General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsApple isn't the bad guy in the Trump spying scandal
Last edited Fri Jun 11, 2021, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)
Some have been going after Apple for turning over phone records of the Congresspersons the Trump DOJ investigated, suggesting that they should have refused and their failure to refuse suggests complicity.
However, this was not a case of Apple just docilely going along with an obviously corrupt request. In this instance, Apple was served with a grand jury subpoena, something very different than a simple request. Grand jury subpoenas are serious things and failure to comply can result in criminal sanctions, including immediate incarceration for contempt of court.
In addition, they were placed under a gag order, which prohibited them from speaking publicly or disclosing anything about the subpoenas. Defiance of that order would also result in criminal penalties.
Moreover, Apple had no way of knowing what the purpose of the subpoenas was or whether or not the investigation was legal or appropriate or not. It was not within their ability or right to question - or to even know - the nature, purpose or target of the underlying investigation.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Current investigations are ongoing into Trump's criminality and surely the grand jury is issuing subpoenas for testimony and records. It's possible that telephone service providers have been ordered by the grand jury to turn over phone records of various people being investigated. If Verizon received a subpoena to disclose Devin Nunes' or Jared Kushner's phone records in connection with a grand jury investigation into their activities, would you want Verizon to refuse to turn them over or to publicly reveal the request or to disclose the subpoenas to Nunes and Kushner what was going on?
Apple was not the bad guy here. All of the blame and responsibility are solely on Trump and his henchmen. Let's keep the focus on them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kentuck
(111,085 posts)When they saw who the requests were for, that should have raised a red flag somewhere at Apple, considering the history of the people making the request, in my opinion.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Entities receiving grand jury subpoenas don't get to pick and choose which subpoenas they're going to comply with based on who the subject of the subpoena is - even if it DID raise a red flag.
And we don't know who all were targeted in this investigation. How do you know Republicans' records weren't also subpoenaed? Should Apple have said, "we're going to turn over the Republicans' records, but not the Democrats'"?
That's not how any of this works. A company receiving a grand jury subpoena must comply with it. And if the court tells them they can't publicly disclose what they're doing, they have to shut up about it.
It's interesting that as they criticize the Trump administration for violating the law, People are demanding that Apple should have violated the law in response.
George II
(67,782 posts)...in high places in the government, specifically trump and Barr and some of Barr's henchmen, who saw absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.
I truly hope this catches up to them quickly, like NOW!
JT45242
(2,266 posts)Apple specifically fought in court at least 11 times against turning over data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute) especially in the San Bernadino mass shooting.
Apple has fought court order after court when the FBI went after bad guys because they have sold their phones as 'unbreakable by law enforcement' to criminals all over the world.
BUT...when the orange menace goes after his political enemies (many of whom have said that Apple should pay more taxes and be regulated) not a PEEP.
A gag order does not prevent the company from filing appeals and fighting.
Trump's good friend "Tim APPLE" turned over data on Democrats without a peep, without a fight, without endless law suits.
So, yeah Apple is the bad guy...if they can file numerous lawsuits to protect terroristcells, they could have filed at least one to fight this.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Among other things, a grand jury subpoena cannot be appealed the way a court order can be. And you are wrong - a gag order does absolutely prevent a grand jury subpoena from being appealed or publicly disclosed.
You are trying to compare two absolutely different procedures and situations that are in no way comparable. You may have issues with Apple in general, but assuming they did anything wrong here is off base and is a distraction from the actual wrongdoing that occurred
JT45242
(2,266 posts)It sure seems like they rolled over on this one.
Would there be a record of motions to attempt to quash the subpoena? Would they be redacted?
In 2014, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304677904579538320088504240 Apple, Google, and Microsoft said that they would notify people unless the request was under the 'national security' umbrella.
I may be wrong... but the appearance of them fighting subpoenas and requests in the past -- and public statements about letting people know when Apple gets these requests do not seem to coincide.
Even if the motions got thrown out, they would have at least appeared to fight as before.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The parties whose information is sought are the ones who must seek to quash, not the custodian of the information sought.
The standard process is that the company from whom the records are requested notifies the customer and the customer moves to quash. The problem here is that Apple was forbidden to disclose this information to Schiff, et al, so they didn't know there was a subpoena and couldn't move to quash it.
Apple, in the past, has objected to gag orders when issued and has tried to limit the scope of gag orders applied to it so that it could notify customers. In this instance, we don't know for sure right now if they objected to the gag order (because there was a gag order), but I think it's likely they did since not only have they done that in the past as a matter of course, but they notified the Members of the subpoena immediately after the gag order was lifted. Also, the fact that Schiff, Durbin, et al, are calling for Barr and his crew to answer to this, but haven't gone after Apple suggests that they know that Apple was an innocent party here.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)Apple has the keys and access to data stored in the cloud. That is what was called for. Not breaking into Rep Swalwells phone. Apple would have said "nope" to helping the FBI break into a phone.
George II
(67,782 posts)This isn't about "terrorists" or drug dealers.
JohnSJ
(92,183 posts)the shooters phones, and Apple made it very clear they would not provide assistance
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/14/apple-refuses-barr-request-to-unlock-pensacola-shooters-iphones.html
Though whether they helped or not is still ambiguous
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)A grand jury subpoena is not the same as an FBI request for information.
JohnSJ
(92,183 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They don't understand the difference. That's why I'm trying to explain it.
JohnSJ
(92,183 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Well ...
JohnSJ
(92,183 posts)of views on various issues they may not have considered
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)Apple was not asked to physically break into a phone in this case. They were asked for iCloud data.
Ocelot II
(115,681 posts)1. Apple is a huge, evil corporation managed by people who might be Republicans, and are therefore also evil.
2. Apple, being a huge, evil corporation, does illegal things sometimes. Probably all the time. Some people say there are signs in the bathrooms at Apple's headquarters directing employees not to wash their hands before returning to work.
3. During the Obama administration it got into a kerfuffle about whether it would let the government unlock its iPhones. Apple complained about this in public, proving that because it is evil and managed by Republicans, it was willing to oppose the Democratic Obama administration.
4. After TFG became president and the Democrats started turning over some rocks, his evil attorney general got the DoJ to open a grand jury investigation about "leaks" and subpoena from Apple the metadata related to the cell phone calls of some reporters and members of Congress. This came with a gag order prohibiting Apple from disclosing anything about the subpoena or the investigation.
5. Apple complied with the subpoena and obeyed the gag order. It wasn't until after Biden became president and appointed a new attorney general, and the gag order expired, that Apple disclosed the existence of the subpoena and its compliance with it.
6. The fact that Apple complied with the subpoena and obeyed the gag order instead of opposing the situation publicly as it had done wrt the iPhone unlocking controversy under the Obama administration proves conclusively that evil Republican Apple was in the Trump administration's pocket.
Did I get that right?
Bettie
(16,095 posts)they responded to a subpoena.
Apple can be the bad guy in some things, but not in this one.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The fact that they don't seem to have done anything wrong here doesn't mean they're perfect - Just as the fact that they may have done other things wrong in the past doesn't mean what they did here was out of line.
It is funny to me that people keep insisting that Democrats and, in this case Apple, should violate the law when they think it serves our political ends ...
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Tim Cook donated $236,100 to the Hillary Victory Fund fundraising committee in 2016, the largest individual contribution by an Apple employee.
Clinton received a total of $1.8 million from Apple's workforce, while a paltry $6,786 was given to Trump's 2016 election campaign.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-tim-cook-fundraiser-hillary-005932278.html
He also hosted a fundraiser for Clinton.
Bettie
(16,095 posts)and honestly, fear that they will all get away with everything once again.
It seems lately (true or not) that the law only applies to some people and not to others.
That is deeply frustrating and disturbing.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But I find it helps to target frustration to the actual sources and not get upset about things that really weren't wrong.
I'm angry and frustrated about this situation. But I'm focusing my frustration on the people who actually engaged in the abuse of power, not those who that power was used against
Bettie
(16,095 posts)too.
And Apple following a subpoena is definitely in the list of "things I wish Republicans would fucking do".
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Apple following a subpoena is also definitely MY list of things I wish Republicans would do, too.
But the fact that they don't doesn't make me put "Breaking the law is something Republicans do so Apple should do it, too ..." on my list.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)And the massive amount of work to put things back in working order. Re-establishing the rule of law must be the starting point. That means criminal prosecutions with long jail time.
Frankly, the fact that Nixon was pardoned is the starting point where the powerful were allowed to run amok. We can't make that mistake again. Then Reagan/Bush got away with Iran Contra. More pardons.
Indeed, the pardon power is part of the smashing to smitherines that took place - hello Michael Flynn.
I agree with all of this.
And those of us who are kind of, um, twitchy about stuff are remembering that each got worse after the previous ones got away with barely a tap on the hand.
How much worse can it get? I don't know and I don't want to find out.
spinbaby
(15,089 posts)As in, citizens were called to serve on a grand jury?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)That's a bug, hairy, important fact.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I've seen individuals going to jail for years for the crime of symbolically hitting a missile casing with a hammer. Apple couldn't risk whatever it might risk for exposing such a corrupt abuse of power? A subpoena issued in furtherance of a legitimate criminal inquiry is light years away from what DOJ was doing to feed the former guy's petulance and paranoia.
BGBD
(3,282 posts)What was Barr going to do? Arrest Tim Cook? I think that would have made the news and pretty quickly ended with the exposure of them attempting to seize record of members of congress who were investigating Trump, their staff, and families.
Apple was following the rules, but then again so was IBM when they were working with the Gestapo. I'm not in a hurry to give either one a pass.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The judge overseeing the grand jury charges them with contempt of court and if they still don't comply, he can order the U.S. Marshals to arrest them and detain them until they comply.
It's easy to say a company shouldn't comply with the federal government because it is headed by Trump. But do you really know what you're saying? Grand juries and prosecutions occur all day long every day. Should no one every comply with a subpoena because it was issued by a grand jury convened by the Trump Justice Department? Or do companies get to pick and choose which ones they're going to comply with and decide that if they think the target is a Democrat, they won't comply?
That's not how it works. Companies and individuals don't get to decide whether they think a subpoena is appropriate and ignore them if they don't believe an investigation is fair.
We're not talking about IBM cooperating with the Gestapo. Not even close.
BGBD
(3,282 posts)it's worth mentioning a fascist secret police that was arresting political opponents? I think that's pretty on the nose.
Apple could have fought it. In the end, if they start arresting Apple executives, the reason will be found out.
Trump was assaulting the foundation of US government by launching investigations into political foes. He was using the DoJ as the enforcement arm of the Republican Party. Apple knew about it and showed no courage. Twitter fought subpoenas DoJ when they were trying to unmask accounts critical of Devin Nunes. Google fought off DoJ attempts to obtain the NY Times email system. IT's not like we don't have examples of tech companies standing up to this kind of thing.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)You are just muddying the issue with that kind of reference.
Google fighting off New York State is very different than a company fighting a subpoena from a grand jury.
But think whatever you want.
BGBD
(3,282 posts)and did it successfully.
Mr.Bill
(24,283 posts)I am in total agreement with StarfishSaver. I took a lifetime oath of secrecy so I can't disclose what we did, but we had the authority to subpoena medical records, personnel files of public employees (even law enforcement) and witness testimony. Every witness was admonished to also not discuss their testimony under penalty of contempt of court. That's how Grand Juries work. The only way their work can be made public is by an order from a judge. In this case it was the lifting or expiration of a gag order.
And trust me, I am no fan of Apple.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)but hey maybe I can let then skate on this
BannonsLiver
(16,370 posts)Because you’re not going to like it when you find out about Samsung and the rest. 
bpj62
(999 posts)The only villains here are Barr,Trump and the DOJ. This is the second time in a week that we have been told that the company that was served was also hit with a gag order from the DOJ. Trump didn't want anybody knowing what he was up to.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)I'm not addressing the legality of the request. I agree that Apple had little choice but to comply with the subpoena.
Apple spends a lot of time and energy spreading the message about how the company does not have a backdoor into iPhones. By extension, they do not say that they have complete access to data stored in iCloud.
I have an iPhone and other Apple devices around the house. I'm a fan of the ecosystem, but not a fan of deceptive practices. And by this I mean deception by omission of facts about their access to user data.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)to law enforcement pursuant to court order or subpoena.
In this instance, they were very careful and limited in what they turned over and only produced specific metadata and account information - all of which users agree the company can retain and disclose - not photos, emails or other content.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)marketing of itself as a bastion of protecting consumer privacy.
Metadata is personal information, too. People make metadata out to be this small thing -- not surprisingly, since the Bush administration and Patriot Act defenders lied about how detailed and specific metadata is.
When you have a record of when and where someone calls, phone numbers, location data or other seemingly innocuous information, you can piece together a lot about someone. It doesn't have to be a picture or email content in order to violate someone's privacy.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)to law enforcement. Apple fully discloses that to us but most of us don't pay any attention to what we just agreed to when clicking on AGREE on the Terms and Services page so that we can register our iPhone to get all the cool stuff it provides us.
It's like people who complain about losing all their privacy on Facebook - while giving minute-by-minute blow by blows of their every activity, thought and bite they put into their mouths.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)highly abused to allow all sorts of bad stuff.
That’s where I’m coming from on my posts. You seem to want to convince me that Apple did nothing illegal. I agree with you.
I’m addressing Apple marketing and the general ignorance of the public about important privacy issues beyond Apple.
I was going to say that Apple is just being a good corporate citizen, but then stopped myself because of their creative accounting (all legal, I’m sure) to avoid taxes.
Scrivener7
(50,949 posts)ignore subpoenas.
This is the whole enchilada of our Democracy. I think they should have refused and threatened to pull all donations to any republiQan cause or candidate. They have a lot of power. If they cared to, they could have used it.
And if you received a demand from Donny Bodybags or Billy Barr for Adam Schiff's kids' private phone records, I am quite certain that you would have figured out that the purpose was nefarious.
