Tim Cook Featured on Cover of TIME Magazine in New Apple-FBI Interview

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Mar 17, 2016.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Apple CEO Tim Cook will be featured on the cover of the March 28th edition of TIME Magazine in relation to the ongoing Apple-FBI debate over unlocking an iPhone belonging to deceased San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.

    The print edition includes a lengthy interview with Cook, who talked mostly about widely known background details pertaining to the case, just days before Apple and the FBI are set to appear in a U.S. court on Tuesday, March 22.


    Cook insists that Apple's refusal to create a modified, less-secure version of iOS, enabling the FBI to unlock Farook's passcode-protected iPhone using brute force, was a "labored decision" based on lengthy internal discussions.
    Cook said that he found out about the FBI-backed court order demanding Apple help federal investigators access data on the shooter's iPhone through the press, and he admitted to being "deeply offended" by the government agency "talking about or lying about [Apple's] intentions."
    Cook likened Apple's stance to "freedom of speech" in the U.S., which is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
    While the FBI has argued that it only wants access to a single iPhone, Cook stressed that "it's not about one phone" and that weakening encryption could set a dangerous legal precedent -- which the FBI itself has partially acknowledged.
    The full-length interview can be read on TIME's website and in the March 28 print issue.

    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: Tim Cook Featured on Cover of TIME Magazine in New Apple-FBI Interview
  2. dannyyankou macrumors 604


    Mar 2, 2012
  3. 2457282 Suspended

    Dec 6, 2012
    The All Writs Act should not be used in this case. Just about everyone other that the FBI agrees. Forcing a company to create a product that they would not create otherwise is not a good thing. A judge in New York has agreed. I am hopeful that Tim wins this.

    And then... maybe we can sit down and look for ways that technology can help solve crimes and catch bad people. After all, isn't that what we really want.
  4. You are the One macrumors 6502a

    You are the One

    Dec 25, 2014
    In the present
    All respect to Tim Cook and his team. They are doing the right thing and fighting the right fight.
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
  6. gixxerfool macrumors 6502a


    Jun 7, 2008
    I feel like with the advent of such tech, law enforcement has forgotten that more can be done with less. Essentially been lazy. With that the governed saw a whole other side as they greedily rubbed their hands together. Tech should be a tool, not a crutch. In my job I use hand tools and pneumatic. Could I spin off the oil filter with a 1/2" impact gun? Sure. Doesn't mean I should. Sometimes I still have to do things the old fashioned way, through work.
  7. Sasparilla, Mar 17, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016

    Sasparilla macrumors 6502a

    Jul 6, 2012
    As was once said, back in the days of the FBI's Hoover (who spied on politicians to black mail them and get what he wanted):

    "we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction."
    -H Truman

    Such powers (essentially winning the Clipper Chip back - govt access to any citizen smartphone / computer by requiring the maker to build it in for them), if given to the government would be abused (Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, <insert next one here>). This is the reason the founding father's of the U.S. made it intentionally difficult for the govt / police to do their job - because they knew those in power would eventually try to abuse that power.

    JMHO, Apple execs should reflect on whether this push for user surveillance by Govts is going to go away or get even stronger in the future. My guess is it will get even harder to avoid it (these Govts control access to Apple's markets where it makes money). To deny this future, I would urge Cook and Co. to consider making a paradigm shift (something Apple does occasionally) and make their OS, Compilers, Apps and most importantly their BIOS and firmware images Open Source (not free though), so that they can constantly be audited by the public - and prevent any secret FISA orders from putting such back doors in without their users knowing (which would discourage such orders in the 1st place). It'd be a huge amount of work and change - but in the end Apples sales would go through the roof as the only maker doing this (and people wanting it). They have to do the BIOS / firmware though, otherwise it won't be good enough (Lenovo has shown that).
  8. darcyf macrumors 6502


    Apr 25, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    I can understand how a law enforcement agency would want access to something like this. Anything that can improve their ability to do their job, they're going to want to pursue it.

    It shocks me to the core to know that the government, who's job it is to keep agencies like this in check and keep civil liberties at the forefront of priority are siding with this agency in attempting to erode privacy and freedom in pursuit of their agenda.

    It shouldn't take someone like Cook or a company like Apple to stand up for civil liberties. It's bloody insane that it's even coming down to this.
  9. DesignerOnMac macrumors 6502a


    Jul 23, 2007
    The correct law is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA grants the government a lot of wiretapping powers, she says, but also clearly sets out the limits to those powers.

    The government won an extensive, specific list of wiretapping assistance requirements in connection with digital communications. But in exchange, in Section 1002 of that act, the Feds gave up authority to “require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features or system configurations” from any phone manufacturer.

    That wording means that the government is specifically prohibited from requiring Apple to create a compromised version of iOS.

    The government is aware of this, and the blog piece describes how it is attempting to argue its way around the issue, but Crawford says the FBI’s brief uses a circular argument. CALEA has, she writes, “no gaps; no interpretive sunlight: CALEA stops the government from doing what it wants to do to Apple.”
  10. currocj macrumors regular

    Jul 8, 2008
    Wow, when convenient liberals are now invoking the founding fathers and principles the country was founded upon, etc.

    But when inconvenient, right to bear arms, they distance themselves conpletely and mock those who invoke the founding fathers!

    Can't work both ways!
  11. Rocketman, Mar 17, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016

    Rocketman macrumors 603


    The problem is, it's not the government, per se. It is people working in the government at this moment. It is a political decision by the executive branch, its leaders, the agencies called FBI and DoJ led by real people appointed by this current President. This is on the hands of this President quite squarely.

    This is what you get when you mix a President with a Constitutional scholar and teacher, and a Community Organizer. You get malicious anti-constitutional, anti-citizen policies. Malicious economics, malicious partisan speech, malicious division of people by race, gender, income, education. All while giving speeches that overtly state the opposite is happening. We are seeing the first propaganda President that is open enough to get caught. Just like Putin always does.

    Nobody has the authority or means to stop either one of them.

    This is clear and convincing evidence the Federal government and particularly the individuals heading up the FBI and DoJ and the POTUS are expressly breaking the law.

    Any lawyer here that can tell me the recourse for this besides voting? Criminal or civil.


  12. HiRez macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2004
    Western US
    Do I wish Tm Cook would stop asking himself questions when he's speaking? Yes I do.

    Seriously though, it's kind of amazing how perceptions have slowly turned around in Apple's favor. When the phone first showed up I speculated the government was going to use it to shove anti-privacy government surveillance laws down our throats and that is absolutely what happened. I knew they were going to try to wedge opinion using "if you're not for whatever we want, you're for terrorism".

    I'm glad Apple had the guts to make a stand. They largely weathered that initial wave of knee-jerk reactions and fear and have gotten us into the phase of a serious debate about the issues and the law.
  13. Mums Suspended


    Oct 4, 2011
    This all seems rather convenient...

    The mainstream media is a concerted effort, so Cook's appearance on the front of TIME only makes me suspect him of being an actor in a show.
  14. iOSFangirl6001 macrumors 6502


    Aug 11, 2015
    Aren't we all ( or at least most of us )
    Hopeful as you said?
    Keep fighting the good fight Tim and Apple

  15. Populism macrumors regular


    Jun 11, 2014
    It is the thinnest issue of Time magazine ever.
  16. RichTF macrumors regular


    Nov 11, 2007
    London, UK
    Doesn't it work like this:

    1 - America's founding fathers believed it was worth the risk for the general public to own guns, back when a "gun" was a very basic piece of equipment (e.g.: a musket). In the modern world, a "gun" can now be a very sophisticated and massively more powerful weapon, so it's worth revisiting the trade-offs that led to that original decision.

    2 - America's founding fathers believed it was worth the risk for the general public to have freedom and privacy, back when your personal life was recorded on paper and there was no cryptography. In the modern world, we have significantly more data and much stronger ways to hide information, so it's worth revisiting the trade-offs that led to that original decision.

    It's totally plausible (and not hypocritical) to consider both of those above issues, while having respect for America's founding principles, and come to a rational but different decision on each one. Their respective arguments and modern-day trade-offs are very different.
  17. applehappy macrumors regular

    Jun 22, 2007
    Too bad people in China aren't deserving of Tim's grand fight.
  18. macintoshmac macrumors 68000


    May 13, 2010
    This really is Tim's moment to say, "Only Apple could have done this." :D Would be so filled with meaning.
  19. jonnysods macrumors 603


    Sep 20, 2006
    There & Back Again
    How awesome is the publicity Apple is getting through this event? It's a gift in many ways.

    (unless they lose!)
  20. macs4nw macrumors 601


    Why would they not be deserving? They will however certainly not be benefitting from any anti 'backdoor' victory in the US, if that were to materialize. The communist govt in China would never allow such 'freedoms' for its people.

    Which brings up a whole 'nother angle: this proposed forced backdoor technology could never work on a country-by-country basis. The same smartphones are used the world over, and weakened encryption technology could never be contained to certain geographical locations, and would most certainly be used (and abused) by eager law enforcement agencies around the globe, and in countries with varying degrees of democracy and human rights track records.

    As much as we like to think that a decision here, either by Scotus or Congress will settle the issue definitively, that will most certainly not be the case. Lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond, have already proposed legislated 'back doors' for encrypted data as a condition for handset makers to be able to continue selling their devices in those respective jurisdictions. And over that we have little-to-no control.

    This is a worldwide issue that needs worldwide debate and that also needs, as much as it seems an objective with almost insurmountable roadblocks in the world that exists today, worldwide consensus.
  21. businezguy macrumors 6502

    Jun 23, 2003
    I think Tim did a great job of stating Apple's case. He also made the government case appear more emotion while Apple's appeared more thoughtful and protective of U.S. Citizens. That was some powerful P.R. for Apple.
  22. LizKat macrumors 68040


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    He'd never go for it. Even more thankless job than being CEO of Apple.
  23. einsteinbqat macrumors regular


    Nov 3, 2012
    Governments these day are working for themselves, not for the people.

    I am happy that Apple is fighting this.
  24. maxsix Suspended


    Jun 28, 2015
    Western Hemisphere
    Apple is the master at monetization.

    Headlines for free.

    Puff pieces abound.

    Now, hero of the common man.

    It just goes on and on.
  25. applehappy macrumors regular

    Jun 22, 2007
    It was rumored, and reported, that apple gave it all to the Chinese government to gain access to market.

Share This Page