5 ms·

Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

60 points by colinplamondon 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago
I'm pretty sure people are in fact allowed to bring cameras onto the Apple campus, and, from what I can tell, there are no metal detectors or bag searches of any sort there. My knowledge is secondhand, but I'm inclined to believe that much of this article is BS.
- quilby 17y ago
  In Israel, because there is a fear from terrorists, before you go into any shop, restaurant, mall, or university, your bag is searched (for ~30 seconds) and sometimes a metal detector is used (a hand-held one). I know nothing about Apple HQ, but it would be trivial to set something like this up. Unrelated, but they (Gizmodo) shouldn't have used the word 'gestapo' or anything else related to nazis.
  - selven 17y ago
    And it's not just one off-handed comparison - the article goes on and on about it. It really trivializes the hardships of people who couldn't just leave and get another job, and where the stakes involved torture and death.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Not only that, but people opt to work at Apple, some of them not just in spite of the secrecy but because of it; Apple is super-sensitive because what their people work on tends to really matter in the marketplace.
- cmelbye 17y ago
  I remember seeing a photo of an iPhone developer in front of a huge banner with a screenshot of his app inside of an Apple building on their campus, and it was labeled something like "Secret photo of me in front of banner with our app!" or something of that nature, so it's a possibility that they have restrictions on cameras.
  - antonovka2 17y ago
    They have a restriction on taking pictures of things you shouldn't (which includes most of the campus), but they don't have restrictions on cameras. In addition to there being no written rule against it, I've openly and regularly hauled digital video and still cameras across campus without ever hearing any complaint from the omnipresent security guards. How do you think people work on iPhoto/iMovie/FCP? Check out cameras from a locked facility?
ugh 17y ago
Those Nazi comparisons sure are so funny.
- makmanalp 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
makmanalp 17y ago
I don't know how people who work in large companies expect to have privacy on the company premises anyway: most of those companies make you sign a set of rules that basically says you forfeit your rights. Same concept in the military, you don't have a right to privacy because (they say) it would be to difficult to manage privacy and check for spies at the same time.
- wheels 17y ago
  In more sane countries, they expect to have privacy because there are reasonable worker protection laws. Something of this sort would be illegal in most western countries. As an American that's been in Germany for the last 8 years, it often blows my mind what's actually taken for granted as being acceptable in the US. Searching through employees' mail is illegal here (as would be searching an employee's personal belongings, drug tests, the whole shebang).
  - tptacek 17y ago
    How is it "sane" for companies not to be able to control and monitor their own Internet connections? People clearly do abuse those connections to violate IP, confidentiality, and insider trading agreements.
    - wheels 17y ago
      People also use their home internet connections to violate IP, confidentiality and insider trading agreements. Using the purported Apple-logic from this post, Apple is (indirectly) paying for that too, so shouldn't they be able to monitor those connections as well? A utility argument here, I don't believe is the way to approach this. There are all sort of "useful" things that companies could do that most folks would agree cross the line into invasion of privacy, in the US or elsewhere. I think there are two important assumptions I'm working with: - People have a right to privacy in personal affairs - The work place being only for work is an idealization that in practice does not exist My argument won't make sense if you don't agree on those two. Employment is one of the fundamental elements of the social fabric, and the rights of employers and employees are participant to a more general social contract. There exists a line at which a company must sacrifice some utility to uphold its end of that contract (e.g. they can't make people work 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, even if they think it'd boost output), and as employers have an imbalance of power in negotiating employment terms, the government, in the interest of the people, lays down some guidelines for what the minimum boundaries are. Every developed country has this. The only variant is the extent of those stipulations, not their existence. I believe the right to privacy is important enough that it's something that an employee should not be obliged to forfeit it in an employment contract. And since it's clear that personal and professional spheres overlap in the workplace, no, I don't think the company should have unrestricted access to an employee's data or actions in the workplace or through work-provided mediums. I don't think there should be microphones in every room; I don't believe that all thoughts discussed in the coffee corner are thusly entitled to the company. Even if they did buy the coffee and the chairs and are paying you at that time. And for me, and the legislators of many (most?) western countries, that clearly extends to internet access and company cell phones.
houseabsolute 17y ago
Sweet . . . I wish I worked on something so important that the secret police would interrogate me about it.
ghshephard 17y ago
I read through the article and thought that pretty much all the activity taken by the Apple Security team sounded reasonable. If I'm not mistaken, everything described was taking place in the work place/work systems/etc... The sketchy companies go a little further, and start doing this with people's _personal_ lives. I'm thinking about when Patricia Dunn (HP Chairman) hired a private investigator to start hacking into people's Cell Phone Bills to find out who they were talking to - Not just from the office, or on office equipment. There is a reason why you see so many Silicon Valley people carrying two laptops, two cellphones, etc... - One of them is for work, and is to be used in the workplace, and is handed over / searched / subject to surveillance / carries confidential company material. The other one is for personal stuff. If there was a material leak from my organization, and it was jeopardizing my livelihood, I would darn well _hope_ company security would have its act together and would track down the leak in a professional manner.
- elai 17y ago
  Wouldn't you have to relinquish your personal laptop/cellphone is such situations too?
  - tptacek 17y ago
    If you bring your personal laptop into a high-security area and refuse to submit to a search, then, without calling the police, and unless grellas shows up to school me because I am not a lawyer, all your employer can do is fire you.
    - sown 17y ago
      What about my underpants? I could hide a usb key in there with vital information. Since I'm bringing my own personal underpants can they search it to?
- tptacek 17y ago
  A reminder: Dunn was charged with felonies for that stunt.
geekles 17y ago
This sounds like due diligence to protect shareholder interests. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - overheard in an interview somewhere.
- dotBen 17y ago
  And don't forget, most employees are APPL shareholders - so for them it's worth supporting rather than pushing back upon.
- sown 17y ago
  And if I'm not a criminal, I shouldn't be treated as such. It's a tad selfish, if you don't mind me saying, of you to automatically assume it's OK to give away my rights in addition to yours.
  - antonovka2 17y ago
    This is Apple, not the Government. If you don't like the legal terms of employment, California is an at-will state. Quit. That said, this article is total ridiculous bunk. Gizmodo has been trolled.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      Even with the government: you don't have to obey laws. You can go live in jail. There's always an alternative option. Freedom is about having fair options.
jrockway 17y ago
How long until someone needs medical attention during one of these lockdowns, and they are fired for leaving to go to the doctor, or feel that they must endure the problem (and risk complications) in order to keep their job? Not long, I bet, and I imagine that this practice will remain legal for ... oh ... about 3 months after that first case. I hope Apple increases the frequency of this practice so that it attracts the attention of legislators sooner, and so that their brightest employees seek employment elsewhere. The beginning of the end is near.
- tptacek 17y ago
  I think it's pretty ridiculous to imply that Apple would accept spectacular corporate liability by dissuading someone from seeking emergency medical attention during an IT investigation. So my guess as to the answer to your question is: it will never happen. Apple's brightest employees (on the high-security projects) have been aware of extreme security measures for many years now, and positions on those teams are sought after.
DenisM 17y ago
The reason why they need these draconian measures is that employees feel disenfranchised and expect to gain more by leaking secrets than by contributing work and sharing in the rewards. Steve Jobs himself would never leak anything - he has a stake in the outcome that the leakers believe they don't.
wooster 17y ago
This is wholly-fabricated nonsense. I worked at Apple for 5+ years and, besides for knowing what actually happens in these situations, there are a couple of dead giveaways that "Tom" was never an Apple employee (or, at least, not in Cupertino).
- brown9-2 17y ago
  Such as?
  - wooster 17y ago
    "They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them." I mean, really, come on. That's just laughable.
    - antonovka2 17y ago
      I can also confirm that Apple does not have a "no camera" policy on campus. Or a "gestapo". The security is very well run, however.
      - silencio 17y ago
        While Apple employees aren't subject to that, if you're just wandering around as a visitor taking pictures, security will ask you to stop.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      "Getting into the campus" is also a giveaway, in that "the campus" is basically "everything in Cupertino within 5 minutes of 280". And of course, if you've ever walked up to those buildings, they're just "guarded" by receptionists.
CamperBob 17y ago
They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them. If the cellphone is an iPhone, it gets backed up onto a laptop. "In fact, at the beginning they used to say that the iPhones were really their property, since Apple gave every employee a free iPhone," he points out. All the employees are asked to unlock and disable any locking features in their cellphones, and then the special forces will proceed to check them for recent activity. ROFL. Gizmodo.com has been trolled.
shalmanese 17y ago
A quick Google reveals no references of any Worldwide Loyalty Team before this Gizmodo "expose". I call bullshit on the entire article.

I'm pretty sure people are in fact allowed to bring cameras onto the Apple campus, and, from what I can tell, there are no metal detectors or bag searches of any sort there. My knowledge is secondhand, but I'm inclined to believe that much of this article is BS.

quilby 17y ago
In Israel, because there is a fear from terrorists, before you go into any shop, restaurant, mall, or university, your bag is searched (for ~30 seconds) and sometimes a metal detector is used (a hand-held one). I know nothing about Apple HQ, but it would be trivial to set something like this up. Unrelated, but they (Gizmodo) shouldn't have used the word 'gestapo' or anything else related to nazis.
- selven 17y ago
  And it's not just one off-handed comparison - the article goes on and on about it. It really trivializes the hardships of people who couldn't just leave and get another job, and where the stakes involved torture and death.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Not only that, but people opt to work at Apple, some of them not just in spite of the secrecy but because of it; Apple is super-sensitive because what their people work on tends to really matter in the marketplace.
cmelbye 17y ago
I remember seeing a photo of an iPhone developer in front of a huge banner with a screenshot of his app inside of an Apple building on their campus, and it was labeled something like "Secret photo of me in front of banner with our app!" or something of that nature, so it's a possibility that they have restrictions on cameras.
- antonovka2 17y ago
  They have a restriction on taking pictures of things you shouldn't (which includes most of the campus), but they don't have restrictions on cameras. In addition to there being no written rule against it, I've openly and regularly hauled digital video and still cameras across campus without ever hearing any complaint from the omnipresent security guards. How do you think people work on iPhoto/iMovie/FCP? Check out cameras from a locked facility?

ugh 17y ago

Those Nazi comparisons sure are so funny.

makmanalp 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

makmanalp 17y ago

I don't know how people who work in large companies expect to have privacy on the company premises anyway: most of those companies make you sign a set of rules that basically says you forfeit your rights. Same concept in the military, you don't have a right to privacy because (they say) it would be to difficult to manage privacy and check for spies at the same time.

wheels 17y ago
In more sane countries, they expect to have privacy because there are reasonable worker protection laws. Something of this sort would be illegal in most western countries. As an American that's been in Germany for the last 8 years, it often blows my mind what's actually taken for granted as being acceptable in the US. Searching through employees' mail is illegal here (as would be searching an employee's personal belongings, drug tests, the whole shebang).
- tptacek 17y ago
  How is it "sane" for companies not to be able to control and monitor their own Internet connections? People clearly do abuse those connections to violate IP, confidentiality, and insider trading agreements.
  - wheels 17y ago
    People also use their home internet connections to violate IP, confidentiality and insider trading agreements. Using the purported Apple-logic from this post, Apple is (indirectly) paying for that too, so shouldn't they be able to monitor those connections as well? A utility argument here, I don't believe is the way to approach this. There are all sort of "useful" things that companies could do that most folks would agree cross the line into invasion of privacy, in the US or elsewhere. I think there are two important assumptions I'm working with: - People have a right to privacy in personal affairs - The work place being only for work is an idealization that in practice does not exist My argument won't make sense if you don't agree on those two. Employment is one of the fundamental elements of the social fabric, and the rights of employers and employees are participant to a more general social contract. There exists a line at which a company must sacrifice some utility to uphold its end of that contract (e.g. they can't make people work 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, even if they think it'd boost output), and as employers have an imbalance of power in negotiating employment terms, the government, in the interest of the people, lays down some guidelines for what the minimum boundaries are. Every developed country has this. The only variant is the extent of those stipulations, not their existence. I believe the right to privacy is important enough that it's something that an employee should not be obliged to forfeit it in an employment contract. And since it's clear that personal and professional spheres overlap in the workplace, no, I don't think the company should have unrestricted access to an employee's data or actions in the workplace or through work-provided mediums. I don't think there should be microphones in every room; I don't believe that all thoughts discussed in the coffee corner are thusly entitled to the company. Even if they did buy the coffee and the chairs and are paying you at that time. And for me, and the legislators of many (most?) western countries, that clearly extends to internet access and company cell phones.

houseabsolute 17y ago

Sweet . . . I wish I worked on something so important that the secret police would interrogate me about it.

ghshephard 17y ago

I read through the article and thought that pretty much all the activity taken by the Apple Security team sounded reasonable. If I'm not mistaken, everything described was taking place in the work place/work systems/etc... The sketchy companies go a little further, and start doing this with people's _personal_ lives. I'm thinking about when Patricia Dunn (HP Chairman) hired a private investigator to start hacking into people's Cell Phone Bills to find out who they were talking to - Not just from the office, or on office equipment. There is a reason why you see so many Silicon Valley people carrying two laptops, two cellphones, etc... - One of them is for work, and is to be used in the workplace, and is handed over / searched / subject to surveillance / carries confidential company material. The other one is for personal stuff. If there was a material leak from my organization, and it was jeopardizing my livelihood, I would darn well _hope_ company security would have its act together and would track down the leak in a professional manner.

elai 17y ago
Wouldn't you have to relinquish your personal laptop/cellphone is such situations too?
- tptacek 17y ago
  If you bring your personal laptop into a high-security area and refuse to submit to a search, then, without calling the police, and unless grellas shows up to school me because I am not a lawyer, all your employer can do is fire you.
  - sown 17y ago
    What about my underpants? I could hide a usb key in there with vital information. Since I'm bringing my own personal underpants can they search it to?
tptacek 17y ago
A reminder: Dunn was charged with felonies for that stunt.

geekles 17y ago

This sounds like due diligence to protect shareholder interests. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - overheard in an interview somewhere.

dotBen 17y ago
And don't forget, most employees are APPL shareholders - so for them it's worth supporting rather than pushing back upon.
sown 17y ago
And if I'm not a criminal, I shouldn't be treated as such. It's a tad selfish, if you don't mind me saying, of you to automatically assume it's OK to give away my rights in addition to yours.
- antonovka2 17y ago
  This is Apple, not the Government. If you don't like the legal terms of employment, California is an at-will state. Quit. That said, this article is total ridiculous bunk. Gizmodo has been trolled.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Even with the government: you don't have to obey laws. You can go live in jail. There's always an alternative option. Freedom is about having fair options.

jrockway 17y ago

How long until someone needs medical attention during one of these lockdowns, and they are fired for leaving to go to the doctor, or feel that they must endure the problem (and risk complications) in order to keep their job? Not long, I bet, and I imagine that this practice will remain legal for ... oh ... about 3 months after that first case. I hope Apple increases the frequency of this practice so that it attracts the attention of legislators sooner, and so that their brightest employees seek employment elsewhere. The beginning of the end is near.

tptacek 17y ago
I think it's pretty ridiculous to imply that Apple would accept spectacular corporate liability by dissuading someone from seeking emergency medical attention during an IT investigation. So my guess as to the answer to your question is: it will never happen. Apple's brightest employees (on the high-security projects) have been aware of extreme security measures for many years now, and positions on those teams are sought after.

DenisM 17y ago

The reason why they need these draconian measures is that employees feel disenfranchised and expect to gain more by leaking secrets than by contributing work and sharing in the rewards. Steve Jobs himself would never leak anything - he has a stake in the outcome that the leakers believe they don't.

wooster 17y ago

This is wholly-fabricated nonsense. I worked at Apple for 5+ years and, besides for knowing what actually happens in these situations, there are a couple of dead giveaways that "Tom" was never an Apple employee (or, at least, not in Cupertino).

brown9-2 17y ago
Such as?
- wooster 17y ago
  "They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them." I mean, really, come on. That's just laughable.
  - antonovka2 17y ago
    I can also confirm that Apple does not have a "no camera" policy on campus. Or a "gestapo". The security is very well run, however.
    - silencio 17y ago
      While Apple employees aren't subject to that, if you're just wandering around as a visitor taking pictures, security will ask you to stop.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    "Getting into the campus" is also a giveaway, in that "the campus" is basically "everything in Cupertino within 5 minutes of 280". And of course, if you've ever walked up to those buildings, they're just "guarded" by receptionists.

CamperBob 17y ago

They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them. If the cellphone is an iPhone, it gets backed up onto a laptop. "In fact, at the beginning they used to say that the iPhones were really their property, since Apple gave every employee a free iPhone," he points out. All the employees are asked to unlock and disable any locking features in their cellphones, and then the special forces will proceed to check them for recent activity. ROFL. Gizmodo.com has been trolled.

shalmanese 17y ago

A quick Google reveals no references of any Worldwide Loyalty Team before this Gizmodo "expose". I call bullshit on the entire article.