3 ms·
>We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will. That's good to read but, technically, it's not their choice, correct?
by thisisdallas 12y ago
>We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will.
That's good to read but, technically, it's not their choice, correct?
- isomorphic 12y agoThey can hand over copies of data (after being presented with a warrant) without giving "access to our servers."
- thisisdallas 12y agoAhh I see, thanks for the comment.
- scintill76 12y agoMaybe I'm just really cynical, but now I'm imagining scenarios like mirroring their disks to copies someone like the NSA is allowed full access to. Would that be "access" to their "servers"? Maybe they don't include Apple's own private keys, so at least the NSA can't impersonate them, just read every byte of data they have? Then again, it's sort of moot because they can probably be legally forced to provide full "access to [their] servers". Some comments here are pointing out they have the choice whether to obey the law, so is Cook actually saying they will disobey it?
- grecy 12y ago> technically, it's not their choice, correct? Technically, it very much is their choice to comply or not, if they are ever put in a position to do so. The consequences of not complying are not up to them, but they can still not comply if they choose. (The consequences might be massive fines and/or jail time for execs, but it's still a choice)
- xexers 12y agoHe talked to Charlie Rose about this 2 days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmm5faI_mLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmm5faI_mLo