8 ms·
Apple's statements to the press about this have repeatedly said [1]: >Apple has strong data privacy and security protections in place and no backdoors will be
by IBM 9y ago
Apple's statements to the press about this have repeatedly said [1]:
>Apple has strong data privacy and security protections in place and no backdoors will be created into any of our systems.
iMessage is end-to-end encrypted and has never been blocked in China, while services like WhatsApp are [2]. During the FBI brouhaha, the national security establishment water holders started writing op-eds on blogs like Lawfare suggesting that Apple was being hypocritical in opposing the FBI, alleging that they had already given the jewels away to China [3]. The DoJ basically parroted this in their filings to the court, accusing Apple of this outright (whether or not the op-eds were co-ordinated with the DoJ is unclear). Fortunately, this led to Apple responding to these accusations in their own filings to the court [4], including this declaration from Craig Federighi under threat of perjury [5]:
>5. Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world.
>6. Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device.
>7. It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services.
>I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Assuming Craig Federighi didn't perjure himself, why has China seemingly made an exception for Apple when it comes to iMessage (or iOS or iCloud)? The answer is that Apple is the only tech company that actually has leverage with the CPC in (indirectly) employing millions of workers in China. People have criticized Apple for taking down the NYT's app or VPN apps in the App Store in China and for not resisting it, but Apple is rightly picking their battles to protect the crown jewels.
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/10/apple-will-begin-storing-chinese-customer-icloud-data-at-new-china-data-center-from-next-month/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/10/apple-will-begin-storing-chin...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-blocked.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-b...
[3] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook
[4] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1...
[5] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-Decl-Executed.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De...
- kodablah 9y agoI don't think a doc about how they operated two years ago is still applicable is it? Especially since this is a recent "decision" by Apple. The article put it best: > they should say explicitly and unambiguously what they’ve done Why would they choose to be guarded and opaque? I think the silence speaks volumes...otherwise, I can't understand why it's pervasive. Can't they just be clear and transparent and answer the question we all have here and move on?
- IBM 9y agoTheir press statements about this "recent decision" have always reiterated that there are no backdoors. >Why would they choose to be guarded and opaque? I mean isn't the answer to this obvious? Sure, Apple could come out and spell this out for everyone, but this is extremely political and Apple is not going to be better served by loudly touting how they are in a privileged position relative to others because they have their own cards to play with the CPC.
- kodablah 9y ago"No backdoors" has nothing to do with whether the Chinese Government own and/or use the front door. > I mean isn't the answer to this obvious? I thought it was obvious... because they know we won't like the answer. But it seems none of us know. It is really easy, regardless of political harm, to issue statements about data privacy for one country. Not so much for another... making other public statements about citizen data privacy more hollow if they only make them when they think they can. It's a clear case of principles vs money to me.
- socceroos 9y ago> It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country... Not exactly inspiring.
- IBM 9y agoHere's something more unequivocal from Apple's main response [1]. >Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1...