Privacy group lauds Apple initiatives to protect user data from government requests
In a privacy report covering major tech companies' policies toward government data requests, digital rights advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) awarded Apple a perfect six-stars after rating the firm in the doldrums for the past three years.
According to the "Who Has Your Back" report published on Thursday, Apple earned credit in all six categories measured by EFF, including requiring warrants for content; informing users about data requests; publishing transparency reports; publishing law enforcement guidelines; fighting for user rights in courts; and fighting for user rights in Congress.
"Apple's rating is particularly striking because it had lagged behind industry competitors in prior years, earning just one star in 2011, 2012, and 2013," the EFF writes. "Apple shows remarkable improvement in its commitments to transparency and privacy."
Aside from the self-explanatory requirement of warrants for user data, the EFF notes that Apple now promises to inform users when the government makes such requests. Law enforcement agencies may force Apple to withhold the information from customers only if a correct court order is furnished.
Apple outlined its legal process guidelines for U.S. law enforcement agencies in a new webpage that went online last week. The publication is also one of the measurements used by the EFF in rating a protective company.
As for fighting in court, the EFF points to Apple's 2014 transparency report:
According to the "Who Has Your Back" report published on Thursday, Apple earned credit in all six categories measured by EFF, including requiring warrants for content; informing users about data requests; publishing transparency reports; publishing law enforcement guidelines; fighting for user rights in courts; and fighting for user rights in Congress.
"Apple's rating is particularly striking because it had lagged behind industry competitors in prior years, earning just one star in 2011, 2012, and 2013," the EFF writes. "Apple shows remarkable improvement in its commitments to transparency and privacy."
Aside from the self-explanatory requirement of warrants for user data, the EFF notes that Apple now promises to inform users when the government makes such requests. Law enforcement agencies may force Apple to withhold the information from customers only if a correct court order is furnished.
Apple outlined its legal process guidelines for U.S. law enforcement agencies in a new webpage that went online last week. The publication is also one of the measurements used by the EFF in rating a protective company.
As for fighting in court, the EFF points to Apple's 2014 transparency report:
Finally, Apple is a member of the Reform Government Surveillance Coalition, which the EFF says is a sign that the company opposes mass surveillance. According to the coalition's tenets, government policy should allow only targeted data requests that are lawful and made known to the user.If there is any question about the legitimacy or scope of the court order, we challenge it and have done so in the past year.
Comments
I was impressed, until I saw that Google (yikes), Facebook, Yahoo, and some others also got a perfect rating. Not that impressive anymore.
Although this is laudable:
"Apple's rating is particularly striking because it had lagged behind industry competitors in prior years, earning just one star in 2011, 2012, and 2013," the EFF writes. "Apple shows remarkable improvement in its commitments to transparency and privacy."
The Washington Post story about this focuses on Snapchat only getting one star out of 6, and then says "Nine companies received all six stars this year, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo." The other 5 companies with 6/6 and not worthy of a mention (in the story or the teaser): Credo Mobile, Dropbox, Sonic.net, Twitter, and the most valuable company in the world. One could say that they didn't call out Apple because it's not primarily an Internet company but then why is Microsoft listed and not Twitter. Perhaps it's because no one cares about Apple (yeah, right). Hard not to see this as an intentional slight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/why-privacy-advocates-say-you-shouldnt-trust-snapchat-to-have-your-back-online/
Only problem is that government does not need to make any request to read and collect users data since they have direct access to servers of all major digital companies.
And who owns the Washington Post? And how are Amazon's ethical and environmental credentials? Quite.
Negative Apple news sells. Positive ones don't. Negative news gets the iHaters foaming at the mouth.
I was impressed, until I saw that Google (yikes), Facebook, Yahoo, and some others also got a perfect rating. Not that impressive anymore.
Although this is laudable:
"Apple's rating is particularly striking because it had lagged behind industry competitors in prior years, earning just one star in 2011, 2012, and 2013," the EFF writes. "Apple shows remarkable improvement in its commitments to transparency and privacy."
I'm waiting to find that this privacy group's major source of income is "stamps of approval."
"Wow, this stamp here says; 'Dolphin Safe!'"
Looks at can; "You're right, I can't see any dolphin from here. It's a good thing we didn't buy that other product without the Dolphin Safe sticker. Oh look, the label comes from; 'Japan Super Credible Stamp, Holding Co.' Sounds good to me!"
" Apple now promises to inform users when the government makes such requests"
Only problem is that government does not need to make any request to read and collect users data since they have direct access to servers of all major digital companies.
Tim Cook has said the government does not and will not have direct access to Apple's servers. Apple's policy is to comply with government requests when legally required, which includes some requests Apple will be legally prohibited from disclosing.
The government also covertly intercepts network traffic but if everyone encrypts their data it will prevent or slow down and raise the cost of surveillance.
Lavabit tried that and look what happened.
I don't think that's true.