Apple on Wednesday released a set of guidelines by which U.S. law enforcement, as well as other government agencies, may request information from the company regarding data from its users.
Broken down into three main parts, Apple's "Legal Process Guidelines — U.S. Law Enforcement" webpage provides general information about the newly established guidelines, how agencies can request data and what information they can hope to receive. In typical Apple style, a frequently asked questions section is also appended to the document for quick referencing.
A brief explanation of the webpage reads:
These Guidelines are provided for use by law enforcement or other government entities in the U.S. when seeking information from Apple Inc. ("Apple") about users of Apple's products and services, or from Apple devices. Apple will update these Guidelines as necessary.
Apple notes that the guidelines do not apply to U.S. agencies seeking information outside of the country from international subsidiaries.
Along with a number of email and physical addresses, phone numbers and other relevant contact information, Apple outlines how it intends to handle any future user data requests.
The company lists what type of information will be provided and what it takes to garner such data. For example, subpoenas or higher legal process are required for device registration information and iTunes information, while search warrants or court orders are needed for more personal data from iCloud and Find My iPhone.
Apple notes that information extraction can be performed on devices running iOS 4 or later with a proper search warrant, but the process is limited to certain categories of unencrypted user generated data. Extraction, which takes place at Apple's Cupertino, Calif. headquarters, can wrangle SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recordings, and call history that are not locked down by a passcode. Apple cannot provide email, calendar entries or data from third-party apps.
Finally, Apple provides an "Emergency Disclosure Form" for situations deemed to involve "imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires such disclosure without delay."
Aside from being a good source of information for law enforcement agencies, the guidelines offer insight into how closely Apple can monitor its users. For example, Apple can intercept email communications, but cannot do the same for encrypted peer-to-peer protocols like iMessage and FaceTime.
The creation of the webpage is in line with Apple's newfound zeal for customer privacy in the wake of public disclosures concerning government surveillance. Apple has released surveillance request statistics in the past — most recently in January — but has promised to provide its users with more regular reports.
23 Comments
Why doesn't Apple simply make it impossible for Apple themselves to access any user data like email, that is not required by them to run their company.
Really, what a load of crap. Apple is not in a position to defy the law and the law in the US is not designed to protect your privacy. Don't take my word for it: Read up on the Third Party Doctrine. Apple is simply posturing, like Microsoft (which published the same kind of "guideline" years ago.) When your government wants something from Apple, they will take it. Get real people.
If u dont break the law, why worry?
Really, what a load of crap. Apple is not in a position to defy the law and the law in the US is not designed to protect your privacy.
Don't take my word for it:
Read up on the Third Party Doctrine.
Apple is simply posturing, like Microsoft (which published the same kind of "guideline" years ago.)
When your government wants something from Apple, they will take it.
Get real people.
First Apple is a internationally company the US goverment has no right over them
I'm not American and if the US takes my info from Apple that's illegal
To answer your question..YES i trust Apple
If u dont break the law, why worry?
If you are cynical you might look at the human's history and conclude that those who wield power are corrupt. Or perhaps you might believe government is supposed to work for you, and your employee has no right to be peeking in on what you do. Your view seems to be pretty trusting and not grounded in history.