Apple issues official statement: “we do not provide government with direct access to our servers”

Apple issues official statement: “we do not provide government with direct access to our servers”
Apple has just issued an official statement to deny allegations that the U.S. government has direct access to its servers and can spy on people’s conversations without a warrant. In a rare for the company public statement, Cupertino made it crystal clear that it does not participate in the National Security Agency’s “Prism” program.

Apple clarified that it only gives U.S. officials information after examining legal requests. To prove that, it revealed that from the beginning of December until the end of May it has gotten between 4000 and 5000 such requests. Some of them - the company underscored - were rejected because of inconsistencies.


Moreover, Apple also claims that encrypted messages sent via iMessage or FaceTime simply cannot be decrypted and all conversations via those channels remain private even when they are legally requested.

Two weeks ago, on June 6th, a huge scandal broke up after leaked slides revealed a secret "Prism" program that showed how companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Apple provide some form of a backdoor access to their servers directly to the U.S. government. The shocking revelation showed how officials can "extract audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time."

source: Apple


Apple issues official statement: “we do not provide government with direct access to our servers”

Story timeline

FEATURED VIDEO

13 Comments

1. _Bone_

Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 2012

yes you do

2. darkskoliro

Posts: 1092; Member since: May 07, 2012

"Any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order" Didn't they release a statement saying that PRISM got a court order?

3. Insignificant

Posts: 192; Member since: Sep 22, 2012

"we do not provide government with direct access to our servers, because we don't have servers, our servers ARE government servers"

5. Napalm_3nema

Posts: 2236; Member since: Jun 14, 2013

You have the wrong company. Apple doesn't have a history of funding from and doing business with In-Q-Tel.

4. a_tumiwa

Posts: 393; Member since: Mar 16, 2012

yeah, not direct access, but backdoor access

8. Dorothy69

Posts: 498; Member since: May 21, 2013

Je-je-je..... You said back door!!

6. alterecho

Posts: 1106; Member since: Feb 23, 2012

Funny how people are eager to make Apple guilty. even when they are not or seem not.

7. Stoli89

Posts: 333; Member since: Jun 28, 2010

I wonder if there's a material difference between "provide" and "allow". What if Apple turned a blind eye to the NSA acquiring the data? I suppose they wouldn't be "providing" the NSA anything in this case.

9. Dorothy69

Posts: 498; Member since: May 21, 2013

I expect nothing else from a company as "CLOSED" as Apple, who's sole purpose is to control everything that one does on any of their devices; the way "THEY" want you to!!

10. PhoneArenaUser

Posts: 5498; Member since: Aug 05, 2011

“we do not provide government with direct access to our servers” And I don't care since I don't trust you Apple.

11. axbog

Posts: 21; Member since: Jun 03, 2013

It's not like they can just come up and say: "Aaaaa, yes. Yes we grant access to the government." Of course they will deny it. "Well, I'm not a crook!". Pshh..

12. rcl4444

Posts: 48; Member since: Oct 06, 2012

It's all legal-ese ... notice the wording "...provide ...direct access to our servers.." "Any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order" "...gotten between 4000 and 5000 such requests. Some of them were rejected because of inconsistencies..." They use the word "direct", which means all they are denying is a specific type off access - they may well provide indirect access. For example copies of files/info, or periodic downloads of data to government servers. And with the new anti-terrorism laws NSA/CIA,FBI getting a court order isn't hard, just like PRISM has. More concerning is that it seems if a request ticks all the right boxes government gets what they ask for anyway, with 4000-5000 of those requests coming through in 5 months the NSA and others have some very busy little beavers getting a lot of information about people's private lives! Sure, Apple aren't going to admit their doing it, but if your not doing it then you'd use an absolute statement like 'We do not provide government with any access to our servers or data...'. Ergo - they're providing info to government in some way.

13. rusticguy

Posts: 2828; Member since: Aug 11, 2012

Access is provided by all (all means all) only for money. Talk of Privacy is nothing but HUMBUG.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.