or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple issues rare public comment on its 'commitment to customer privacy'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple issues rare public comment on its 'commitment to customer privacy' - Page 2

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by btracy713 View Post

Lol move the servers out of the US?! You know how much lag that would cause not to mention the cost involved

 

Right because only the USA has any kind of decent Internet connections?  WTF are you talking about?  

post #42 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.

 

It's been reported for many years now that the US has direct access to cell phone data and the actual contents of the calls through the data collection rooms that were installed in every major telcom during the Bush II years.  Any traffic on smartphones that isn't encrypted is supposedly captured in this way, so that would include texts, emails etc., that were being sent as plain text which would include a huge amount of stuff.  

 

I think this must be what he is talking about.  It might even be why Apple started insisting on doing encrypted communications around the same time.  

post #43 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


And which country do you suggest? Most spy even more on it's citizens than the U.S does.

 

Sorry, but this is just the opposite of true.  China maybe, a few other places ... the UK does about as much as the USA, but in fact most countries don't spy on their citizens.  

 

The USA didn't do it on any kind of scale until ... George Bush the Second came into power.  Since it violates the constitution three ways to Sunday, it's generally been avoided up until now.  

 

Apparently the much vaunted "Constitution" that the Americans have been wiping in everyones faces since the 1700's isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and at the first site of trouble (terrorists! Oh NO!!!), it's thrown out the window never to return.  

post #44 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Why do you "still think that"?

Apple is quite obviously not "a spy agency acting on behalf of the government."

Also, the "dirty work" the government is doing is mostly routine law enforcement along with some efforts to stop terrorist plots.

There is not even a suggestion that the "government" is plotting to use clandestine technology to persecute some group of citizens. That's what the banks do, with immunity.

Never mind the reporter who's computer was tampered with recently as well as several other cases that have come up in recent months...
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's attitudes like this that show the real issue, no matter what Apple says, some folks will think they are lying. After all why would the newspapers write something that isn't 100% true. They are newspapers after all, they don't deal in rumor and speculation. They never have sources that lie or tell partial truths for a particular agenda. Etc. you can always trust everything you read in the newspapers.

/S?
post #45 of 83

To be fair, if we laud Apple for releasing these figures, then we should also mention Facebook and Microsoft, too. Google and Yahoo are expected to release their numbers soon, I believe.

 

Lest we forget, these companies joined efforts in pushing the government to allow them to announce the data.

 

While the possibility of a mass conspiracy exists, we should ask ourselves why these companies wouldn't just keep silent rather than trip over each other to deny the Washington Post and Guardian reports. When virtually every major player in this game is involved, the risk of losing customers is minimal. So what do these companies have to gain in making any statements at all? 

 

Just examine the responses/statements of the carriers? What responses and statements? Exactly ... 


Edited by stelligent - 6/17/13 at 8:07am
post #46 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

It's been reported for many years now that the US has direct access to cell phone data and the actual contents of the calls through the data collection rooms that were installed in every major telcom during the Bush II years.  Any traffic on smartphones that isn't encrypted is supposedly captured in this way, so that would include texts, emails etc., that were being sent as plain text which would include a huge amount of stuff.  

 

I think this must be what he is talking about.  It might even be why Apple started insisting on doing encrypted communications around the same time.  

 

I don't see how either of you can prove your point. We are talking about covert operations after all. Covert as in you are not supposed to learn about it and will never, ever really find out. So why agree or disagree with each other?

post #47 of 83

Being of a suspicious turn of mind, my first question is, is this 4-5000 requests with 9-10000 accounts in total or 9-10000 accounts in each request? It is not entirely clear from the syntax, and it makes quite a large difference to the total number. I don't think that American readers can fully appreciate the outrage this level of snooping is causing in places not in the US. It is a much worse theft and breach of trust than buying Manhattan from the indigenous population for a bunch of glass beads. Let's not even go to the arrogance of complaining about Chinese spying, though of course that's not great either. Cloud storage? Nein Danke.

 

If your constitution is to be so easily ignored, without open discussion or democratic debate, why have it at all? Just replace it with one sentence:

 

'The Government shall have the right to do whatever it pleases for whatever reasons it thinks appropriate.'

 

All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Regards Isidore
Reply
Regards Isidore
Reply
post #48 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

...

Sending texts and picture and stuff over the internet to apple or facebook or google is not encrypted data, thus very easy to capture and see what you are doing. ...

 

Remember, iMessage is encrypted both directions.

 

Facebook is a gold mine for personal data...that thing is just one big DUH.

post #49 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Hey, NSA. I accidentally deleted an important email. Can you send me a copy? ;-)

 

Seems you need a doctors certificate for Alzeihmers
post #50 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Google doesn't sell us anything with their search engine so how are they a monopoly? Last I checked Bing is gaining popularity.

Personally I would never trust trojan marketing campaigns. Sadly Microsoft are the most underhand tech company on the planet. That stops me using them now. They have too little integrity.

post #51 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

To be fair, if we laud Apple for releasing these figures, then we should also mention Facebook and Microsoft, too. Google and Yahoo are expected to release their numbers soon, I believe.

Lest we forget, these companies joined efforts in pushing the government to allow them to announce the data.

While the possibility of a mass conspiracy exists, we should ask ourselves why these companies wouldn't just keep silent rather than trip over each other to deny the Washington Post and Guardian reports. When virtually every major player in this game is involved, the risk of losing customers is minimal. So what do these companies have to gain in making any statements at all? 


Just examine the responses/statements of the carriers? What responses and statements? Exactly ... 

Google has released these numbers for a few years now. They were one of the first, if not the first to do so. Just search Google Transparency Report. But what Google and Twitter really want to do, but the government has not permitted so far, is to further break down the requests to differentiate between National Security requests and those made by local authorities. Facebook is happy with the aggregated reporting while Microsoft, Yahoo and apparently Apple don't necessarily disagree with reporting lumped together numbers rounded off to the nearest thousand which is fairly useless. FWIW Apple's disclosure is the same format as Facebook's and the first time they've ever released a report on government data requests AFAIK.

http://allthingsd.com/20130614/twitter-backs-google-says-facebook-made-mistake-in-data-disclosure-deal-with-feds/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google-and-twitter-arent-impressed-facebooks-disclosure-dump/66270/
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/17/13 at 8:54am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 83

Edward Snowden is currently holding a Live on-line interview with readers of The Guardian @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower?commentpage=1

 

11.00Hrs ET 16.00Hrs GMT for around 1.5Hrs


Edited by Bloodshotrollin'red - 6/17/13 at 9:03am
post #53 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Google has released these numbers for a few years now. They were one of the first, if not the first to do so. Just search Google Transparency Report. But what Google and Twitter really want to do, but the government has not permitted so far, is to further break down the requests to differentiate between National Security requests and those made by local authorities. Facebook is happy with the aggregated reporting while Microsoft, Yahoo and apparently Apple don't necessarily disagree with reporting lumped together numbers rounded off to the nearest thousand which is fairly useless. FWIW Apple's disclosure is the same format as Facebook's and the first time they've ever released a report on government data requests AFAIK.

http://allthingsd.com/20130614/twitter-backs-google-says-facebook-made-mistake-in-data-disclosure-deal-with-feds/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/google-and-twitter-arent-impressed-facebooks-disclosure-dump/66270/

This is simply misinformation. Snowden talks of two levels of intercept: "Incidental" and "Warranted". In the first instance it would appear the NSA can and does simply harvest all telecoms/internet data from Apple, etc., servers and store it for their own use (or supply that data to GCHQ if requested). Warranted data retrieval is merely that obtained by a compliant Judge rubber-stamping a formatted request.

post #54 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.

That PowerPoint slide doesn't have to be interpreted that way. As to the numbers being similar: why ever wouldn't they since law enforcement would do a widespread request across services looking for all the digital footptints of the person at issue.

post #55 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

This is simply misinformation. Snowden talks of two levels of intercept: "Incidental" and "Warranted". In the first instance it would appear the NSA can and does simply harvest all telecoms/internet data from Apple, etc., servers and store it for their own use (or supply that data to GCHQ if requested). Warranted data retrieval is merely that obtained by a compliant Judge rubber-stamping a formatted request.

There's already been several steps back in Snowden and/or press reports on how the NSA is accessing data. First it was direct cooperation by Apple/MS/Google with the Prism project. Then one step back to Apple/MS/Google cooperating in direct access to data even if they were unaware of PRISM. Then another step back where it became indirect cooperation with the NSA installing boxes with server access in Apple/MS/Google data centers. Now that's being stepped back too. Eventually the story may get washed around enough that only the truth of the matter is left. . . or not. My bet is we'll never know the extent of backdoor cooperation if there is any.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


There's already been several steps back in Snowden and/or press reports on how the NSA is accessing data. First it was direct cooperation by Apple/MS/Google with the Prism project. Then one step back to Apple/MS/Google cooperating in direct access to data even if they were unaware of PRISM. Then another step back where it became indirect cooperation with the NSA installing boxes with server access in Apple/MS/Google data centers. Now that's being stepped back too. Eventually the story may get washed around enough that only the truth of the matter is left. . . or not. My bet is we'll never know the extent of backdoor cooperation if there is any.

I have read of no retracted account of data harvesting. It is direct from the servers (whether or not the complicit companies knew or otherwise). Snowden has not redefined his original meaning of entire data capture from source.

post #57 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

I have read of no retracted account of data harvesting. It is direct from the servers (whether or not the complicit companies knew or otherwise). Snowden has not redefined his original meaning of entire data capture from source.

Then you missed some of the news. The story has gone thru a few changes since it originally broke a few days ago.
http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-prism-story-so-hopelessly-wrong-7000016822/

Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need and whenever they need it, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be asked for to get Apple/MS/Google cooperation in supplying the data.?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Then you missed some of the news. The story has gone thru a few changes since it originally broke a few days ago.
http://www.zdnet.com/how-did-mainstream-media-get-the-nsa-prism-story-so-hopelessly-wrong-7000016822/

Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be requested?

 

So it doesn't get thrown out of court.  They collect the alleged evidence then get permission after the fact.

post #59 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Here's a riddle for you:
If the US government already has direct or even indirect access to Apple/MS/Google servers and ability to harvest whatever they need, why would a warrant and a judge's approval be requested?

There is a world of difference between surveillance and criminal proceedings. It may be that warrants are requested where a crime is obviously being or is in the process of being investigated/committed and data that is being surveilled in case of a criminal or subversive suspicion.

 

And the concluding sentence of the article you pointed to was:

 

"The reality is that if NSA surveillance is indeed overstepping its bounds, those companies are victims, not willing participants."

 

Neither the article nor that sentence undermines the direct unilateral data retrieval procedures the NSA are accused of implementing to gather and store data.


Edited by Bloodshotrollin'red - 6/17/13 at 10:16am
post #60 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Why is all the text in the story showing with a strike through? It only appears when you click view all comments and not on the main story link. I thought the story was being edited or changed. 

The original text of the article had a bracket s bracket. Importing it as is cause the remaining to be strikethrough in the forums reader. Speaking of, does anyone know how to use brackets without causing this effect? I've used double brackets in the past but it looks like crap.
post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isidore View Post

Being of a suspicious turn of mind, my first question is, is this 4-5000 requests with 9-10000 accounts in total or 9-10000 accounts in each request? .......

All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Calm down. Even if it's 9 - 10,000 accounts (and let's double that to get an annual number), Apple has 575,000,000 total accounts. Calculate the proportion: it's a trivial number. Also, Apple points out -- unless you refuse to believe them -- that most are for police matters. NSA requests are therefore infinitesimally small in Apple's case.

 

I am far more concerned about NSA's cell-phone and ISP metadata sweeps. 

post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

There is a world of difference between surveillance and criminal proceedings. It may be that warrants are requested where a crime is obviously being or is in the process of being investigated/committed and data that is being surveilled in case of a criminal or subversive suspicion.

And the concluding sentence of the article you pointed to was:

"The reality is that if NSA surveillance is indeed overstepping its bounds, those companies are victims, not willing participants."


Neither the article nor that sentence undermines the direct unilateral data retrieval procedures the NSA are accused of 
implementing to gather and store data.

It was intended to show how the stories have changed since it was first reported, something you said you were unaware of. FWIW I think they'll change even more as days go by. No one here can claim to know for a fact who cooperated with who, or how data makes its way to the intelligence community. Even the public story is in daily flux.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 83
Bec
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Why is all the text in the story showing with a strike through? It only appears when you click view all comments and not on the main story link. I thought the story was being edited or changed. 
Because the NSA doesn't like the story?
1smile.gif
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #64 of 83
What occurs to me is that all the Internet browsing and services we use from Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. come to us through a cell carrier or broadband provider anyway.

So I wonder what's the relevance of specifying participation by companies like Google or Apple or Facebook, when all the data for their customers has to pass through the same pipes owned by AT&T, Verizon, etc.? Is it because after scooping up all the data, the government then has to request specific permission from the companies that are serving up that data to actually open/analyze the data?
post #65 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.

 

And you choose to believe that. 

 

Some people believe in Creation. And that Obama is a Muslim Socialist. Or that Bush orchestrated the attacks of 9/11, but just sat reading a kids book because that was the most clever cover for his mastermind stroke of genius. Or that owning an AR-15 will prevent the US from turning into a police state, because individuals will be able to fend off tyranny with 10 rounds of ammo at a time.

 

The less informed you are, the easier it is to believe in scary sounding conspiracy theories.

 

There are very clearly lots of purely stupid things that appear on those powerpoint slides. I'd recommend you think about that before swallowing it.  

post #66 of 83
If the NSA were copying ALL (rather than a narrow range) of our data and communications over an extended period of times across basically every popular service Americans and international customers use, wouldn't they need a server/storage facility that would be one of the largest storage facilities ever built? Roughly it would need to be the combined equivalent of the all the storage facilities those companies have built, right?
post #67 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly when it had less than 90 percent of the PC market. In the US, Google has about 70 percent of the search market. Worldwide, Google has over 90 percent in many Countries, especially in Europe. I suspect that Google controls close to 90 percent of mobile advertising in the US. 

Moreover, you do not have to sell something to have a monopoly. Google offers a search product. It uses this to sell ads. This product competes with products from Yahoo, Microsoft, along with a few other companies. These also wish to sell ads. 

But one doesn't have to use Google. There are other search engines out there even before Google, being the most popular does not a monopoly make.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But one doesn't have to use Google. There are other search engines out there even before Google, being the most popular does not a monopoly make.

Here's a bit of Microsoft double-speak. MS and Oracle are the two big drivers behind the complaints to the EU about Google's supposed "Android monopoly" and their supposed "search monopoly". They discount the argument that there are other search engines or mobile operating systems. Doesn't matter in their view. Well in comes Cisco in the past few weeks complaining that the EU should never have approved MS's purchase of Skype. They want the deal looked at again and denied because of the market share Skype holds. As far as Cisco is concerned MS ownership effectively bars others from being successful in that market. What do you suppose Microsoft's counter argument is? Yup," there's other market options besides Skype". The fact they have such a huge share isn't their fault and shouldn't matter.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 83

As to PRISM in general, I'm of two minds.  In principle I'm totally, utterly against it.  It seems obviously a hugely unconstitutional process, intruding on what little is left of the 4th Amendment.

 

OTOH, on a personal level I couldn't care less.  If the NSA's really that interested in how many Sarah McLachlan albums I've purchased from iTunes, or what trashy b-movie horror flicks I've streamed from Netflix, go for it guys and gals.  Me email is less interesting than reading an EULA -- WAY less.  And my browsing history can't be interesting to anyone, except for people looking for good links to certain kinds of pr0n, I suppose. :)

 

As to Google, I can't understand how anyone considers them a tech company in the first place.  They are an ad company, and they've always been an ad company.  That they collect data on searches to help with selling ads shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  OTOH, again on a personal level, I don't really care.  I haven't seen ads in years, and even when I do (iOS), I pretty much ignore all of them except for the funny ones.  If Google's really that interseted in the fact that I looked up an episode of "Without a Trace" last night to see who the cute actress was, good for them.

post #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post

If Apple really wanted to protect it's customers privacy, it would move it's servers out of the US. Or at least move the servers for non-US customers out of the US.

 

If you wanted to protect your privacy, in regards to Apple and this article, then don't commit crimes that an agency would request your information. 

post #71 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access (such as to non-Apple backups of the data) to all the information described and more. Sure the messages might be encrypted but I don't believe for a second that Apple doesn't store and keep the messages and encryption keys, even if only for essential service delivery and stability, and if the US government could get access to a temporary site and build their own databases then I'm sure they would!

Of course even if Apple doesn't knowingly provide the information it's far easier to believe that the US government would take it if they could than not. And I don't think there's any doubt that they have the capability to do so. Being able to know what every person is thinking and doing is the holy grail of data that any Government would do anything they can to get their filthy perverse hands on. The problem is when they go to such lengths that they have to keep it secret in order to prevent a massive public backlash.

US diplomatic cables reveal the extent of secrecy and coercion in which the US government operates. What do you think the whole Echelon project is about. What amazes me is that people re-elect governments that spend huge amounts of our money to spy on us.

I genuinely believe Apple cares about our privacy and tried to resist it, hence them being one of the last big companies to join, but this reads like nothing more than a government scripted defence that Apple was forced to post. And of course with Apple's generous tax arrangements the Government has HUGE bargaining power to force Apple to do what it wants. The US government is a corporation after all and these are all private contracts negotiated in secret.

If PRISM is so innocuous then why is it secret? Because the Government doesn't want you to know what they have access to. Scary times.

 

I think if Apple was so prone to do the will of the Government, those $billions would be paying taxes right now. Yes, Apple probably could have said "any" access rather than "direct access", but I think they were just answering in context to the "direct access" requests. 

 

I would find it hard to believe that Apple is keeping iMessages and encryption keys, but not that the Government cracks access to systems. A good reason to have your outer defense written in a language not known outside the company.  

post #72 of 83
When will Apple start their own Search Engine and not retain my searches?
post #73 of 83
I d
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Did you not read the article or statement?

The whole PRISM scandal is about direct access to servers... Apple is completely denying that. Furthermore, they go on to say that they hand over data only when there's a court order ... this IS admitting they allow indirect access to some data.

I did and since you want to passive aggressively suggest otherwise might I suggest that you failed to grasp the potential enormity of what PRISM and Snowden's revelations mean. I don't for a second believe that PRISM is about appropriate requests for data with a court order as Apple (was forced) to imply with their highly scripted response. There is no need to keep such processes secret. In fact the whole point of a court is that it's an open and transparent process.

The enormity of the risk is that Apple was forced to allowed indirect access for NSA to take whatever it needs on the grounds of "national security" with no court order or "direct" Apple involvement at all. It is easy for the government to take or have access to data on servers that aren't owned by Apple or are bridging servers between the two organisations and such access would not be direct access so if at some point further evidence is provided that demonstrates this their statement that they don't allow direct access is still true.
post #74 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob View Post

If the NSA were copying ALL (rather than a narrow range) of our data and communications over an extended period of times across basically every popular service Americans and international customers use, wouldn't they need a server/storage facility that would be one of the largest storage facilities ever built? Roughly it would need to be the combined equivalent of the all the storage facilities those companies have built, right?
They are. Look up Bluffdale Utah NSA. This is the secret data centre that everyone knows about. :-)
There are some good links on Ars and The Guardian about it. Another good search is for William Binney. There are some great interview vids with him online.

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply
post #75 of 83
Didn't we just have a terrorist attack in Boston and didn't the ones responsible have multiple red flags against them from multiple countries warning us of their intent? Where was Prism to avoid this clear and present danger? I don't think the government is looking for the best interest of the country. Like the IRS scandal, they are probably claiming need for data for criminal activities, but only interested in digging dirt on those they deem opponents to their civil liberty grab.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Do those rights exist anymore? Any criminal investigation can move forward quickly with a court order. Sending thousands of requests without one shows the disregard of our privacy rights.

Be afraid America. Be very afraid.
post #76 of 83
Apple cannot decrypt that data

Apple *could* decrypt it if they wanted to. They have root access to the phone to be able to get to the keys on both ends. Assuming they are not doing so no they would just need an update to put that code into iOS to do so. They might not have programmed the phones to do so currenly (or did they?) but it is possible. Cannot should be 'will not'.

The best way to word that would be...

Apple has currently programmed iOS to not give Apple the ability to decrypt iMessages and facetime traffic. Since their code is closed and proprietary though you will just need to trust them on that (which I do).
post #77 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by aappleinside-forum View Post

I knew when Apple said "direct access" rather than just "access" they were being sneaky.

 

There's a brilliant thread on this running at CNET, which posted a similar scripted "article" posing as "news".  One commentator writes: "Yeah... all of the companies had ominously similar statements about "direct access" and "back doors".

 

Almost all of the comments are calling the article bullshit.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

post #78 of 83

I encourage people to write to Apple legal and inundate them with requests for information on PRISM and how they allow the NSA to take our data without a court order.

 

http://www.apple.com/legal/contact/ and select piracy then report the website www.apple.com

post #79 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

I encourage people to write to Apple legal and inundate them with requests for information on PRISM and how they allow the NSA to take our data without a court order.

 

http://www.apple.com/legal/contact/ and select piracy then report the website www.apple.com

 

Um, Apple is NOT just giving and/or allowing the NSA to take 'our' data without a court order.  Simply put, the NSA can fairly easily get a rubber-stamped FISA warrant, with the special "keep this secret" sticker to demand pretty much whatever data they want, regardless of whether it happens to include data from US citizens either in country or outside.

post #80 of 83
You can think what you want but that doesnt make it true.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple issues rare public comment on its 'commitment to customer privacy'