Apple CEO Tim Cook has today sat down with ABC’s David Muir to talk about the company’s battle with the FBI. Last week, a California court requested that Apple unlock an iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino gunmen in December. Cook replied to the request with a letter on Apple’s homepage, saying that Apple did not want to create the tool that would be required to unlock the device. In his interview with Muir, Cook elaborated on the company’s decision…
Cook was first asked about Apple’s communication with the Obama Administration regarding the Justice Department’s request. He noted that, relating to this specific case, there was almost no communication between the government and Apple. “We actually found out about the filing from the press,” Cook said. “And I don’t think that something so important to this country should be handled that way.”
Muir then pressed Cook to dive deeper into the company’s reasoning for siding with protecting user security versus potentially protecting national security. Muir pointed out that many people see the San Bernardino attacks as a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, making it hard for them to side with Apple on the issue. Cook explained, however, that he believes it would “be bad for America” to set a precedent where user data is compromised to potentially expose something that “might be there.”
I think safety of the public is incredibly important. Safety of our kids, safety of our families is very important. The protection of people’s data is incredibly important and so the tradeoff here is that we know that doing this could expose people to incredible vulnerabilities. This is not something that we would create. This would be bad for America and it would also set a precedent that I believe many people in America would be offended by. And so when you think about those which are knowns, compared to something that might be there, I believe we are making the right choice.
Some things are hard, somethings are right. Some things are both. This is one of those things.
To further get across Apple’s view on just how dangerous writing a tool to access the data on the device could be, Cook explained that it would be the “software equivalent of cancer.”
“The only way we know would be to write a piece of software that we view as sort of the software equivalent of cancer. We think it’s bad news to write. We would never write it. We have never written it.”
Cook also noted that had county officials not reset the gunman’s Apple ID password, Apple might have been able to help. “I wish they would have contacted us earlier so that wouldn’t have been the case, it was a crucial misstep.”
The full interview can be seen below (Full YouTube upload coming soon).
ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos
Excerpt on YouTube…
Apple’s battle with the FBI over national security versus user privacy began last week and has since become one of the biggest and most complex stories in tech and politics. You can view all of our extensive coverage at the links below:
- U.S. judge orders Apple to help FBI access data on San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone 5c
- Apple publishes letter responding to FBI iPhone unlock demand: ‘an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers’
- Google CEO Pichai appears to side with Apple in series of vague tweets on FBI encryption battle
- Security firm shows how Apple could bypass iPhone security to comply with FBI request
- Opinion: How likely is Apple to succeed in resisting the FBI court order?
- Should Apple comply with FBI request to bypass San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone? [Poll]
- Civil rights groups and tech companies express support for Apple’s stand against the FBI
- Opinion: Why an iPhone master key is better than a backdoor, but still too dangerous
- Petition urges White House to support Apple in blocking government access to locked iPhones
- Senate Intelligence Committee considering bill to penalize companies refusing to decrypt user device
- Report: Apple to get more time to formally respond to government’s request for access to locked iPhone
- Apple/FBI fight looks destined to go all the way to the Supreme Court as more background is revealed
- Department of Justice files motion to force Apple to comply with FBI iPhone backdoor request
- Apple implies FBI screwup: iPhone Apple ID password changed in govt possession, backdoor unnecessary
- FBI explains why it changed Apple ID password in iPhone unlock case, retrieved iCloud backups up to October 19 but wants more
- San Bernardino victims divided on iPhone issue as FBI claims not trying to set a precedent
- Apple/FBI: Tim Cook sends memo to employees, wants government to drop All Writs Act demands, posts customer FAQ
- Mark Zuckerberg sides w/ Apple in encryption battle as poll suggests public supports FBI
- Report says DOJ seeking data from ‘about’ 12 other iPhones as Bill Gates sides with FBI
- Report: Apple to argue that encryption battle with FBI should be decided by Congress
- Bloomberg: Apple will argue that the digital signature it uses to validate code is protected as free speech
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
If you’d like to support Apple’s stance on privacy, there is a White House petition at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition
#StandWithApple
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. – Justice Antonin Scalia
“Almost everything you read on the internet is bullshit”
-Abraham Lincoln
While I agree with the sentiment, the Franklin quote (which you accurately reproduced, thank you) doesn’t mean what you think.
Ben Franklin was only referring to the Penn family trying to buy off the Pennsylvania General Assembly, because the Penns didn’t want to be taxed to pay for the French Indian War. Basically, Franklin was saying he was in favor of the government imposing taxes on the then-colony in the interest of collective security. It had nothing to do with privacy or civil liberties… in fact, probably closer to the opposite (promoting government power over the rights of private citizens).
Just listen to the way this David Muir frames the argument and the questions. Oh ABC, you soulless fake news outlet. Go back to your government overlords and tell them “sorry, public brainwashing is not working as well as usual on this topic”.
I found the opposite to be true – David Muir seemed to throw up the standard government issue – but not attacking, rather giving Tim Cook the opportunity to explain Apple’s side of the discussion in a rational and non-emotional discussion.
I found Tim Cook to be very well spoken, I found his comments to be on-point and very clearly made.
IMHO – This interview did more to undermine the idiots in the FBI than anything i’ve seen so far. YMMV
I’m not a privacy nut, but how is breaking into a person’s iPhone wrong, but accessing an iCloud account ok?
Firstly the concern isn’t about access to this specific device but the fact the software can then be made to provide access to any iPhone out there. Once the legal precedence is set, the government can ask for any iPhone to be unlocked essentially and it also would likely play into the debate about Apple needing to supply a backdoor to the government.
As for iCloud data, I personally would prefer it wasn’t able to be released but it is fundamentally different in that it is data you have elected to host on Apples infrastructure. That’s a far cry different to data you host on your own phone or PC. If you wanted you can elect to store your backups locally using encrypted backups on encrypted hard drives. Many would likely prefer it is Apple couldn’t provide those files, but under court orders they are compelled to.
Ultimately the iCloud data is data you’ve provided to Apple for storage while local data is not necessarily.
Go Tim!
I find it strange that criminals can plead the 5th and not incriminate themselves (nor can they be forced to give up even a 4 digit pin to unlock their phones when accused of a crime). But somehow, the government thinks it’s within their right to force Apple to create an entire new OS to force the unlocking of EVERY phone.
If you are not familiar with what civil liberties are, please go back to smoking your joint or dropping out of school. You are not needed here.
Huh? What’s the iMac for? I thought Tim did 80% of typing on a soft keyboard¡
If Apple is forced to break the security of iPhone it would bring to pass be the very goal and intentions of terrorist worldwide. Thats what they want. When you can’t hijack a Boeing 747 jet then you hijack the security of technology.
As soon as there is a backdoor the bad guys will just switch to other phones or ways to hide their stuff. #StandWithApple
It would be freaking funny to let them receive a court order to make that :D Lol.