In the Wake of the Trump Investigation, Apple Reinforces Its Privacy Stance

Apple claims it was caught off guard and handcuffed by a Trump administration investigation that resulted in the company handing over mobile device data from two Democratic Lawmakers in order to protect its image as a defender of confidentiality.

In response to news reports detailing the US Justice Department’s aggressive efforts to use its legal authority to identify leaks related to an inquiry into former President Donald Trump’s Russian ties, Apple issued a statement on Friday.

The Department Of Justice was successful in convincing a federal grand jury to issue subpoenas, resulting in Apple handing over metadata about House Intelligence Committee representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, both California Democrats, in 2018.

Both lawmakers were key members of the committee investigating Trump’s ties to Russia; Schiff now serves as the panel’s chair.

Schiff and Swalwell were seemingly unaware that some of the information had been seized until May 5, after a series of nondisclosure agreements had finally expired, according to the company.

Apple’s conformity with the subpoena came at a time when the company was stepping up its marketing efforts to frame privacy as a "fundamental human right."

Apple raised the bar on privacy in April when it released iPhone privacy controls, making it harder for companies like Facebook to track people’s online activities in order to sell ads.

Apple said in a statement that it would continue to fight unjustified legal requests for personal data and keep customers informed.

Apple, on the other hand, said it was bound by a nondisclosure order issued by a federal magistrate judge and that it had no knowledge of the investigation’s nature.

"It would have been nearly impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users’ accounts," the Cupertino, California-based firm stated.

"Apple limited the information. It provided to account subscriber information and did not provide any content, such as emails or pictures, in accordance with the request."

Based on the broad nature of the request for "customer or subscriber account information" spanning 73 phone numbers and 36 email addresses, Apple believes other technology companies may have been subjected to similar legal demands.

It’s unclear how many other businesses may have been entangled in the Trump administration’s hunt for leakers.

Microsoft acknowledged in a statement that it received at least one subpoena in 2017 related to a personal email account. After the gag order expired, the company said it notified the customer, who turned out to be a member of Congress’s staff.

"In this type of case, we continue to aggressively pursue reform that imposes sensible limits on government secrecy," the company said.

Apple’s limited compliance with the demands was less concerning to privacy experts than the US laws that allowed the Justice Department to obtain the subpoenas in secret and then keep them hidden for years.

According to Alan Butler, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the subpoenas are "a quintessential example of government abuse" that ensnared Apple.

"It’s difficult, but not unattainable," Butler spoke about challenging these types of subpoenas.

Apple’s response to the subpoena, according to Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, doesn’t really contradict the company’s viewpoint on personal privacy. This is the case because Apple’s privacy commitments are primarily focused on protecting its customers from online surveillance.

The bigger question, she acknowledges, is why a grand jury in the United States can issue a subpoena and then prevent Apple from informing those who are directly impacted.

"The overall secrecy is troubling," Cohn stated, " as it appears to be a politically motivated inquiry."

Apple has a history of defying legal requests, most notably in 2016, when the Justice Department attempted to force Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino mass shooting.

Apple refused to cooperate, claiming that doing so would open a digital backdoor that would put all iPhone users’ security and privacy at risk. When the FBI hired a different firm to unlock the iPhone linked to the shooting, the legal battle was over.

"At that point, Apple really put its money where its mouth was," Butler said.

Read Official Blog Post - https://mcaf2ee.co.uk/in-the-wake-of-the-trump-investigation-apple-reinforces-its-privacy-stance

Rosy Martin is a creative person who has been writing blogs and articles about cybersecurity. She writes about the latest updates regarding office setup and how it can improve the work experience of users. She articles have been published in man