhone 5c it had given to the terrorist. The local agency did this at the behest of the FBI, and it was a major mistake. Had the password not been reset, Apple could have obtained the information sought by the feds. This could have been accomplished by backing up the content and data on the phone to iCloud, using a Wi-Fi network. Apple is now planning on encrypting such data to prevent the government from requesting it in the future.
And that brings us to the court order that Apple refuses to comply with. The positions are now well known. Apple is concerned that developing a unique Govt.OS to unlock the phone used by the deceased terrorist could end up with the software in the wrong hands. This could threaten the security of every iPhone holder. The government, and GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, say that Apple is more concerned with its business than the possibility that future terror attacks could be thwarted with the information that Apple won't help the government discover.
But like most things in life, this is not a black and white issue. And despite that sound of hot air rising (no, wait, that's Donald Trump talking!), Apple has responded to previous requests for information. And consider this. There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. Instead of being called unpatriotic or worse, Apple is taking a stand against a government request that could be seen as overreaching. And while today it is just a smartphone, tomorrow it could be Uncle Sam breaking down your door because the government wants some information from you. And the feds don't even think that examining Farook's phone will yield anything of value about other suspects!
Recommended Stories
"The government obtained the Order without notice to Apple and without allowing Apple an opportunity to be heard. [...] But this was not a case where the government needed to proceed in secret to safeguard its investigation; indeed, Apple understands that the government alerted reporters before filing its ex parte application, and then, immediately after it was signed and confirmed to be on the docket, distributed the application and Order to the public at about the same time it notified Apple. Moreover, this is the only case in counsel's memory in which an FBI Director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects."-Apple
The record submitted by Apple (and not denied by the feds) reveals that Apple has done every thing it could without hurting its customers' privacy, to turn over information about this case. Tim Cook even said this on the day the story blew up to become our new national pastime in the states. There are those who say Apple is not a good corporate citizen. It would seem that the opposite is true.
Alan, an ardent smartphone enthusiast and a veteran writer at PhoneArena since 2009, has witnessed and chronicled the transformative years of mobile technology. Owning iconic phones from the original iPhone to the iPhone 15 Pro Max, he has seen smartphones evolve into a global phenomenon. Beyond smartphones, Alan has covered the emergence of tablets, smartwatches, and smart speakers.
A discussion is a place, where people can voice their opinion, no matter if it
is positive, neutral or negative. However, when posting, one must stay true to the topic, and not just share some
random thoughts, which are not directly related to the matter.
Things that are NOT allowed:
Off-topic talk - you must stick to the subject of discussion
Offensive, hate speech - if you want to say something, say it politely
Spam/Advertisements - these posts are deleted
Multiple accounts - one person can have only one account
Impersonations and offensive nicknames - these accounts get banned
Moderation is done by humans. We try to be as objective as possible and moderate with zero bias. If you think a
post should be moderated - please, report it.
Have a question about the rules or why you have been moderated/limited/banned? Please,
contact us.
Things that are NOT allowed: