Tim Cook to Discuss Ongoing FBI Battle on Tonight's Episode of 'World News Tonight'

[acslater017]

If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.

Think about it - it's the FBI that has chosen the battleground for this issue. They've chosen the least sympathetic suspect possible. And whaddya know, after the precedent is set for this case, they've literally got a dozen other cases waiting in the wings. Look at how the FBI goes on about "think about the victims' families". I do believe the feds genuinely care about safety, justice, and stopping ISIS. But I also believe they're capable of simultaneously playing their best emotional, PR hand in obtaining these powers.

Why in the world would this be marketing by Apple?

TIM: We need a new marketing scheme, y'all.
EDDY: I liked "I'm a Mac" and "Shot on iPhone 6".
PHIL: How about "Apple: Standing Up for ISIS?"
TIM: Let's do it!



This is a battle for public perception as well as a legal one. Once this precedent is set, there's no going back for Apple. I don't blame them one bit for raising the red flag publicly to let us all know about what's going on so we can discuss this as a society.

 

[thelookingglass]

This is the kind of captain of industry we need running for president, not Donald Trump.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I would vote for Tim Cook in a heartbeat if he ran for president. Still can't believe a buffoon like Trump is gaining as much popularity as he is. I'm sorry, but can you actually see this guy handling diplomatic relations? He'd just be boasting about himself half the time. I'm sure he's an excellent businessman, but being president of the united states requires a little bit more than good business acumen.

 

[gnasher729]

If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.

Why lay low? Apple has been publicly attacked. By the likes of Donald Duck, I mean Donald Trump, an unforgivable mistake since Donald Duck has my deepest respect, by govermnemt officials, by newspapers, and all the time they have been attacked by showing _one_ piece of the question and not the very important other side.

Apple has been accused of helping terrorists and being against national security, when the opposite is true: Apple demonstrate that we mustn't give in to terrorists, and people who actual know what they are talking about (that leaves most politicians out, and Donald doesn't even come close to that category) are telling us that Apple is _helping_ national security. Surely the public needs to be told.

 

[CalWizrd]

Neither. Just miss Peter Jennings. He was one of the last of the old school journalists that believed that journalism required some level of integrity; this is not saying that Muir lacks integrity, but that the advent of the 24-hour news cycle has seen journalistic integrity fly out the window.

Dan Rather crashed/burned, Brokaw retired, Hugh Downs retired, and Carl Kassell retired, and Jennings is dead.

BL.

And Brian Williams is professionally dead...

 

[Mr. Dee]

Simple office.

 

[acslater017]

Even if Apple wins this case, I think this ordeal will put a damper on their security and encryption emphasis.

Imagine being a project manager in charge of a new feature, where the feature could be made very secure and encrypted or not. Imagine trying to justify the decision to make it secure and encrypted to yourself and to your higher up knowing there is a reasonable chance it will bring another legal storm your way.

One of Apple's arguments in this case is that what the FBI wants will have a chilling effect on speech, and the innovation and technology surrounding speech. I say it already has.

I disagree - I think it will add even more weight to Apple's efforts to tying their own hands. The past 2 years have brought great encryption improvements to iPhone/iOS, and Apple is effectively cutting off their own technical routes to hacking their customers' devices. In other words, in the very near future Apple wants to be able swear to the governments of the world, "Sorry, we'd love to help but we literally are unable to."

 

[gnasher729]

Even if Apple wins this case, I think this ordeal will put a damper on their security and encryption emphasis.

Imagine being a project manager in charge of a new feature, where the feature could be made very secure and encrypted or not. Imagine trying to justify the decision to make it secure and encrypted to yourself and to your higher up knowing there is a reasonable chance it will bring another legal storm your way.

One of Apple's arguments in this case is that what the FBI wants will have a chilling effect on speech, and the innovation and technology surrounding speech. I say it already has.

No, once things are safe enough that Apple can say "no way we can access this data", everything is fine. Of course a court could order them to build a time machine, and remove security retroactively.

 

[zioxide]

Think about it - it's the FBI that has chosen the battleground for this issue. They've chosen the least sympathetic suspect possible. And whaddya know, after the precedent is set for this case, they've literally got a dozen other cases waiting in the wings. Look at how the FBI goes on about "think about the victims' families". I do believe the feds genuinely care about safety, justice, and stopping ISIS. But I also believe they're capable of simultaneously playing their best emotional, PR hand in obtaining these powers.

Why in the world would this be marketing by Apple?

TIM: We need a new marketing scheme, y'all.
EDDY: I liked "I'm a Mac" and "Shot on iPhone 6".
PHIL: How about "Apple: Standing Up for ISIS?"
TIM: Let's do it!



This is a battle for public perception as well as a legal one. Once this precedent is set, there's no going back for Apple. I don't blame them one bit for raising the red flag publicly to let us all know about what's going on so we can discuss this as a society.

It's all just a ploy by the FBI and other law enforcement to play on people's emotions and fears to try to get them to give up their rights. We saw this same ******** after 9/11 and we ended up with the Patriot Act, PRISM, etc.

It's time for the people to stand up to these law enforcement's tactics and stand up for real American ideals of freedom.

We have loads of shootings every year yet nobody would ever give up their 2nd amendment rights. Why do people willingly want to give up their rights to privacy because of a half dozen incidents over the last 2 decades? It's unfathomable how foolish that is.

 

[fabian9]

 

[Popeye206]

This is an interesting situation Apple has itself in... stand up for what they believe and people think they're supporting terrorists.

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what side I'm on... but I tend to believe cyber terrorism is our biggest threat and even though high security on phones slows down investigations, it does help keep our bank accounts, credit cards and all the other sensitive info on our devices much safer from hackers and people that would love to do harm to the western world.

 

[Mystic386]

If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.

This discussion needs to be in the public domain and good on Apple for doing that. This is not a decision for the courts and behind closed doors.

 

[BaldiMac]

If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.

The court of public opinion probably won't have much effect on their appeal, but it will certainly impact future legislation. Allowing the public to only hear the FBI's side of the story with all it's appeals to emotion is dangerous to those of us who value our rights granted by the constitution.

Fact is that current law does not allow the FBI to do what it is doing. They're only hope is to appeal to the public's emotions in hope that Congress will enact new legislation to allow them to get what they want. By the time, these laws are challenged on constitutional grounds it will be too late. The government will be able to control the lawsuits with claims of "national security" and make vague claims of success with their new powers.

 

[Thunderhawks]

So I wonder how many meetings Cook had with Apple's legal team to prep for this interview...

Hmm...looks like one county in Arizona says they'll no longer purchase iPhones.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11108138/apple-fbi-encryption-maricopa-county-iphone

Yeah and they buy Freedom Fries, because France wasn't helping at one point and they check all immigrants for being possibly illegal and, and, and.

Reminds me of Microsoft telling their employees to through iPods into a bin and use Zunes.

 

[RedOrchestra]

"We are challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country."

AND, most importantly, a love for our profit margin - as you know, David, everything about Apple is hinged on the iPhone - it goes down, we go down.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

This is the kind of captain of industry we need running for president, not Donald Trump.

No way. You don't just vote a candidate just because he works for Apple or because he's gay. That's a bad way to base his credentials on that merit. It should be on his track record and if he can handle international relations. I can tell you that if he did become President, the Russians wouldn't want to talk to him. Know why? They're against his 'kind'.

Even the Middle East. He wouldn't be able to broker a peace treaty, even. Not with the way he stupidly announced how he sees the iPad as a laptop/desktop replacement. And the way he gave the 'green light' to the Beats acquisition.

He would make a bad candidate. But I'm not going to get into a politico debate here but will say I'm not for Trump nor the GOP, either.
[doublepost=1456346281][/doublepost]

So I wonder how many meetings Cook had with Apple's legal team to prep for this interview...

Hmm...looks like one county in Arizona says they'll no longer purchase iPhones.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11108138/apple-fbi-encryption-maricopa-county-iphone

It's so dead obvious he conferred with the legal and PR team to do this interview. Remember how a PR person had to rein him back in one interview with Mossberg with a certain question?
[doublepost=1456346326][/doublepost]

This discussion needs to be in the public domain and good on Apple for doing that. This is not a decision for the courts and behind closed doors.

It IS a decision for the courts. It's their job to interpret the law, not the FBI NOR the Corporatocracy ( ie. Apple, Google, Facebook, etc ).
[doublepost=1456346372][/doublepost]

What's the iMac doing on his desk? I thought he said he used an iPad for all his work.

Liar, liar, his pants are on fire.

Good catch!

 

[KdParker]

So I wonder how many meetings Cook had with Apple's legal team to prep for this interview...

Hmm...looks like one county in Arizona says they'll no longer purchase iPhones.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11108138/apple-fbi-encryption-maricopa-county-iphone

Fine by me. Just mean more phones available when the redesigned iPhone 7 comes out.

 

[tgara]

Note to Apple: As a general matter of strategic communications, following the words “We have no sympathy for terrorists” with a “But” generally means you’ve gone badly off message—even if you wedge a few sentences in between.

 

[doelcm82]

Note to Apple: As a general matter of strategic communications, following the words “We have no sympathy for terrorists” with a “But” generally means you’ve gone badly off message—even if you wedge a few sentences in between.

Same goes for anyone who says, "we respect the Constitution, but".

What rights are you willing to give up to protect against terrorism? Name the biggest right you're willing to put on the line.

 

[tgara]

Fact is that current law does not allow the FBI to do what it is doing.

How do you figure? The FBI's request was in the form of a court order signed by a judge, so at least the judge thought current law applies. AFAIK, nobody is challenging the legality of that. On the contrary, Apple's arguments against complying with the order, so far, are based on "free speech" of the code and "reputational damage".

Jeez-Louise, if that's the best Ted Olson can come up with, they're in big trouble. I guess we'll know more when they file their Just Cause motion on Friday.

 

[lewisd25]

Is that Cook's office? If it is, it... doesn't look as I'd imagined it.

Yeah, where does he stack his gold bars?

 

[doelcm82]

It IS a decision for the courts. It's their job to interpret the law, not the FBI NOR the Corporatocracy ( ie. Apple, Google, Facebook, etc ).

Courts interpret the law, but the legislative branch writes the law and the executive branch enforces the law. We the people need to be educated on the issues, so we can elect the legislators and executives who will do the best job.
[doublepost=1456348115][/doublepost]

On the contrary, Apple's arguments against complying with the order, so far, are based on "free speech" of the code and "reputational damage".

That's all you got out of Apple's argument? No wonder your position on this is so wrong!

 

[dk001]

If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.

Likely due to the fact the FBI, the DOJ, and some of the government sympathetic news stations have already launched a "sway the public perception" campaign. Burying your head in the sand never works.

 

[macintologist]

Tim Cook for President 2020!

 

[gijoeinla]

This is an interesting situation Apple has itself in... stand up for what they believe and people think they're supporting terrorists.

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what side I'm on... but I tend to believe cyber terrorism is our biggest threat and even though high security on phones slows down investigations, it does help keep our bank accounts, credit cards and all the other sensitive info on our devices much safer from hackers and people that would love to do harm to the western world.

Given the fact that this particular phone was owned by the county and seemed to be the scumbags work phone - does anyone really really think there's a motherlode of terrorist related data on this ONE iPhone???

Seriously.

These creeps thought through their massacre with great detail and didn't forget to literally CRUSH their personal phones yet mysteriously "forgot" to destroy this one? Very very doubtful.

Let's not forget that every single search, tweet, phone call, text, app etc etc etc are ALL discoverable and have their own data trails.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

So I wonder how many meetings Cook had with Apple's legal team to prep for this interview...

Hmm...looks like one county in Arizona says they'll no longer purchase iPhones.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11108138/apple-fbi-encryption-maricopa-county-iphone

Ooooooohhhhh my God! Apple will lose all the mariocopa market for county employees..

Will it be 5 or 10 or 50 purchases?

At the same time apple will get some hundreds of thousands (if not some millions worldwide) more customers who care about their civil rights and privacy.

@ Tim Cook: Keep cool and win the fight for civil rights and against Totalitarism.

BTW: this photo is rather blurred.... Was it made again with Tim Cooks iPhone?