Apple's Latest Transparency Report Shows Spike in U.S. Government Data Requests

[nt5672]

. . . . .
I could care less if the government sees what I text my significant other, if it means potentially protecting the lives of people I care about (or people I've never met before).

I understand that right now, but history tells that what the government and what the people considers important, changes when the government is given unlimited power. Once they get the power they may decide for example, that you only get one child, or that in order to support diversity you can only marry someone from another race, or maybe that your race or political outlook becomes out of favor and the police are looking to arrest people with your beliefs.

In fact, is currently impossible for people to live normal lives without breaking some law someplace. Why is that? Now one might think it is for order in society, but in fact, when there are so many laws that people can be arrested anytime, the laws can be used anytime to control anyone. For example the government can and does take property every day without due course. What happens when they decide to take yours?

Total control is what the government wants and they consistently scare people into thinking it is necessary. Life without risk is impossible.

For example, if you were a conservative, then under Obama the IRS targeted you. Who knows, it may be that under Trump he will target liberals with the IRS. I'll bet I can tell what your political leaning is by monitoring your communications with your significant other. People in general need to wake up. This discussion is not about today, but is about what happens when one political party controls the administration, congress, the media, and the supreme court. And right now we are pretty darn close.

People don't realize because the media is controller by democrat dogma that when Obama threw out 100 years of law regarding bond holders in the GM take over. He also (well his GM czar) in Illinois closed all GM dealerships with Republican ties. I don't personally know about other states, but I'll bet it was nationwide. You really want to live under a government that is that powerful? That can decide that 100 years of law don't matter anymore? That can decide at any point that you don't have any rights. Well I don't and if we are forced to I don't want the government to be able to monitor me.

The worst threat to American people today is the American government!

 

[Zirel]

No, they weren't. They followed suit behind others.

Who, among the big 5 (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook) did this first?

Saying "no" isn't enough.

 

[MRrainer]

It's virtually impossible to prove that to be true. When the plans of violent organizations or individuals are foiled, they aren't touted on national television. Conversely, negative incidents always are..

Most of the "caught" terrorist where idiots who fell for FBI-shills on islamist forums (how many of these are actually operated by the feds anyway?), looking for martyrs etc.
The public falls for this every time, without questioning, like a three-year-old thinks Santa is real.
OTOH, Hezbollah is known not to shy away from using kids and retards as suicide-bombers in Israel. So, it's only fair that the US lures in the morons, too....

I think The Intercept posted documents showing that sometimes one FBI "cell" chases the other for a while before they realize they work for the same employer...
Go figure.

But hey, it's your tax-payer money, not mine.

 

[69Mustang]

Love the transparency, Apple was always a stand out in this department; and the main reason why data whores like Google and Facebook are disgusting.

You might love the transparency, but you seem a little indifferent to the truth. Both Google and Facebook provide transparency reporting. Google not only provides transparency reporting but also links to other companies that do the same as well, including Apple. Links are in the lower right corner. Like 'em, hate 'em... who cares. Just don't color the truth to suit a dumb narrative. That really is disgusting.
Transparency Report

 

[PBRsg]

Privacy is gone, never is coming back

Everything that people are not willing to fight for is gone and is never coming back. In the meantime: look, a squirrel!
[doublepost=1495585016][/doublepost]

It's virtually impossible to prove that to be true. When the plans of violent organizations or individuals are foiled, they aren't touted on national television. Conversely, negative incidents always are.

I could care less if the government sees what I text my significant other, if it means potentially protecting the lives of people I care about (or people I've never met before).

[/QUOTE]

I do care, because I do not trust the infiltrated government ONE BIT.

 

[coolbreeze]

at a certain point we're going to see the trump administration go all out against apple because they won't get easy access to an iphone. that date is fast approaching and it's going to be a complete ****-show

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/700796528844103680?lang=en

That didn't take long.

Thanks Obama!

 

[sudo1996]

This was right after Trump was elected. Any relation?

 

[69Mustang]

This was right after Trump was elected. Any relation?

Nah, can't be blamed on the Orange Julius. He didn't take office until Jan. A lot of other things can be blamed on the Cheeto King, but not this.

 

[MH01]

We have a network of computers that can access the internet, and a seperate quarantined network of computers that are physically not connected to those machines or the internet whatsoever, for high-security projects and to ensure our cnc machines and other critical systems stay impervious to hacking or stuxnet-like malware run amok. The "internet of things" can go take a flying leap.

It seems to me this is what anyone concerned about their privacy would do as well. Keep your sensitive data on a strictly offline computer, and use essentially a dumb terminal to access the internet. Have no accounts, and obfuscate your digital identity with misinformation wherever possible to screw things up. It really wouldn't take much effort, just a decision to not put all your info on a platter and then complain when it's a smorgasbord and Uncle Sam or the Kremlin (same thing now?) come along and make a meal out of it.

Probably too late for Facebook and google users though.

Common sense approach , anyone really concerned about privacy should not have files on a machine connected to the internet . Common sense is the best security

 

[gnasher729]

Has anyone calculated the requests per capita? To me, that would be much more informative and useful than the raw data opined on here.

Bracing for all of the armchair lawyers with dual specializations in privacy and homeland security.

No, that isn't helpful either. The problem is exactly what Apple stated: There are lots of requests initiated by customers because phones got lost or stolen. Apple once got 5,000 information requests in one country because apparently a shipment of 5,000 iPhones was stolen. There are countries with high taxes on phones where the government sends an information request for every single phone to check that the tax has been paid.

"Per capita" doesn't help you. You'd need some detailed analysis for the reasons for requests. And if you complain that Apple actually handled 72% of requests: That means that in 28% of requests the request shouldn't actually have been made in the first place. But if these 28% of requests hadn't been made, then Apple would have answered to 100% of all requests. So it means the US government makes quite a few requests that they shouldn't, but not that often.

 

[TonyC28]

Why in the world does per capita matter one bit? Take the number of requests, divide by the US population of 321.4 million, move the decimal. .0015%. There's your answer. You're so much more informed now.

Per capita doesn't tell us a thing. The point is simply that they're increasing a bit, though still not that many requests (although MacRumors as always tries hard to sensationalize everything in order to drive more web traffic and outrage).

Are you that condescending in real life or just when there's a keyboard involved? You say they're increasing "a bit," but what is a bit?

National Security Requests
1st Half 2014: 0-249
2nd Half 2014: 250-499
1st Half 2015: 750-999
2nd Half 2015: 1250-1499
1st Half 2016: 2750-2999
2nd Half 2016: 5750-5999

*Chart displays the lowest number of the request ranges


The chart might explain why MacRumors refers to it as a "spike." Maybe they aren't just sensationalizing.

 

[Kabeyun]

It's virtually impossible to prove that to be true. When the plans of violent organizations or individuals are foiled, they aren't touted on national television. Conversely, negative incidents always are.

I could care less if the government sees what I text my significant other, if it means potentially protecting the lives of people I care about (or people I've never met before).

Here we go again with the "why care about privacy if you're not doing anything wrong" argument.

Presumably you wouldn't mind them also bugging your house and intercepting your mail.

When Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," he was talking about people with your attitude.

And I post this assuming that by "I could care less" you actually mean "I couldn't care less."

 

[theheadguy]

No, that isn't helpful either. The problem is exactly what Apple stated: There are lots of requests initiated by customers because phones got lost or stolen. Apple once got 5,000 information requests in one country because apparently a shipment of 5,000 iPhones was stolen. There are countries with high taxes on phones where the government sends an information request for every single phone to check that the tax has been paid. "Per capita" doesn't help you. You'd need some detailed analysis for the reasons for requests. And if you complain that Apple actually handled 72% of requests: That means that in 28% of requests the request shouldn't actually have been made in the first place. But if these 28% of requests hadn't been made, then Apple would have answered to 100% of all requests. So it means the US government makes quite a few requests that they shouldn't, but not that often.

This is the first time I've ever heard of the "5000 requests," but that doesn't make sense on a few different levels. First, why would anyone, regardless of country, file 5,000 separate and obviously duplicative cookie cutter requests instead of just one request which covers all 5,000 phones which all carry identical stock information? Second, why would the government seek the actual data (or lack thereof) from shipment a shipment of stock phones? What sense does that make. The only thing I could think of is if they were investigating, at Apple's request, possible large scale complex fraud involving apple or supply chain employees who purposefully programmed the phones seperatelt as a batch and then misrouted them as part of an elaborate crime ring, in which case I would think Apple would be happy to provide the government with the requested information, although all of this seems so unlikely.

Lastly, using your 72/28% example, just because Apple complied with 72% doesn't mean the government "shouldn't have made" 28% of the requests. There is no correlation between the two, and I'm surprised you've drawn one, but it just seems to be so overly simplistic that I would have expected depper analysis from you. Likewise, just because Apple complied with a request does not mean that a request should have been made.

 

[litmag01]

If you don't like this you should be supporting legal agencies like the ACLU and SPLC. As individuals (barring if you are a digital rights attorney with a large firm and unlimited budget at your disposal) we can do nothing to curtail the disclosure of data to the government. This is the law of the land and we have voted (and continue to vote for) representatives that will keep opening user data to the government intelligence agencies. If you keep relying on companies like Apple, Google, Drop Box, et cetera to defend your privacy rights, you will ultimately only get a half-hearted, good enough to satisfy the clientele/shareholder, response.

 

[MacBH928]

is there any cloud storage service that is legit, reliable, modern, easy to use, and protects your data and privacy?

its either a complicated setup from a small start in some european country, or big corporation that has everything works near perfect but the govt. is reading your info like the daily journal.

 

[RogerWilco]

is there any cloud storage service that is legit, reliable, modern, easy to use, and protects your data and privacy?

its either a complicated setup from a small start in some european country, or big corporation that has everything works near perfect but the govt. is reading your info like the daily journal.

And if anyone claimed to create such a service, would you trust them?

Read/re-read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.

 

[diipii]

"Apple" and "transparency" ?? I have just looked out the window and there was no bacon flying by so i guess it's another Macrumor.

 

[sentiblue]

You'd think that the number of requests is known to the digit. Not sure why the number was disclosed as a range.

To tell a story of mine...

When my car was broken into and my phone stolen, I traced the phone to the house of the thief. But the police said they cannot demand the person to return it to me because its a minor offense and it's not yet at the threshold that requires their intervention.

They did come and meet me at the thief's house, but they said if he refused to return the phone, I had to walk away. I told them that I can prove I'm the owner of the phone by activating an alarm sound to pinpoint its location and when in hand I can punch in the right password to unlock it. Not only that, photos in the phone contain images of myself and my family. They still couldn't help further. Luckily for me, the guy gave up the phone without question because he was in fear of being arrested by seeing police at his house.

Now seeing the number of requests where law enforcement help phone owners find their stolen phones... I can't help but wonder.... what do I pay my local police for.

 

[Dwalls90]

I understand that right now, but history tells that what the government and what the people considers important, changes when the government is given unlimited power. Once they get the power they may decide for example, that you only get one child, or that in order to support diversity you can only marry someone from another race, or maybe that your race or political outlook becomes out of favor and the police are looking to arrest people with your beliefs.

In fact, is currently impossible for people to live normal lives without breaking some law someplace. Why is that? Now one might think it is for order in society, but in fact, when there are so many laws that people can be arrested anytime, the laws can be used anytime to control anyone. For example the government can and does take property every day without due course. What happens when they decide to take yours?

Total control is what the government wants and they consistently scare people into thinking it is necessary. Life without risk is impossible.

For example, if you were a conservative, then under Obama the IRS targeted you. Who knows, it may be that under Trump he will target liberals with the IRS. I'll bet I can tell what your political leaning is by monitoring your communications with your significant other. People in general need to wake up. This discussion is not about today, but is about what happens when one political party controls the administration, congress, the media, and the supreme court. And right now we are pretty darn close.

People don't realize because the media is controller by democrat dogma that when Obama threw out 100 years of law regarding bond holders in the GM take over. He also (well his GM czar) in Illinois closed all GM dealerships with Republican ties. I don't personally know about other states, but I'll bet it was nationwide. You really want to live under a government that is that powerful? That can decide that 100 years of law don't matter anymore? That can decide at any point that you don't have any rights. Well I don't and if we are forced to I don't want the government to be able to monitor me.

The worst threat to American people today is the American government!

Not going to quote everyone who quoted me back, but everyone seems to be accusing me of trying side with the belief of graining unlimited power to our government. That I definitely don't believe in, nor our president enacting numerous executive orders against the will of the country's majority.

Without reading too deeply into my simple intention.. I meant that if the government having access to my texts or whatever else is on my devices, saves the life of someone I love, or anyone for that matter, I'm okay with that. Does it guarantee someone's life will be saved? No. But if the government could have intercepted texts where terrorists were planning to launch a bomb at a concert where your daughter and her friends were at, which side would you fall on?

Everyone expects their government to protect them from mass murderers and terrorists, yet at the slightest hint of the government needing information to perform that job, they shell up. You can't have it both ways.

 

[nt5672]

Not going to quote everyone who quoted me back, but everyone seems to be accusing me of trying side with the belief of graining unlimited power to our government. That I definitely don't believe in, nor our president enacting numerous executive orders against the will of the country's majority.

Without reading too deeply into my simple intention.. I meant that if the government having access to my texts or whatever else is on my devices, saves the life of someone I love, or anyone for that matter, I'm okay with that. Does it guarantee someone's life will be saved? No. But if the government could have intercepted texts where terrorists were planning to launch a bomb at a concert where your daughter and her friends were at, which side would you fall on?

Everyone expects their government to protect them from mass murderers and terrorists, yet at the slightest hint of the government needing information to perform that job, they shell up. You can't have it both ways.

Cool, but if you look at history you will find that governments never limit it the way you expect and never use the data the way you expect. And if you examine governments today, with all of the invasion of privacy they still could not stop, for example, the Manchester terrorist bombing. So you are willing to give up your privacy and therefor your freedom just to feel better, but not really change anything in the world. Except, of course, forcing me to give up my privacy and freedom also. We are only protected from government when we stand together.

In countries where terrorism is highest, the government has absolute control of the phone system and they still can't stop terrorism. What in the world makes you think it will work here in the US?

What was needed in Manchester was not some government bureaucracy in London monitoring everything (which we had, because England has more cameras per capita than anywhere in the world, IIUC), what we needed were some people in Manchester reporting their crazy friends and some police on the ground doing their job investigating or checking backpacks into the arena. There are much better ways to stop terrorists than reading all of emails and texts from non-terrorists. The American rulers (deep state) know this and half the population in American knows this.

In addition, anyone with a brain is going to know that governments are monitoring phones, so why in the world would a terrorists use a phone to conduct terrorists activities. They won't and they don't, at least not the pros. Even if we have privacy rules the rules will always be able to suspended in legal ways so terrorists will never know or use phones.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Monitoring your phone has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with catching terrorists, in spite of what the government propaganda indicates.

 

[Weaselboy]

You'd think that the number of requests is known to the digit. Not sure why the number was disclosed as a range.

By law they can only report in "bands of 250" and not the exact number.

 

[69Mustang]

No, that isn't helpful either. The problem is exactly what Apple stated: There are lots of requests initiated by customers because phones got lost or stolen. Apple once got 5,000 information requests in one country because apparently a shipment of 5,000 iPhones was stolen.

Apple doesn't count a request like that. In the instance of a shipment of stolen phones, Apple counts 1 request and in a sub category it lists 5000 as the # of specified devices in a request.

This is the first time I've ever heard of the "5000 requests," but that doesn't make sense on a few different levels. First, why would anyone, regardless of country, file 5,000 separate and obviously duplicative cookie cutter requests instead of just one request which covers all 5,000 phones which all carry identical stock information?

This is exactly what Apple does.

Lastly, using your 72/28% example, just because Apple complied with 72% doesn't mean the government "shouldn't have made" 28% of the requests. There is no correlation between the two, and I'm surprised you've drawn one, but it just seems to be so overly simplistic that I would have expected deeper analysis from you. Likewise, just because Apple complied with a request does not mean that a request should have been made.

100% this. Nice post.
[doublepost=1495654503][/doublepost]

By law they can only report in "bands of 250" and not the exact number.

To be fair, a whole bunch of us never bothered to actually read the linked report. I mean, so. many. words.

 

[sudo1996]

Nah, can't be blamed on the Orange Julius. He didn't take office until Jan. A lot of other things can be blamed on the Cheeto King, but not this.

I'm not saying he ordered the requests. There were a lot of investigations going on around the election, including his alleged ties to Russia.
[doublepost=1495700262][/doublepost]

And the patriot act was one of the worst invasions of privacy in recent decades and has provided no real benefit.

What makes you say it provided no real benefit? I haven't followed it, so I'm not disagreeing, just asking.

 

[Tech198]

It's a constant chase for data and providing privacy at the same time.

The more info a service knows and able to store, the more requests for that same data Governments. I dunno why sharing between third parties is not adopted "more" because its not all in one place, but that would be allot easier, since everyone has different policies in what they can and cannot provide. Where as if u deal with "I gotta get in all in this one place" type model, than the answer will probably just be a giant middle finger.

Governments don't exactly take the easy street here.

 

[Dwalls90]

Cool, but if you look at history you will find that governments never limit it the way you expect and never use the data the way you expect. And if you examine governments today, with all of the invasion of privacy they still could not stop, for example, the Manchester terrorist bombing. So you are willing to give up your privacy and therefor your freedom just to feel better, but not really change anything in the world. Except, of course, forcing me to give up my privacy and freedom also. We are only protected from government when we stand together.

In countries where terrorism is highest, the government has absolute control of the phone system and they still can't stop terrorism. What in the world makes you think it will work here in the US?

What was needed in Manchester was not some government bureaucracy in London monitoring everything (which we had, because England has more cameras per capita than anywhere in the world, IIUC), what we needed were some people in Manchester reporting their crazy friends and some police on the ground doing their job investigating or checking backpacks into the arena. There are much better ways to stop terrorists than reading all of emails and texts from non-terrorists. The American rulers (deep state) know this and half the population in American knows this.

In addition, anyone with a brain is going to know that governments are monitoring phones, so why in the world would a terrorists use a phone to conduct terrorists activities. They won't and they don't, at least not the pros. Even if we have privacy rules the rules will always be able to suspended in legal ways so terrorists will never know or use phones.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Monitoring your phone has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with catching terrorists, in spite of what the government propaganda indicates.

In what way could the government use information, such as texts containing your plans with your significant other or your favorite song or food, against you? We, the USA, don't live in Russia (yet, but that's another topic).

As I said above, government having access to this type of data cannot and will not ever be a bullet proof solution against terrorist attacks. But you have no evidence insofar as to if them having access to this information has prevented similar other incidents.

Overall, I'm not sure where the attitude of being so anti-government, and the thought that the government is out to get its own citizens, came from. And I say that while being disappointed with the current politicians we have in place.