3 ms·

What is suspicious about this Cook's statement is that he was able to publish it. I believe this kind of government requests is usually made with a strong non-d

What is suspicious about this Cook's statement is that he was able to publish it. I believe this kind of government requests is usually made with a strong non-disclosure agreement with severe consequences if disclosed. So, either the consequences were not that bad or Apple has chosen to ignore them for the good cause. Or ... something "fishy" is going on and this article is just a bait by Apple to let its customers believe they do care about privacy ... while in reality the situation might be entirely different. And the "best" thing is that ordinary people will never know for sure, because with Apple's proprietary software philosophy, there is no way to tell.

envy2 11y ago
Sorry, this isn't "suspicious": there is a publicly available court order[1] issued by the US District Court for the Central District of California for Apple to comply with, which you could have found in 15 seconds of Googling. This was not a FISA warrant or National Security Letter. [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-O...
- taneq 11y ago
  Just playing devil's advocate here (and I'm in no way full bottle on U.S. law) but from other posts here, one of the most contentious points about national security letters is the very strict gag order that is usually attached to them. Yes, there's a publicly available court order. How would you know there isn't also an NSL?
cmyr 11y ago
This wasn't a national security letter; the request comes from a judge on a circuit court, as part of a regular pre-trail ruling in a 'normal' criminal trial. Nothing about this is unusual.
- schoen 11y ago
  s/circuit/district/
dennisnedry 11y ago
I think you're just pulling conjecture from thin air without even bothering to look anything up.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> What is suspicious about this Cook's statement is that he was able to publish it. No, its not. > I believe this kind of government requests Its not a request. > is usually made with a strong non-disclosure agreement An agreement requires someone to agree. You probably mean a gag order, not a non-disclosure agreement. In any case, whatever you believe is normal is irrelevant: this is a public order, which was widely reported on before Cook's statement. > So, either the consequences were not that bad or Apple has chosen to ignore them for the good cause. Its clearly the first: there were no consequences for disclosing the order, since there was no secrecy provision attached to it and, in fact, it had been published and widely reported prior to Cook's response.
- pbasista 11y ago
  Ok, I think you got the points right. I did not look up the details about this case properly in the first place.

envy2 11y ago

Sorry, this isn't "suspicious": there is a publicly available court order[1] issued by the US District Court for the Central District of California for Apple to comply with, which you could have found in 15 seconds of Googling. This was not a FISA warrant or National Security Letter. [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-O...

taneq 11y ago
Just playing devil's advocate here (and I'm in no way full bottle on U.S. law) but from other posts here, one of the most contentious points about national security letters is the very strict gag order that is usually attached to them. Yes, there's a publicly available court order. How would you know there isn't also an NSL?

cmyr 11y ago

This wasn't a national security letter; the request comes from a judge on a circuit court, as part of a regular pre-trail ruling in a 'normal' criminal trial. Nothing about this is unusual.

schoen 11y ago
s/circuit/district/

dennisnedry 11y ago

I think you're just pulling conjecture from thin air without even bothering to look anything up.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> What is suspicious about this Cook's statement is that he was able to publish it. No, its not. > I believe this kind of government requests Its not a request. > is usually made with a strong non-disclosure agreement An agreement requires someone to agree. You probably mean a gag order, not a non-disclosure agreement. In any case, whatever you believe is normal is irrelevant: this is a public order, which was widely reported on before Cook's statement. > So, either the consequences were not that bad or Apple has chosen to ignore them for the good cause. Its clearly the first: there were no consequences for disclosing the order, since there was no secrecy provision attached to it and, in fact, it had been published and widely reported prior to Cook's response.

pbasista 11y ago
Ok, I think you got the points right. I did not look up the details about this case properly in the first place.